On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, Dr Olu Agunloye, then minister of power and steel, presented a memo to the federal executive council (FEC). He sought its approval to award a build, operate and transfer (BOT) contract for the Mambilla Hydropower Project to Sunrise Power and Transmission Ltd, a company promoted by Chief Leno Adesanya. The project, conceived in 1972, has suffered several setbacks and limp attention in a country badly in need of electricity to power its economy. Mambilla was projected to generate 3,960 megawatts of electricity. For context, Nigeria’s current biggest hydro power plant has the capacity to generate only 800mw — and it was built in 1968.  

According to a former minister who attended that FEC meeting, President Olusegun Obasanjo expressed surprise that despite discussing the Mambilla project extensively with Agunloye the previous day, the minister still brought the memo to council when he should have withdrawn it. Obasanjo reportedly said he spent considerable time explaining that proper work was needed in the power sector to avoid what befell the steel sector where government started so many projects that it could neither fund nor complete. If NEPA was a private business, he reportedly told FEC, it would have long been declared bankrupt. He pointed in the direction of a proper power reform framework.

Obasanjo, in his concluding remarks, reportedly said the project should be private sector-driven, asking the ministers to apply caution in negotiating government participation in all projects with investors because of the financial and legal implications for the country. After his intervention, Vice-President Atiku Abubakar added his voice, suggesting that other options should be explored by the ministry for the Mambilla project, including possible zero participation by the government so that it could be entirely private sector-driven. At the end of deliberations, FEC failed to approve Agunloye’s memo, asked him to withdraw it, and said that the development should be revisited in the future.

Lo and behold, the following day, May 22, Agunloye picked his pen and wrote to Sunrise, saying he was “pleased” to convey the “approval” of the Nigerian government for the award of the contract at a “provisional sum of $6 billion”. This was one week to his exit from office. Pronto, Sunrise replied on May 26 to accept the “offer”. Nevertheless, Obasanjo did not recognise the “contract” during his second term. When Sunrise wrote to the ministry in August 2003 asking for payment for “pre-EPC” development, Senator Liyel Imoke, the new minister, wrote back to say there was no approval to engage Sunrise. He said a bidding process would soon open and advised Sunrise to tender.

Someone could argue that the lack of FEC approval was a housekeeping matter and not Sunrise’s headache. After all, Agunloye was a minister and he wrote on behalf of Nigeria. However, in his letter, Agunloye said the contract “is subject” to five pre-conditions: one, negotiations on the duration, which he put at “30 or 40 years”; two, tariff should be agreed with the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC); three, the equity participation of the government should be between 0% and 10%; four, the initial capital outlay should be accurately determined by all parties; five, a special purpose vehicle should be incorporated if government participation was agreed at 0%.

This is where it gets more interesting: there is no record that the discussions between federal government and Sunrise as stipulated in Aguloye’s letter ever took place. Therefore, at best, Agunloye’s “award” was inchoate — like a TV without power — since the pre-conditions to activate the contract were unmet. More so, there was not a single reference to Sunrise in all official discussions around Mambilla after Agunloye’s letter. In fact, on January 10, 2007, Alhaji Ahmed Abdulhamid, then minister of state for energy, sent a comprehensive memo to FEC on Mambilla. There was no mention of Sunrise, understandably since there was no FEC approval in the first place.

Insisting that it already had a contract in place, Sunrise headed to court in June 2007 following the award of the civil works and hydraulic steel structure contract to the CGGC-CGC Joint Venture by the federal government. It claimed $960 million for alleged breach of contract. Chief Michael Aondoakaa came in as attorney-general in June 2007. He tried to get Sunrise back on board, claiming that President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was “angry” that the Agunloye contract was not “respected”. The CGGC-CGC contract was eventually revoked by Yar’Adua in 2009. The project stalled until President Goodluck Jonathan, who assumed power in 2010, tried to get the project back on track in 2012.

Attempts to settle out of court with Sunrise failed. The court refused to enter the terms of settlement and threw out Sunrise’s application. Things kept going to and fro until President Muhammadu Buhari, who came to office in 2015, decided to revive the project. In November 2017, Sunrise headed for arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in France after the turnkey contract was awarded to the CGGC/CGCOC/Sinohydro JV following a memo from Mr Babatunde Fashola, then minister of power. Sunrise’s claims posed a serious legal challenge to the JV (which was to be financed 85 percent by the China Ex-Im Bank), effectively stalling the project again.

In arbitration, Sunrise is asking for a compensation of $2.3 billion, claiming it had spent “millions of dollars” between 2003 and 2009 on financial and legal consultants. In a second arbitration, Sunrise is asking for a $400 million settlement being the terms of the agreement it entered with the federal government in 2020 to end the legal challenge. There are other little details. The declared total assets of Sunrise in its CAC filing is N1 million (about $2,000), with zero turnover. It has never executed a power project before, apart from maybe buying a standby generator for its office in Victoria Island, Lagos. Yet it got a $6 billion “contract” from the government of Nigeria!

The moment Mr Abubakar Malami, Buhari’s AGF, entered the fray, things were never going to be the same again. In fairness to him, he seemed to have felt genuinely misled in his first legal opinion dated July 24, 2017 which he sent to Prof Yemi Osinbajo, then acting president. Malami had said Sunrise should be engaged as a “local content partner” as a means of “accommodating its prior contractual interests on the project”. But in another letter dated August 17, 2017, Malami backtracked, saying this opinion was based on the limited materials he had. He said he had now realised there was no FEC approval for the so-called contract that was awarded by Agunloye in 2003.

Sunrise is arguing that there was no requirement for FEC approval, which could well be legally correct, but why on earth did Agunloye convey a withdrawal as an approval? How did a company with $2,000 assets get a $6 billion contract? How did a company that has never done a power project get a contract to build a 3,960mw plant? These are the questions Agunloye has to answer as we struggle to get out of this mess. Sunrise can continue to wave Agunloye’s piece of paper in our face but the people of Nigeria deserve to know what went down in 2003 that has brought us into this sorry pass. It is so tragic that there is hardly anything government officials do that can pass the smell test.

As I was saying, Malami, being Malami, kept changing his mind and was soon predictably involved in a curious “settlement agreement” to “pay off” Sunrise in March 2020. Working hand-in-glove with Mallam Saleh Mamman, then minister of power, they committed the federal government to paying $200 million to Sunrise “within 14 days”, failing which Nigeria would pay another $200 million fine, making it $400 million in total. We also inserted a clause that if we failed to pay the $400 million, Sunrise should take Nigeria back to the ICC. More curiously, we even agreed that the arbitration should be fast-tracked, although the upper threshold for expedition is for a $3 million claim.

In effect, Malami and Mamman (M&M, for short) loaded a gun — or were handed a loaded gun — to point to their own heads. Actually, it is not their own heads. It is the heads of Nigerians. M&M would not suffer personal consequences. It is Nigerians, you and I, that will pay the price, not M&M. Buhari, who wanted the Mambilla to be his legacy, abruptly replied Malami’s request for $200 million in April 2020 with a simple “FG does not have USD 200 million to pay SPTCL”. With no $200 million or $400 million forthcoming, Sunrise quietly withdrew the second arbitration “without prejudice”. I understand the company is now preparing a P&ID-like assault on Nigeria. God save us.

But why is Nigeria like this? The Paris Club noose comes to mind. In 2006, Nigeria paid $12 billion to the Paris Club of Creditors to get $18 billion debt written off. Because the money was taken from the central purse, states and councils that did not owe Paris Club, or did not owe that much, demanded a refund. If not that Nigeria is full of scammers, the calculation for refund could easily have been done by FAAC. Microsoft Excel would help. But is it not Nigeria? Consultants were curiously engaged to do the calculation in exchange for a cool $418 million as commission. The great Malami has done another “settlement agreement” and is hell-bent on paying them despite a pending legal challenge.

My heart bleeds for Nigeria. While I refuse to give up on this beautiful, beautiful country, I cannot blame those who have thrown in the towel. It is glaring that many people in authority do not have the interest of this country at heart. Who is really interested in our progress? There are so many cases similar to Mambilla and Paris Club hanging on our neck across the world, some dating back to decades. It is a major industry and it is booming perversely. Meanwhile, I am still trying to understand how the accountant-general allegedly carried out a N109 billion heist while we were busy borrowing to service our debts. Pray, who will love this country? Depressing.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS…

NO AGREEMENT

I was jumping up and down for joy on Monday when the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) announced that it was about to call off its perennial strike. It said all that was left was an agreement to be signed with the government, chief of which was the adoption of UTAS instead of IPPIS as the payment platform for its members. Unfortunately, I rejoiced too early. The talks collapsed and the strike continues. In truth, I do not expect university teachers to ever do away with strike — it is the language they love to speak for over 40 years. I am just hoping for some relief, no matter how temporary. This strike is ruining a whole of generation of students. Catastrophic.

SHOCKING STUNT

Unionism can be a force for good. It can also be a weapon of emotional blackmail. It can even lead to outright stupidity. The action of federal electricity workers, who switched off the grid on Wednesday and plunged the nation into darkness, is sickening. They said they were protesting the directive that they should write a promotion test. When electricity workers went on strike and switched off the national grid under military rule in the 1980s, their leaders were sentenced to death for economic sabotage. It was later commuted to life imprisonment. That was definitely harsh, but where do we draw the line between legitimate agitation and absolute rascality as we just witnessed? Childish.

ATIKU AND WIKE

Rather than prepare to wrest power from the All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2023, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) is dissipating much of its energy on the “civil war” between Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, its presidential candidate, and Chief Nyesom Wike, the governor of Rivers state, whom Atiku defeated in the primaries. Given the delicate state of things, I don’t think Atiku should have suggested that he did not pick Wike as his running mate because they would not work “amicably”. For all you care, Wike has nothing to lose. PDP is already battling with losing a chunk of its traditional votes to Peter Obi and Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, both of whom defected from the party. Perilous.

FRYING EMIRATES

Emirates Airlines, the national carrier of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has again suspended its flights to Nigeria effective September 1, 2022. This time, it said it is because of its inability to repatriate its income from Nigeria as a result of forex scarcity. The airline has about $85 million stuck here. Although this is a very bad signal for us, it also seems there is something going on between the Nigerian and UAE authorities it has been a game of cat and mouse in the last two years. I have lost count of flight and visa suspensions. Other airlines are also unable to repatriate their earnings but are still flying, so there is something we are not being told by Nigerian and UAE officials. Fishy.

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

Nearly 10 years ago, in September 2012, the then president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Okey Wali, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), was at the beginning of his tenure. With the energy of a fresh presidency, he desired to make a mission of changing the way the association did business. To begin that, he constituted a small committee to examine the operations of NBA. I chaired it.

The committee took three months to conduct its work. Over that period, it consulted with a cross-section of leadership, branch structures, members, and staff of the secretariat. The report, when it came out in January 2013, was unsparing in its diagnosis and ambitious in its vision. It said that the NBA was “severely under-capacitated, with an unclear mission, an insecure future, and hugely unrealized potential. The NBA itself does not offer a clear value proposition to its members. The absence of a defining value proposition is an existential threat to the NBA….”

In those days, the association was top-heavy. It elected its leadership through a relatively small number of delegates, comprising the most senior and well-heeled lawyers in the country. Most of its members had good reason to feel excluded because the process by which leadership emerged offered no incentives for service to the vast number of mostly impoverished members. The association was also in a habit, as the 2013 report said, of contracting “potentially problematic relationships with politically exposed persons (PEPs) who sometimes have partisan interests in compromising an independent Bar.” Its credibility was predictably diminished and, for most members as well as the public, the NBA had become part of the Nigerian problem not part of the solution.

Okey Wali’s successor, Augustine Alegeh, another SAN, who emerged against the grain of conventional calculus in 2014, did the unpopular thing among senior lawyers of re-inventing the cone of leadership legitimacy at the Nigerian Bar. Instead of entrusting this unique responsibility to a small coterie of self-serving senior lawyers, called delegates, he reformed the constitution of the Bar to return leadership selection to a system of one-lawyer-one-vote. To make this work, the Alegeh reforms moved the NBA to a new world of digital voting.

These reforms made possible the emergence of Olumide Akpata in 2020 as the president of the NBA, six years after the end of Alegeh’s tenure. There were, however, teething problems to be overcome in the interregnum between Alegeh and Akpata. Many senior lawyers felt estranged from a system that counted their votes as worth exactly the same as that of their employees. The association also did not have the data infrastructure for digital voting. So, its early efforts to elect leadership digitally were marred quite badly first by apathy and suspicion. When they voted for the successor to Alegeh in 2016, only 6,932 members turned up out of a population of just under 100,000 on the roll but that was still 5204 people more than the 1,728 who were allowed to participate in electing Alegeh two years earlier.

In 2018, the number grew to 12,421. The uptake had evidently increased but nothing on the scale of what was required to grow the association in the direction it needed.

The NBA’s experiment in digital elections was also blighted by scandal. The 2016 leadership election ended in court over claims of serious “electoral infractions.” In 2018, membership data was deliberately compromised, leading to manifest rigging of the election which is now the stuff of pending criminal prosecution.

When Olumide threw his hat into the contest for the presidency of the Bar in the 2020 cycle of leadership election, he set about harnessing the promise of the Alegeh reforms but he faced considerable odds. To begin with, every president of the Bar since 1998 had been a SAN, and Olumide, who had built his reputation in commercial practice rather than in courtroom litigation, was not one. Second, he was up against two formidable SANs and, in a habitually stratified vocation and society, was the youngest in both biological and professional age among the cohort of a strong pool of candidates. Third, he was from the mid-west Bar in a year in which the presidency was due to come from the Western region.

Each of these could easily have frightened aspirants of lesser fortitude but it was clear that Olumide had deliberately identified the NBA presidency as the site for his leadership tilt and had gone about it methodically. Prior to running for the NBA presidency, he had served as a pioneer in the Council of the NBA’s Section on Business Law, topping it off with a two-year stint as the Chair of the NBA’s best know Practice Section. Before that, he had also served as the General Secretary of the old students of the oldest public High School in the country, the Kings College Old Boys Association (KCOBA), during which he professionalized that association and put its operations on a sound footing.

In running for the presidency of the Bar, Olumide managed to turn all his headwinds into tailwinds, revealing a huge appetite at the Bar for generational inclusion and for an independent NBA. His campaign showed creativity, adaptability, and extraordinary savvy in digital constituency building, and when the votes were counted in August 2020, he had bested all comers taking some 54% out of 18,256 votes cast.

Olumide could easily have entered the history books as the first NBA president to be inaugurated in a pandemic. He inherited an association reeling from a credibility crisis, membership apathy, and financial challenges. In two years, he has managed to transform the finances of the association and will be leaving behind a stability fund that will guarantee its financial and professional independence.

Over the same period, Olumide has also transformed the credibility of the association, giving it a public voice that is now respected by the country. Membership services, including continuing legal education and skill, have also improved. This is evident in the payment subscription to practicing fees which has more than doubled over two years from just under 30,000 members to over 61,000. The association is no longer in hock to politically exposed persons. Its membership and data management protocols of the association have dramatically improved and its infrastructure have been massively enhanced under Olumide’s leadership.

Under him, that body described 10 years ago as “severely under-capacitated, with an unclear mission, an insecure future, and hugely unrealized potential” has now been replaced by one with substantial heft.

These have not come without a fight. A Federal Attorney-General, who felt affronted by intimations of an independent Bar, decided to abort it through acts of decapitation in a unilateral amendment of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession designed to render the association irrelevant. Last week, the courts upheld a challenge to this by Olumide’s NBA, ruling the Attorney-General out of line. He has also frustrated another line of attack which exposes the Association to being subordinated to the Body of Benchers, a statutory body. At the end of his tenure, Olumide has conducted what is by far the most credible leadership transition since the association pivoted to digital elections in 2016.

For his efforts, Olumide’s tenure has not been without challenges. Despite his formidable advocacy skills, lawyers are still liable to be abused and assaulted by security agents and, as demonstrated by the pending case of Inibehe Effiong before the Akwa Ibom State High Court, sometimes by judicial officers. In the aftermath of his letter requesting the current chairman of the Body of Benchers to recuse himself from office pending the conclusion of disciplinary hearings on a complaint in respect of which the latter suffers potential exposures both as witness or as a co-respondent, Olumide has been criticized for not being sufficiently respectful of business-as-usual at the Bar. Far from a criticism, however, that should be a badge of honour.

When he makes his exit next week after two very eventful years as president of the Nigerian Bar, Olumide Akpata deserves to hold his head very high. He will surely go down as one of the most consequential tenures in the leadership of the association since Alao Aka Basorun.

Olumide leaves the NBA well placed to play a pivotal role in policing the 2023 General elections. He also leaves shoes of immense size behind and not merely as a testament to his considerable physical presence. His successor has a challenge to build on and improve on the huge leaps the association has made in the last two years under Olumide. The expectations are high and the membership of the Association will exact consequences if the bar drops.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

By Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN, FCIArb. (UK).

INTRODUCTION

Set to take effect from January 1, 2023, this regulatory guideline is aimed at the Other Financial Institutions (OFIs) (such as microfinance, development banks, etc.), to enhance cybersecurity and strengthen the defense against cyberattacks, targeted at the information and communications system of the financial industry, which is heavily relied upon to operate. It was triggered by the recent spike and sophisticated nature of the cyberattacks, and threats posed by hackers targeted at the finance industry.

Cyberattack refers to an attempt to compromise and steal confidential data, or destroy a computer system/network. They include malware, phishing, and DoS/DDoS (denial-of-service/distributed denial-of-service) attacks. These attacks, when launched on the host system, barrage it with illegitimate requests which make it unable to ‘provide service’ to those who need it. They drain the resources of a system by making it impossible to grant users’ requests, and leaving it vulnerable to other forms of attack to the point that it could crash down.

Cybersecurity is the protection of internet-connected systems and data from cyber threats, to protect against unauthorized access to confidential information.

The regulations comprise 6 major parts:

1. Cybersecurity governance and oversight: This sets the agenda and boundaries for cybersecurity management and controls through directing and supporting the security efforts of the OFIs. The provision of oversight and leadership ensures that cybersecurity enforcement becomes an integral part of the organization in question, and this responsibility rests on the Board of Directors in each of the OFIs, also responsible for allocating adequate resources to enhance cybersecurity. Additionally, it is required that the OFIs appoint a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), responsible for (among others) developing and implementing the cybersecurity program as approved by the Board, and ensuring that the institution maintains an updated inventory of its users, devices, and relationships.
2. Cybersecurity risk management system: This is to ensure the effectiveness of an OFIs security governance by independently evaluating all the risks relating to cybersecurity in a proactive way. It makes use of methodologies for risk identification, analysis, and control. Reports shall be provided to the senior management/relevant committee on a quarterly basis. Internal audits shall be carried out to mitigate the risk of cyberattacks. It shall be risk-based and provide assurance to the senior management on the effectiveness of the cybersecurity program. Cyber risk assessments should be updated regularly to address changes or the introduction of new technologies and products to ensure accurate risk measurement.
3. Cyber resilience assessment: Resilience provides an assurance of sustainability for the organization, and is useful in evaluating an organization’s defense and readiness to tackle cybersecurity risks. OFIs are required to build, enhance and maintain their cybersecurity, especially in view of the rapid advancement in IT. This assessment shall be submitted to the Director of the OFIs Supervision Department of CBN yearly, containing identified gaps, threats and risks.
4. Cybersecurity operational resilience: Two controls stem from this, including ‘Know Your Environment’ and ‘Enhancing Cybersecurity Resilience’. The first deals with the business environment, and the OFI shall devise mechanisms to maintain an updated inventory of authorized software, hardware and network devices, so that all unauthorized shall be reported appropriately. The latter is concerned with improving cybersecurity resilience to ensure the availability of information assets and promote a safe banking system.
5. Cyber-threat intelligence and metrics: This demands an objective, factual knowledge of all emerging threats and cyberattacks, to make informed decisions. OFIs must establish a Cyber-Threat Programme to identify and mitigate potential cyber threats and risks. These potential threats are to be reported to the Director of the OFIs Supervision Department (CBN) as well. Uniquely, it is set to review the commonly adopted ‘Bring Your Own System (BYOS)’ policy.
6. Monitoring and reporting: OFIs are mandated to put metrics in place to ensure compliance, provide feedback on the effectiveness of controls and provide the basis for decision-making. A reporting process shall also be adopted for the dissemination of security-related material such as changes in policies, standards and new emerging threats. All OFIs are to report all cyber-incidents to the Director of the OFIs Supervision Department as well.

Compliance with Statutory and Regulatory Requirements: Non-compliance with the guidelines shall attract appropriate sanctions to be determined by the CBN, in accordance with the CBN Act and Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA). The BOFIA 2020, set in place to repeal that of 1991 as it was out of touch with technological advancement, lends the following powers for sanctions to the CBN, some of which include:

1. Suspension of payment pertaining to any contract to which a defaulting bank is party.
2. Procurement of shares up to a level that guarantees control of the bank, which should encourage closer supervision.
3. Provision for penalties of up to N50 million, or imprisonment for up to 5 years for non-compliance
4. Revocation of licenses to operate, or complete liquidation of the bank.

Incident Response and Disaster Recovery:The guidelines also make provision for addressing the aftermath of a security breach, with the objective of reducing damage, recovery time and costs. The ‘disaster recovery’ allows for immediate response to reduce damage and resume business functions quickly. OFIs are mandated to review their Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity documents to ensure adequacy in supporting breaches. This must be tested, so that any necessary improvements can be made. A response plan shall also be shared with stakeholders, stipulating the establishment of a dedicated team focused on detecting and responding to cyber incidents.

As seen with Kenya’s Cyber Security Guidelines for Payment Service Providers, CBN also makes provision for the establishment of a PSP Security Assurance Programme, to ensure due diligence and thorough vetting of the PSPs before establishing relationships with them.

What Gave Rise to Its Enactment?

As stated earlier, threats such as ransomware, phishing and Advance Persistent Attacks (APT) have become prevalent, thus creating a need to strengthen cyber resilience and security to secure critical information in the financial sector. Key pieces of information stored by these industries need to be protected, to prevent data from being misused by third parties for fraud, such as phishing scams and identity theft, or even a country’s general economic/financial data being used against it. Its key function is to protect the OFIs from cyberattacks, and then the whole financial sector by extension.

Advantages of the Guidelines

1. It creates a safer cyber environment that strengthens information system security, thereby promoting the stability of the OFIs
2. It contributes toward the prevention and combating of cybercrime in the financial industry
3. It promotes the adoption/implementation of the best practices and standards relating to cybersecurity
4. A regain of trust and confidence in the OFI sub-sector by the public
5. It promotes a cybersecurity culture and awareness through skills development

Comparative Analysis: Ghana and Kenya as Case Studies

As of 2019, an increasing number of businesses had migrated online, and cybersecurity became rampant, referred to as a national security issue by President Nana Akufo-Addo. According to the Cybercrime Unit of Ghana’s Criminal Investigations Department, Ghana lost approximately $97m to cybercrime in 2018, higher than $69m in 2017 and $26m in 2016.

The Bank of Ghana implemented a Cyber and Information Security Directive, providing a framework for security measures for IT data centers and control rooms to assure data and network security. There is also the Cyber Security Directive for Financial Institutions, which was launched in October, 2018, to establish guidelines for cybersecurity and information security in the financial sector, and to strengthen bank and customer confidence in the security of banking technology. Banks will be obliged to implement cybersecurity controls and follow a timeline to ensure that they are meeting requirements. All banks will also be required to appoint a cyber and information security officer to advise senior management and shape policies regarding cybersecurity issues. This applies to all entities regulated by the Bank of Ghana and must comply with the standards as stipulated.

Kenya’s Central Bank, on the other hand, has developed Cyber Security Guidelines for Payment Service Providers, with an objective to create safer cyberspace that underpins information system security priorities, to promote stability of the Kenyan payment system sub-sector. Also, reporting requirements (backed up by the National Payment System Act, Banking Act, and CBK’s Guidance Note on Cybersecurity) have also been put in place for licensed banks and payment system providers, to disclose major security breaches and incidents of fraud, especially those that could have an adverse effect on the ability to provide adequate services to customers to the Central Bank of Kenya.

It can be deduced that these two countries have been proactive in the measures taken to ensure that cyberattacks are minimized and have little impact on their financial industries. This has established a more coordinated approach to the prevention and combating of cybercrime.

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that there are similarities in the three countries observed in this article. The CBN’s cybersecurity risk management system and resilience assessment pursue the same as that of the CBK’s (Central Bank of Kenya) Cybersecurity Guidelines, which mandate periodical reports on new technologies and potential threats to the central bank. There is also the appointment of a cyber and information security officer, to advise senior management and shape policies (adopted by both the CBN and Bank of Ghana).

It is known that the technology industry continues to grow in waves, and there is nothing to put it to a halt. Therefore, financial institutions must take initiative to implement policies capable of combating excesses presented by technological advancement so that crucial information is kept private and safe, and long-term financial health is ensured. Failure to do this puts not just the industry but the whole society in turmoil.

AUTHOR: Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN, FCIArb. (UK).

Mr. Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN is the Managing Partner of O. M. Atoyebi, S.A.N & Partners (OMAPLEX Law Firm) where he also doubles as the Team Lead of the Firm’s Emerging Areas of Law Practice.

Mr. Atoyebi has expertise in and a vast knowledge of Cyber Law and this has seen him advise and represent his vast clientele in a myriad of high level transactions.  He holds the honour of being the youngest lawyer in Nigeria’s history to be conferred with the rank of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

He can be reached at [email protected]

CONTRIBUTOR: John Oladipo.

John is a Team Lead in the Dispute Resolution Team at OMAPLEX Law Firm. He also holds commendable legal expertise in Cybersecurity and Data Privacy.

He can be reached at [email protected].

Justice Okamgba, ‘CBN Sends a 41-Paged Cybersecurity Guidelines to OFIs’ (Tech Economy, 4 July 2022) <https://techeconomy.ng/2022/07/cbn-sends-a-41-paged-cybersecurity-guidelines-to-ofis/> Accessed 18 July 2022. See also fn.5

Top 20 Most Common Types of Cyber Attacks (Fortinet, No Date) <Top 20 Most Common Types Of Cyber Attacks | Fortinet> Accessed 21 July 2022

[3] Ibid 2

[4] Sharon Shea, ‘What is Cybersecurity’ (Tech Target, 2021) <https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/cybersecurity#:~:text=Cybersecurity%20is%20the%20protection%20of,centers%20and%20other%20computerized%20systems> Accessed 18 July 2022

[5] Nkiru Asiegbu, Letter to All Other Financial Institutions (June 2022) https://www.cbn.gov.ng/Out/2022/OFISD/Letter%20to%20all%20OFIs%20Issuance%20of%20Risk-Based%20Cybersecurity%20Framework%20and%20Guidelines%20for%20Other%20Financial%20Institutions.pdf Accessed 18 July 2022. Applicable to numbers 1 – 6 respectively.

[6] Ibid 5

[7] Olayinka Alao, ‘Nigeria: BOFIA 2020: What’s New?’ (Mondaq, 15 October 2021) < BOFIA 2020: What’s New? – Financial Services – Nigeria (mondaq.com)> Accessed 21 July 2022. Applicable to numbers 1 – 4.

[8] Christina Ngene, ‘BOFIA 2020 – Updated Act for the Bnaking and Financial Sector in Nigeria’ (Africa Reinvented, 20 November 2020) <BOFIA 2020 – Updated Act For The Banking and Financial Sector in Nigeria (africareinvented.com)> Accessed 21 July 2022

By Sylvester Udemezue

These are not the best of times for Nigeria’s Law Profession! A story for another piece. Meanwhile, my Lord, Hon. Justice Maurice Eneji, Rtd was reported to have written thus on a platform that goes by the name, CONFEDERATION OF BEKWARRA LAWYERS:

“But we must realise that the law empowers the CJ to assign cases to all other Judges within her state. Thus, any application for transfer of a case is subject to the CJ’S discretion. The CJ can decide to transfer or not to transfer. He/She cannot be forced to do so, else it will amount to disarming the judicial power of the court. Now, if the CJ refuses to transfer, then the case must go on before the CJ or any court it was pending the end of the hearing, if the case goes against the applicant, then the applicant has the right to appeal. It is wrong for anyone to wrestle with an authority such as a court to exercise discretion in favour of any one particular person(s) or party/parties to a case. That will amount to commanding the Court! May that day never come.”

Respected Hon Justice Maurice Eneji (RTD), sir, with the greatest respect to you, I think you’ve turned upside down all of law, equity, justice, reason, and common.

1. You say the CJ cannot be forced to transfer the case. You missed it, sir. Such doesn’t arise and doesn’t apply in the present case. Under professional Legal Ethics, there appear to be FOUR options available to any party who thinks he has a proper cause for complaint against a judicial officer:

(I).  Send a Petition to the CJ of the Court, for transfer of the case to another judge; or

(II).  File a formal Application for Recusal — this is by Motion on Notice, Affidavit and Written Address; or

(III). Wait and make such a complaint a ground of appeal (see Sunday Okodua v. State); or

(IV). In extreme cases, report to NJC for disciplinary action.

Now, dear Hon Justice Eneji, RTD, from available reports, it appears that the option relevant to the Inibehe Effiong scenario is point Number (II), not point number (I) as you’ve erroneously suggested. As reported, and no one has refuted this, Inibehe Effiong as a counsel in the case, had filed a formal application praying the Hon CJ to recuse himself from the case. Whether the CJ likes it or not, the  CJ has/had an obligation to hear and determine the application, one way or another. It’s on record that when INEBEHE EFFIONG drew the attention of the judge to the Application for Recusal, instead of taking the application (which was the proper thing to do in the circumstances), at least to either dismiss or grant it, the judge had rather waved it aside, directed that the application be kept one side while trial should proceed. Inibehe complied. Thus, the lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, was ready to move the application but the the judge refused to take the application.

With due respect to the CJ, this is a very wrong procedure, perhaps a further testimony to his alleged personal interest or bias in the case.  

Dear Hon Justice Eneji RTd, sir, with due respect, your argument is premature; the judge had a duty to hear the application for Recusal, even if the judge planned to dismiss it. In exercising this all-important duty, the judge who happens to be the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State, failed woefully, leading to so many implications, imputaions, inferences and then raising so many questions, two of which are:

(A).  Did the Hon CJ of Akwa Ibom State forget His Professional Duties As A Presiding Judge? A presiding judge should always appreciate that he is an umpire and as such should never enter into the arena of conflict – so that he does not have a befogged vision of the case. The presiding judge must also bear in mind the need to not be a “Hippy Harliet”. See Uso v. The Police (1972) 11 S.C. 37; Okoruwa v. The State [1975] ANLR 262   See also Onuoha v. The State (1989) 2 N.W.L.R (Pt. 101) 23; Ayub-Khan v. The State (1991) 2 N.W.L.R (pt172). 127 .

(B).  What then becomes of Nemo Judex In Causa Sua?

“…the court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if the the judge was as impartial as could be, nevertheless if right-minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on the part of the judge/adjudicator/arbiter, then he should not sit. and if he does sit, his decision cannot stand. It is irrelevant whether he was in fact biased, because justice is rooted in public confidence, and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking that the judge was biased”._See: _”The Suspension Of NBA General Secretary By The National Executive Committee: Corollary Legal Issues” By Sylvester Udemezue (TheNigeriaLawyer: 15 August 2022).

2. Hon Justice Eneji RTD’s Argument Over the Akwa Ibom State CJ’S Non Release of Record of Proceedings In Inibehe Effiong’s Case: Hear Justice Eneji RTD:

“Concerning the delay in providing records of proceedings, it must be borne in mind that:1. Soon after the unpleasant episode, the court proceeded on vacation. So his Lordship will not be expected to stay back to vet and issue the records of proceedings. To do so during vacation will clearly be illegal!! It is only a Vacation Judge that has the power to treat Only Urgent applications during vacation!! No other person can! Therefore, if counsel had been diligent, they would have approached the Vacation Judge to reach out to the Hon CJ to speed up issuance of the requested record of proceedings, and even better still, approach the vacation court for bail of the convict/contemnor pending appeal.

My Lord, sir, with due respect, you missed it. In a Commentary titled, “It Is A Violation of Litigants’ Fundamental Right for A Court to Make Litigants Pay to Obtain A Copy of the Court’s Judgment” (see: BarristerNG: 6 August 2021), I wrote, ‘Section 294(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, provides that “Every court established under this Constitution shall deliver its decision in writing not later than ninety days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses and furnish all parties to the cause or matter determined with duly authenticated copies of the decision within seven days of the delivery thereof”.

Similarly, section 36 (7) of the same Constitution requires that “… the accused person or any persons authorised by him in that behalf shall be entitled to obtain copies of the judgement in the case within seven days of the conclusion of the case”. It is submitted that the court has a duty to make a copy of the judgement available to the parties free of charge either in the open court on the date of judgment or through the bailiffs within 7 days of the judgment, or through email or other virtual platforms (the last is most preferable)’.

Continuing, I said, _”This being the case, the court has a duty to make available to the parties, duly authenticated copies of the judgment. This must be done free of any charge and within the time stipulated by law, or where no time is stated, within a reasonable time. Time is of the essence here. Failure to do this is a gross breach of the fundamental rights of the affected parties and a violation of due process, rule of law and the interest of justice….By the way, why not the court sends a copy of the judgment through the court’s official email to (all the litigants and) the lawyers in the case?

Why not we expect to see a copy of every judgment of court posted on the court’s website within within 24 hours or not later than Seven days from the date of the judgement? Why not? Are these not where the world is at present? Why are we left behind in everything? Is it that we don’t have funds to get things done right or that we don’t have the foresight to see that only the right things should be done, or that “fantastic” corruption has taken away the money we need to have things done right? Where in a civilized, developed 21st-century-compliant country, are parties still queuing up in the court’s registry to apply for, pay through the nose (typical of Nigeria) to obtain a copy of judgments of court in their own case? Should we not at least upgrade– even if it’s one step forward? What does it take the court to send a copy of its own judgement to litigants?’_

 My Humble Opinion:

The delay by the CJ of Akwa Ibom State (who happens to be the presiding judge in this case) in releasing the record of proceedings in the Inibehe Effiong scenario is a deliberate ploy to frustrate Inibehe Effiong’s lawyers’ efforts to get justice. It’s a violation of Inibehe Effiong’s fundamental rights. It’s a violation of the CJ’S oath of office and the Code of conduct for judicial officers. Further, it’s a gross breach of the CJ’S duty of impartiality as an adjudicator. Such is also irregular and amounts to a gross deceleration of the Constitution.

Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution provides that “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”. while section 36(6)(b) requires that “Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to -be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence”.

With due respect, as I suggested, Hon Justice Eneji RTD, is muddling issues up, instead of facing relevant issues and calling a spade by its name! I see the argument as a poor excuse for a gross desecration of law, justice, ethics and procedure by a judicial officer from whom a high standard of professional discipline was expected.  Justice Eneji’s may well be described as a stalking-Horse, looking more as one advanced to becloud the mode relevant and serious questions bothering on these gross violations of law, justice and procedure.

▪To be continued!

Respectfully,

Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)

08109024556.

[email protected].

By Fola Adekeye

Our children are angry. They deserve to be. Suddenly, they are confronted by obstinate enemies of destinies.

Government.
And ASUU.

Nothing is as bad as what our children are going through right now.

Last week, an SS1 student in the school where I teach creative writing told me he wanted to drop out of school.

Hear him: “Schooling is no longer rewarding. My brother won’t be returning to the university when ASUU calls off its strike. He has moved on. His eyes have opened to money and he is doing fine. I want to join him.”

I am still running him through counseling.

But, it is not only his brother that won’t be returning to schools when ASUU calls off this insensitive strike.

In the last two weeks, I have met 11 undergraduates who may never return to their universities after ASUU strike.

“I am no longer an undergraduate, Sir. ASUU has graduated me. After spending months to learn software engineering in Ikeja, I have started my own business. At present, Sir, I am a student of three online universities in the UK. I thank God for ASUU strike,” says John, a 200L computer science student.

Darin, a 300L agric science student, is now a busy fashion designer. Currently she and her mum got the “aso-ebi” contract for a big wedding coming up in Canada later this year.

“Honestly Sir, I don’t know where my books are. ASUU strike has opened my eyes. Let them keep their universities,” Darin told me.

Most disturbing to me was the “I-moved-on” response I got from a very good 400L law student. “Azeez, where have you moved on to?”
His answers made me fight back tears.

“A friend introduced me to his uncle in Ladipo Motor Parts Market. I signed up for a two year training. I will open my own shop after training. My boss gives me pocket money everyday. I am comfortable. I have moved on with my life.”

During this insensitive strike, only psychologically strong children are sustainably useful to themselves. ASUU strike has deeply traumatized many undergrads.

Parents are enjoined to treat this category of children with understanding, patience, love and generosity. Yes, generosity.

Don’t withhold their upkeep allowances. E dakun.

Be kind with words towards them, be less judgemental and don’t be too quick to shut them up or throw insults.

Our undergraduates are going through very difficult times. If you have been to any institution of higher learning, you should already know how frustrating ASUU strikes can be.

Our children will flourish and prosper with or without ASUU.

Kojubeelo!