Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja has fixed October 15 to deliver judgment in the suit challenging the power of the President forwarding the names of 11 nominees for appointment as judges of High Court of the Federal Capital Territory to the Senate for confirmation.
Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter, on Wednesday, for judgment after the parties have adopted their respective briefs of arguments and adumbrated on their submission.
A legal practitioner, Oladimeji Ekengba the plaintiff in the matter had filed the suit in which he made the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Attorney General of Federation and Minister of Justice, Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the President of the Senate, the clerk of the Senate, Chief of Justice of Nigeria and the National Judicial Council respondents.
Adopting his brief of argument, Ekengba urged the Court to hold that the procedure adopted by the President who forwarded the names of the 11 nominees recommended to him for appointment as judges of the Federal Capital Territory to the Senate for confirmation is unconstitutional.
He urged the Court to determine whether, by virtue of the provisions of section 256(2)of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended, the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has power to appoint, screen, confirm persons recommended as judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
Whether by virtue of the provisions of section 256(2)of the Constitution the President can abdicate his duty and responsibilities to the Senate for the appointment of persons as judges of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
Whether the forwarding of the names of Abubakar Useni Musa, Edward Okpe, B. Abubakar, M. Francis, Jude Nwabueze, Josephine Enobi, Christopher Opeyemi, Mohammed Idris, Hassan Maryam Aliyu, Fashola Akeem Adebowale and Hamza Mu’azu all of whom recommended by the National Judicial Council to the President and judges of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory can be subjected to the Senate for screening and confirmation contrary to and in breach of section 256(1) of the Constitution.
The plaintiff further prayed the court for a declaration that by virtue of the provisions of section 256(2) of the Constitution, the Senate lacks the power to appoint, screen and confirm persons recommended as judges of the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, who is not head of the court.
He urged the court to declare the purported appointment as unconstitutional and void.
He also urged the court to hold that the appointment of the 11 new judges can not be subject to Senate confirmation.
But, Tinuola Babalola who represented the Attorney General of the federation and the President urged the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.
She said that the plaintiff had no (locus standi ) legal right to institute the action.
Other defendants’ lawyers also raised objection to the suit insisting that the plaintiff lack locus standi while the National Judicial Council asked the Court to remove its name as a respondent because it has done nothing wrong.
A former deputy governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Dr Obadiah Mailafia on Wednesday honoured the invitation of the Department of State Security Service (DSS) over his comment that government is culpable for the ongoing killings and in Southern Kaduna.
Mailafia was released a few minutes past 6 pm
The DSS had summoned Mailafia for questioning after he claimed on a radio programme that a governor from the northern part of Nigeria is a leader of the Boko Haram sect.
Dr Obadiah arrived at the Plateau State Command of the DSS Jos at exactly 12:45 pm along with a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Pius Akumbo and Plateau State chairman of Nigeria Bar Association, Saleh Bawa.
Before his arrival at the premises of the DSS, the vicinity was besieged by his loyalists mostly members of different socio-cultural groups within the Middle Belt, including members of the Middle Belt Forum and Association of Middle Belt Ethnic Nationalities.
As at 3:08 pm on Wednesday, Dr Obadiah and his lawyer, Pius Akumbo SAN are still with the men of the Department of State Security Service (DSS) in Jos while his supporters keep waiting within the vicinity.
The battle for the soul of the University of Lagos continues unrestrained. The Governing Council of the university came all the way to Abuja to meet and sack the sitting Vice Chancellor, Professor Oluwatoyin Ogundipe. He resisted and fired his own public notice discountenancing removal.
Not done, the Registrar of the university and Secretary of council, Mr. Oladejo Azeez, believed to have the full backing of its chairman, Mr. Wale Babalakin SAN, issued another statement naming Professor Theophilus Soyombo as acting vice chancellor.
In the messy mix, steps in major and loud stakeholder, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) which describes the action of the council as an illegal contraption. ASUU’s position changes the face of the battle, and it promises to be a long drawn one.
Major stakeholders, the students are on edge but side with Ogundipe.
School owner, the Federal Government, through the Ministry of Education, says the council has the power to hire and fire. Ben Goong, its spokesman say, ““While the Ministry awaits for the proper briefing from the university authorities, it is important to reaffirm that council has the power to hire and fire but that due process must be followed in doing so.”
Azeez statement eads: “My attention has been drawn to a document circulating under the hand and signature of the former Vice Chancellor of University of Lagos, Professor Oluwatoyin T. Ogundipe, FAS. The letter purports to deny his removal by the Governing Council of University at its Emergency Meeting of Wednesday, August 12, 2020.
“For the avoidance of doubt, I am in my capacity as Registrar and Secretary to Council the only custodian of the minutes of Council and the authorizing officer on behalf of Council to issue official statements pertaining to all Council Affairs.
“Members of the public are hereby advised to totally disregard the statement attributed to the said former Vice Chancellor. The position remains that he was lawfully removed by the Governing Council at a meeting fully attended by all Council members.
“I also wish to use the opportunity to inform members of the public that Council at the said meeting duly appointed Professor Theophilus Omololu Soyombo of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lagos as Vice Chancellor of the University in an Acting Capacity.”
Ogundipe had said that “his purported removal is an act of illegality and cannot stand as it is in clear violation of UNILAG Act as amended by the universities (miscellaneous provisions) amendment Act, 2003.”
He urged members of the UNILAG community and the general public to disregard the information about his removal.
Students say they have confidence in Ogundipe and his style of leadership since he came on board as the vice-chancellor of the university two years ago, adding that his administration follows due process in all its activities.
The two members council, Professors Olukemi Odukoya, and Bola Oboh, lays the blame for on-going drama squarely Babalakin.
They insist due process was not followed as Ogundipe was not given the opportunity to defend himself.
When it was announced that the presidency had passed CAMA into law, a particular PDF document was being shared on social media about how this law would aid the ease of doing business in Nigeria. To my greatest surprise, after reading through the Law, it is clear that religious bodies and charity organisations that have been giving succour to the oppressed people of Nigeria (who are denied basic amenities by the huge corruption in public service) will now be strictly regulated by the whims and caprices of the Registrar General of Corporate Affairs Commission and the Supervising Minister.
By virtue of section 839 of CAMA 2020 it provides that the commission may by order, suspend the trustees of an association and appoint an interim manager or managers to manage the affairs of an association where it reasonably believes that there has been any misconduct or mismanagement of the association, or where the affairs of the association are being run fraudulently or where it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of public interest. See Section 839(1).
Subsection 2 of Section 839 provides for another procedure for the suspension of trustees.
The trustees can also be suspended by an order of court upon a petition by the commission or one-fifth of the members of the association. However, the petitioners must present reasonable evidence or such as requested by the court. A comparative perusal of subsections 1 & 2 suggests that, while the court requires evidence, following a petition to suspend trustees, the commission simply needs to believe, to desire for some other interests disguised as public interest, to suspend trustees.
It also suggests that the powers of the commission override that of our courts. The belief and desires of the Registrar General and the Minister becomes superior to the judicial powers of the court under subsection 2.
Therefore, the conclusion is that petitioners do not need the court to suspend trustees. All they need to do is appeal to the belief and desires of the Registrar General or the supervising Minister.
Section 823 (1) recognises the appointment trustees by a community of persons bound by custom, religion, kinship or nationality. How then could the commission appoint a manager, who may not have anything in common with the community to manage the affairs of the association?
Section 839(7) provides that after an enquiry into the affairs of the association, if the commission is satisfied as to the matters in subsection (1) (where you have the ambiguous and dictatorial clauses like “reasonably believes”, “deem it necessary or desirable”, “public interest.”) it may suspend and remove any trustee.
Section 842 (2) gives the commission the power to direct transfer of credits in dormant accounts of NGOs. The banks are to inform the commission of dormant accounts of NGOs in its custody and if after 15 days there is no ‘satisfactory’ response from the association of evidence of its activities, the commission may (without any judicial proceedings) dissolve an association and direct a bank to transfer monies from the association’s dormant account to another account (without a court order). Even EFCC requires a court order to forfeit accounts This is the height of dictatorship in a country where the biggest crimes are committed by public officials.
CONCLUSION
Prof. Chidi Odinkalu had raised a red flag on similar provisions two years ago. It is now clear that this is a tactical manoeuvre to entrench the NGO Regulation Bill through the backdoor.
These provisions are pushing the nation into a dangerous terrain in a country with palpable religious tension regarding the licensing of religious organisation’s. . This is a country where the tax collected are not accounted for and inquiries via the Freedom of Information Bill are usually frustrated. There are various empirical evidence to show that lives have been touched by NGOs, but there is no evidence of the utilisation of collected revenues in the lives of average Nigerians.
The freedom of association as guaranteed by the constitution is sacred and should not be tampered with in a nation like Nigeria. NGOs and religious organisations are major sources of hope for an oppressed people. The UK Charity Commission represents a responsible government that has demonstrated integrity in the implementation of its budget and provision of basic amenities to its people. The idea of copying the jurisprudence behind the regulation of NGOs from other climes and pasting same on the CAMA 2020 is counter-productive- and our legislators need to rise above copying and be creative and bespoke in the formulation of policies. We need to focus on the utilisation of revenue collected by government to better the lives of the people.
▪︎ Adeniji is senior partner at Lawracles Legal Practitioners
World bank rates Nigeria’s illiteracy level at 62.02%. So out of the estimated population of over 200 million Nigerians, more than half of us are illiterates. The National Bureau of Statistics in Nigeria, reports that 40.1% of Nigerians are poor, on the “average 4 out of 10 individuals in Nigeria has real per capita expenditures below 137,430 Naira per year.”
According to HIIL, there are over 25 million legal problems per year in Nigeria, with only 10% problems reaching lawyers and out of that, 28% are on land disputes. Legal Aid is very low and only few Nigerians can access lawyers. So, how are over 100 million Nigerian illiterates and the literate but poor Nigerians solving their legal problems and accessing justice in Nigeria?
The Supreme Court of Nigeria, the apex court, has defined an illiterate as “… within the meaning of the Illiterate’s Protection Act is a person who is unable to read or write in any language, that is, a person who is totally illiterate; and that a person who is unable to read or write the language in which a particular document is written but can read and write in some other language, is not an illiterate within the meaning of the Illiterates’ Protection Act.” Per, UDO UDOMA, J.S.C ( Pp. 16-17, paras. E-C) in the case of LAWAL v. G.B OLLIVANT (NIG) LTD (1972) LPELR-1764(SC)
Also, the same court in defining an illiterate, further set a yardstick to determine a document made by an illiterate. “In the absence of evidence to the contrary, therefore, the fact that a person thumb-impressed a document is regarded as prima facie evidence that he was illiterate. See Jiboso v. Obadina (1962) W.R.N.L.R. 303.” Per, SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN, J.S.C ( Pp. 25-26, paras. E-A), in the case of EZEIGWE v. AWUDU (2008) LPELR-1200(SC).
Unlike in customary transactions, where documentation and written agreements are not required and needed, modern transactions require written (and electronic) receipts, agreements, notices and demands. Expectedly, illiterates are not often conversant with modern transactions, consequently, illiterates need the support of literates, including lawyers. Since legal services are expensive and there are little or no lawyers, paralegals, law clinics and law firms in villages and rural areas, ordinary literate persons, friends and family members are engaged by illiterates. In a country struggling with corruption and institutional immaturity, many are the afflictions of illiterates in the hands of few literates. Even to seek legal redress and justice by illiterates, the official language of the courts is English Language (contrary to common native languages include; Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa and Efik) and all court forms, notices, documentations and procedures are too complex.
However, the laws in Nigeria have not left the illiterates without protection. In Nigeria, there is a Federal Act (the Illiterates Protection Act, the Illiterate’s Protection Act (Cap. 83) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) designed to protect illiterates across Nigeria. The said federal legislation is still in existence, although it is omitted in the latest collection of federal laws in Nigeria. The legislation has not been repealed by any law and as such it is still valid and subsisting not minding its omission in codification. States across Nigeria as well as the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, have their own Illiterates Protection Laws, also designed to protect illiterate.
By the provisions of the said Illiterates Protection Act and its equivalent in states in Nigeria, apart from lawyers, any person that writes a letter or any document for an illiterate person must also state his name as the writer as well as state that the writer was instructed by the illiterate person to write the document, that the contents are correct and that contents were read out to the illiterate, that the illiterate understood the content before the illiterate signed the document or placed his mark and that the signature/mark of the illiterate contained in the document is truly that of the illiterate. Where this is not provided in a letter or document written on behalf of an illiterate, the letter/document is invalid and a huge waste. It is an offence for a writer of such letter/document to fail to state the above issues.
Like in the states in Nigeria, in Federal Capital Territory Abuja, there is a fee regulation and a fee/price list for writers. No writer of any letter/document is allowed to charge any fee or take any reward that exceeds the maximum fee/price set by law. It is an offence, punishable with a fine of One Hundred Naira (N100.00) or in failure to pay the penalty, imprisonment for six (6) months. This does not apply to lawyers (legal practitioners) but to any other person that writes a letter or any document for an illiterate person. Lawyers in this context, are legal practitioners called to the Nigerian bar, enrolled in the Supreme Court of Nigeria and admitted to practise law in Nigeria, as barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
The maximum fee for every original letter or document is fifty Kobo (50K), per hundred words or its part. The maximum fee for a copy of an original letter or document (if any) is twenty Kobo (20K), per hundred words or its part. The maximum fee for second or subsequent copies of an original letter or document (if any) is five Kobo (5K), per hundred words or its part.
Obviously, the fee/price list and the punishment/penalty in the legislation, have lost touch with reality, although it is still binding and must be respected. The legislation came into existence on 15 December 1915, while its provisions on price/fee list came into existence on 25 March 1920. There is an urgent need to amend this protective piece of legislation even as our illiteracy curve keeps climbing.
2. National Bureau of Statistics, “Poverty and Inequality in Nigeria 2019: Executive Summary” (NBS, 2019) accessed 30 July 2020 <https://nigerianstat.gov.ng/elibrary?queries[search]=poverty>
3. The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law, “Justice Needs and Satisfaction in Nigeria 2018” (HIIL, 2018) accessed 27 July 2020 <https://www.hiil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HiiL-Nigeria-JNS-report-web.pdf>
4. The Supreme Court’s judgement (on definition of an illiterate) in the case of LAWAL v. G.B OLLIVANT (NIG) LTD (1972) LPELR-1764(SC)
5. The Supreme Court’s judgement (on definition how to determine document made by an illiterate) in the case of EZEIGWE v. AWUDU (2008) LPELR-1200(SC)
6. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Illiterates Protection Act 1915, Laws of Nigeria (Abuja) and its equivalents in states across Nigeria.
7. Sections 2 and 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act,1975.
#SabiLaw
#DailyLawTips
#SabiBusinessLaw
#SabiElectionLaws
#SabiHumanRights
#SabiLawOnBeatFm
#SabiLawLectureSeries
#CriminalJusticeMonday
#SabiLawVideoChallenge
Speak with the writer, ask questions or make inquiries on this topic or any other via [email protected] or [email protected] or +2348037665878. To receive our free Daily Law Tips, follow our Facebook Page:@LearnNigerianLaws, Instagram:
@LearnNigerianLaws and Twitter: @LearnNigeriaLaw
Please share this publication for free till it gets to those that need it most. Save a Nigerian today! NOTE: Sharing, modifying or publishing this publication without giving credit to Onyekachi Umah, Esq. and “LearnNigerianLaws.com” is a criminal breach of copyright and will be prosecuted.
This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for more information.
Powered by www.LearnNigerianLaws.com {A Free Law Awareness Program of Sabi Law Foundation, supported by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (BCI).}
Rule of Law is the sanity in exercise of power. It is the minimum standard that brings all human beings and corporate beings below the law. It is simply, a strict adherence to laws. Without rule of law, power becomes destructive, discretionary, discriminatory and greatly left to rule of man and rule by law.
However, it is not impossible to have circumstances, where rule of law (in this sense, adherence to law) may do injustice. In such circumstances, adherence to law will beget an abuse of rule of law. Below, are the words of the court on this issue.
“To this extent, the reference made by learned counsel to the dictum of Aboki JCA in MOTOH V. MOTOH @ 532, PARAS. B-D is most apt: “Courts in the exercise of their interpretative jurisdiction are enjoined to lean where the justice of the case demands. The proper role of the Court is to do justice between the parties before it. If there is any rule of law which impairs the doing of justice, then it is the province of the Court to do all it legitimately can to avoid that rule so as to do justice in the case before it. The Courts in Nigeria exercise the dual role of being Courts of law and of equity. A Judge in such system has a duty to ameliorate the harsh content of the law, where it is equitable to do so.” Per CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA ,J.C.A ( Pp. 9-20, paras. C-F )
My authorities are:
1. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of OBIDIEGWU v. OBIDIEGWU (2019)LPELR-47236(CA)
#SabiLaw
#DailyLawTips
#SabiBusinessLaw
#SabiElectionLaws
#SabiHumanRights
#SabiLawOnBeatFm
#SabiLawLectureSeries
#CriminalJusticeMonday
#SabiLawVideoChallenge
Speak with the writer, ask questions or make inquiries on this topic or any other via [email protected] or [email protected] or +2348037665878. To receive our free Daily Law Tips, follow our Facebook Page:@LearnNigerianLaws, Instagram:
@LearnNigerianLaws and Twitter: @LearnNigeriaLaw
Please share this publication for free till it gets to those that need it most. Save a Nigerian today! NOTE: Sharing, modifying or publishing this publication without giving credit to Onyekachi Umah, Esq. and “LearnNigerianLaws.com” is a criminal breach of copyright and will be prosecuted.
This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for more information.
Powered by www.LearnNigerianLaws.com {A Free Law Awareness Program of Sabi Law Foundation, supported by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (BCI).}
On 7 August 2020, a new company legislation was signed into law. The federal law, has amended the thirty (30) years old, Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990, that came into existence since 2 January 1990.
By the new Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990, a single person can now start, promote, register and own a private company, by being the sole shareholder and director of his/her private company. Before now, a company must have at least 2 persons as shareholders and directors.
This change is believed to positively affect the ease of doing business in Nigeria. Hopefully, it will move up Nigeria’s ranks 131 out of 190 countries on the World Bank Doing Business Index.
My authorities are:
1. Sections 18(2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990.
#SabiLaw
#DailyLawTips
#SabiBusinessLaw
#SabiElectionLaws
#SabiHumanRights
#SabiLawOnBeatFm
#SabiLawLectureSeries
#CriminalJusticeMonday
#SabiLawVideoChallenge
Speak with the writer, ask questions or make inquiries on this topic or any other via [email protected] or [email protected] or +2348037665878. To receive our free Daily Law Tips, follow our Facebook Page:@LearnNigerianLaws, Instagram: @LearnNigerianLaws and Twitter: @LearnNigeriaLaw
Please share this publication for free till it gets to those that need it most. Save a Nigerian today! NOTE: Sharing, modifying or publishing this publication without giving credit to Onyekachi Umah, Esq. and “LearnNigerianLaws.com” is a criminal breach of copyright and will be prosecuted.
This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for more information.
Powered by www.LearnNigerianLaws.com {A Free Law Awareness Program of Sabi Law Foundation, supported by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (BCI).}
*Remedy of a Suspect Detained for More Than 24 Hours.* Daily Law Tips (Tip 630) by Onyekachi Umah, Esq., LL.M, ACIArb(UK)
In Nigeria, every person is assumed to be innocent until a court of law declares a person guilty (not innocent). What the media, law enforcement agencies, government, colleagues, employer, political party or neighbours think about a suspect does not matter. Also the amount of evidence (including videos and eye witnesses) concerning a suspect and an alleged offence does not make a suspect automatically guilty.
It is only a court of law that can declare a person guilty. So, every suspect in any law enforcement agency in Nigeria or any defendant in any court in Nigeria, is innocent and not guilty, until a court says otherwise. It is important that such persons are not punished rather pampered and respected with the budget allocated to the concerned law enforcement agency.
Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and similar state laws in states across Nigeria, a suspect must be released within 24 hours of being arrested, especially where the alleged crime is not punishable with death.
Where this is not done, any person can go to court/institute a case against the concerned law enforcement agency (and its agents) on behalf of the suspect. The court will order the suspect to be produced (brought to) court and inquire into the circumstances of the detention and where the court desires, the court will grant bail to the suspect. An application for bail in a court, can be written or oral, even if the court is a High Court/Federal High Court/National Industrial Court, where applications are often written and rarely oral.
Note that, the court to be approached to grant bail to a suspect that has been detained for more than 24 hours, must be a court that has jurisdiction (power) to entertain the crime that the suspect is detained for. For example, since a crime of fake passport can only be handled by the Federal High Court, the court that can be approached to release a suspect detained for more than 24 hours over issues of fake passport must be the Federal High Court and not a Magistrate Court or High Court.
By the way, the above does not affect the rights of a suspect to sue a law enforcement agency and its agents for breach of his fundamental human rights. In this, a suspect can seek huge monetary damages running into millions of Naira.
My authorities are:
1. Sections 32, 494 and 495 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and its equivalent in states across Nigeria.
2. Sections 34, 35, 36, 318 and 319 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
#SabiLaw
#DailyLawTips
#SabiBusinessLaw
#SabiElectionLaws
#SabiHumanRights
#SabiLawOnBeatFm
#SabiLawLectureSeries
#CriminalJusticeMonday
#SabiLawVideoChallenge
Speak with the writer, ask questions or make inquiries on this topic or any other via [email protected] or [email protected] or +2348037665878. To receive our free Daily Law Tips, follow our Facebook Page:@LearnNigerianLaws, Instagram:
@LearnNigerianLaws and Twitter: @LearnNigeriaLaw
Please share this publication for free till it gets to those that need it most. Save a Nigerian today! NOTE: Sharing, modifying or publishing this publication without giving credit to Onyekachi Umah, Esq. and “LearnNigerianLaws.com” is a criminal breach of copyright and will be prosecuted.
This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for more information.
Powered by www.LearnNigerianLaws.com {A Free Law Awareness Program of Sabi Law Foundation, supported by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (BCI).}
In a reportage, titled: “Nigerians plotting to colonize Kenya through banks, marriages – Kenyan professor,” by Bernice Eke, and published online on July 24, 2020; it was stated that: “with Access Bank’s acquisition of Kenya’s Transnational Bank,” one professor XN Iraki of the University of Nairobi, “. . . said Nigerians are not only coming but “have already arrived” to take over his country.” The report went on to state that Professor Iraki “made the remark in an alarming article published in The Standard, one of Kenya’s largest newspapers, lamenting how Nigerian banks like UBA and GTB have gained “a foothold” in the country.
Professor Iraki based his claim of Nigerians grand strategy to “colonize” Kenya using three mechanisms: (1) Churches and Movies; (2) the Banking Industry and (3) Marrying Kenyan women. If it sounds uncomfortably like a warmed over version of South African xenophobia and peevish histrionics targeting Nigerians and other Africans, that’s only because it is. But let me not get ahead of myself.
Prof. Emeka Aniagolu
One of the major ways through which propagandists ply their nefarious trade is to avoid abiding with facts. Or, if they are unable to completely circumvent facts, to distort them. Facts, understandably, are their worst enemies, because the whole purpose of propaganda and propagandists, is to create a perception in the mind of their target(s), such that the individual or individuals, react emotionally to the waving of their red flags, without thinking, and certainly, without abiding with facts and figures. Let me, therefore, share with the ‘not-so-good professor’ and the Kenyan public a few HARD FACTS.
The Central Bank of Kenya oversees the entire banking industry of Kenya. No local or foreign bank can establish, let alone, operate in Kenya, without the express permission and oversight of the Central Bank of Kenya. Therefore, no matter how smart, skilled, educated or business savvy Nigerians, or anyone else, for that matter, may be, they do not have the power nor the authority to participate in the banking industry of Kenya, without the express authorization/licensing of the Central Bank of Kenya. The same applies to all the other independent African countries and the world, writ large.
Second, as at last count, there were a total of 44 main banking institutions in Kenya, 31 of which, are locally owned; while 13 are foreign-owned. Of those thirteen foreign-owned banks, only three are Nigerian-owned; and based on the shortlist below of the biggest banks in Kenya, along with the national origins of their owners; not one of the three Nigerian banks operating in Kenya made the shortlist of those ten!
UBA Kenya, Ltd., is comparatively, actually a small commercial bank in Kenya. It is a subsidiary of the Nigerian financial conglomerate—United Bank for Africa—which has subsidiaries in 20 African countries, the United States, the UK and France. Established in Kenya in 2009, with a capital investment of KES 2.5 billion (approx. U.S. $25 million), the bank accumulated losses of KES 1.4 billion (approx. U.S. $14 million) in the seven years that followed its establishment in Kenya. UBA Kenya, Ltd., made a profit for the first time during the first half of 2016. As of 2016, it employs 70 people in Kenya.
Finally, Access Bank, which just established its Kenyan subsidiary in February 2020, after acquiring 100% shareholding of the Kenyan bank—Transnational Bank Plc.—with the approval of the Central Bank of Kenya; is the third Nigerian bank doing business in Kenya. Prior to its acquisition in Kenya, Access Bank, which is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange, merged with another Nigerian bank, called: Diamond Bank, in April, 2019, which made it the largest bank in Africa; with over 27 million customers.
Two things are noteworthy. First, Kenya is not the first African country Nigerian banks have opened subsidiaries, and not one of those African countries has ever suggested that Nigeria is becoming a “colonial power” in their country as a result of doing banking business in their country! Access Bank and GTB, also do business in another East African country, albeit, a much smaller country than Kenya, namely: Rwanda; through their subsidiaries in that country, with absolutely no problems.
GTB has subsidiaries in eight other African countries, besides Kenya, as well as in the UK. Those African countries are as follows: Cote D’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Sierra Leone. Similarly, Access Bank, which just established a subsidiary in Kenya, has subsidiaries in seven other African countries, in addition to the UK; and those African countries are as follows: Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Rwanda, Gambia, Sierra Leone and Zambia. As noted earlier on, UBA, for its part, has subsidiaries in 20 African countries. In other words, there is nothing unique or exceptional about the subsidiaries of those three Nigerian banks in Kenya.
Second, it might interest readers both in Kenya, Nigeria and the rest of Africa, to know that Kenya’s second largest bank, Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB), has a subsidiary in Rwanda, a country of only 12.3 million people, compared to Kenya’s 51.39 million people; which makes it over four times the size of Rwanda! Additionally, Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB), has subsidiaries not only in Rwanda but in Tanzania, Uganda and Cote D’Ivoire. And it plans to expand into the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Mozambique. Should Rwandans and the other countries in which KCB has subsidiaries, worry that Kenya is “plotting” to colonize them because they have one of their major banks doing business in their respective countries?
Moreover, the Kenyan economy is fairly developed and resilient enough to accommodate investment from other African countries, even as Kenyan companies—whether in the banking industry or in other sectors of the economy—engage in investment in other African countries. As of 2020, Kenya is considered the third largest economy in sub-Sahara Africa, behind Nigeria and the Republic of South Africa. I see nothing stopping Kenyan banks from trying to compete in the Nigerian economy, the same way Nigerian banks are trying to compete in the Kenyan economy; just as banks in both countries—Kenya and Nigeria—are trying to do in a number of other African countries—in East and West Africa!
The same thing applies to Kenyans watching Nollywood movies. One solution is for Kenyans, such as Prof. Iraki, who feel “colonially” threatened by such movies, to simply change the television channel from the Nigerian movie to something less “colonial,” like Western or Indian films! For many years, African Americans and Africans labored under the weight of white “blackout” of Blacks on TV and on the silver screen. There were little or no films showcasing the richness, complexity as well as complications of the sociocultural lives and histories, never mind, acting talents of blacks on TV and on the silver screen.
Then, about three decades ago, precocious, creative and talented Nigerians, took up the hand-held camera, and went to work telling their own stories, based on their experiences and imaginations; not waiting for the imprimatur or funding from the West, and, like magic, the Nollywood film industry was born! It has since grown internationally to become the second largest film industry in the world, with India’s Bollywood leading, and Hollywood, picking up the rear! You would think that would make any red-blooded African proud, rather than make him make the absurd claim that his fellow African country, that happens to be the harbinger of that film industry revolution, is trying to “colonize” his country!
For Prof. Iraki’s information, and hopefully, enlightenment, one source noted that: “One of India’s biggest cultural exports to Africa has been Bollywood, and it’s popular not just among the Indian diaspora. One unlikely place where Bollywood has long enjoyed immense popularity is Nigeria, particularly in the Muslim-majority north – which does not have any significant Indian immigrant community whatsoever. According to the High Commission of India in Nigeria, only about 35,000 Indians live in the country of 170 million, primarily in Lagos. But Lebanese businessmen began importing Bollywood movies a few decades ago as they were cheaper than American movies – to roaring success. According to South Asian Magazine for Action and Reflection (Samar), one of the most popular of all Indian films in Nigeria remains the three-hour classic Mother India, a 1957 epic melodrama starring the legendary actress Nargis. Attending a viewing of the film at an open-air cinema in Kano, in northern Nigeria, Samar’s correspondent in 2013 noted that some people in the audience had already seen the movie 15 times and sang along to all the Hindi songs (although their native language is Hausa).” (www.weforum.org) According to Prof. Iraki’s theory, Nigerians must be in grave danger of being “colonized” by Indians!
The third point Professor Iraki proffered as “evidence” of Nigerians trying to “colonize” Kenya, is that Nigerians are marrying Kenyan women. Instead of going to find out from Kenyan women why they like marrying Nigerian men, as surely as they do marrying other foreign men, which would, at least, have constituted an empirical study; Prof. Iraki simply asserted that it is part of the “plot” of Nigerians to “colonize” Kenya. Are Nigerian men the only non-Kenyan men marrying Kenyan women? Why does Nigerian men marrying Kenyan women seem to especially rankle Prof. Iraki? A study of interracial marriages in Kenya, notes that: “The number of interracial marriages is increasing rapidly in Kenya. Between 1998 and 2010, records at the marriage registry indicate that the number of interracial marriages grew by 85 per cent. This trend reflects the changes in attitudes and declining social barriers between different racial groups.”
The same article goes on to observe that: “In Kenya, there are often mixed reactions to these unions. Some people are clearly not for them, while others approve highly. Whichever way one looks at it, when cupid’s arrow strikes, it does not matter or care about the colour of the skin. Love does not discriminate. It is common knowledge that marriages between certain races are most likely to succeed as compared to others. This is true of White/black marriages. The society [meaning, Kenya] seems to tolerate them more than Afro-Asian marriages . . . The largest numbers of white men who marry African women are Europeans from Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. There are a good number of marriages with men from the UK and France.” (https://www.nation.co.ke) Do the interracial marriages on the increase in Kenya, with mostly European men marrying Kenyan women, bother Professor Iraki as much as Nigerian men marrying Kenya women, seems to? Or, does he suffer, like many Africans, from an inferiority complex towards whites, whereby, marriage of Kenyan women to white men is tolerable, even where Europeans were historically, actually the former colonizers of Kenya and the rest of sub-Sahara Africa?
How exactly is the African Continental Free Trade Areas Agreement (AfCTA) supposed to work with Africans burdened with the mentality and worldview of Professor Iraki?
Professor Emeka Aniagolu is a Political Scientist and taught African and African American Studies for 36 years at Ohio Wesleyan University, Ohio state.
Director-General of Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), Mr. John O. Asein has said that Online service providers, including hosts of e-libraries, would be held responsible for any copyright infractions on their platforms.
Asein, who declared this recently during deliberations with the newly elected executive of Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) at the Commission’s Head Office in Abuja, said that the Commission was paying more attention to online activities with a view to curbing the sale of pirated books through online stores.
Addressing a seven-man delegation led by the new ANA President, Mr. Camillus Ukah, accompanied by its immediate past President, Mr. Denja Abdullahi, the Director-General called on ANA to constitute an anti-piracy committee to interface with the Commission for proactive, sustained and effective anti-piracy campaign.
He decried contract gaps between authors and publishers in the country and indicated that the Commission would collaborate with ANA to develop model contracts to ensure proper rights clearance and adequate remuneration for authors in the book industry.
Noting that the absence of proper contractual agreements between authors and publishers has left many authors with unpleasant experiences, the Director-General also observed the necessity for new business models to ensure adequate recompense for authors, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Stressing the importance of the literary field, Mr. Asein noted that creative writing was the bedrock of the wider creative industry, including Nollywood. In his words: “The movie industry could not have been where it is today without the literary talents turning out excellent film scripts. The author of the film script is often unsung, but they set the tone for good films and, like the faces of Nollywood, these scriptwriters also deserve to be celebrated,” he stated.
The Director-General gave special commendation to the Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka for recently demonstrating his unalloyed commitment to copyright values and lending his voice to denounce copyright infringement and abuses. He said the Commission would be pleased to adopt the Nobel Laurette as a Copyright Champion to help fight book piracy in the country. He called on other notable authors to also step up support for the campaign against copyright piracy.
The Director-General urged ANA members to take advantage of the Commission’s copyright e-registration system and avail themselves of the whistleblowing policy of the NCC by alerting the Commission on suspected pirates for effective enforcement. “We should not allow rogues to take over the copyright space. ANA should intensify its copyright enlightenment campaign and encourage its members to sound an alarm wherever they find pirates at work. The Commission, on its part, pledges to always respond promptly to any alarm,” he stated.
While calling on the new executive to upscale the association’s reading campaign, the Director-General urged ANA to support the efforts of the Nigeria Association of the Blind (NAB) to make more books available in accessible formats for the benefit of blind and visually impaired persons.
He further thanked ANA for helping to sustain the Reproduction Rights Society of Nigeria (REPRONIG) and expressed hope that REPRONIG would be assisted further to become a viable collective management organisation (CMO) for the benefit of Nigerian authors. “When CMOs are threatened with extinction, we owe them a lifeline to keep afloat”, he said.
Mr. Asein commended the enviable legacy of visionary leadership in ANA, adding that the Association has demonstrated quality leadership, worthy of emulation in the creative industry.
The newly elected President of ANA, Mr. Camillus Ukah, stated that the Association was committed to reforms and strengthening of the copyright regime to address gaps in a bid to promote the economic interests of authors and advance the literary industry.
He expressed appreciation for the Commission’s proactive measures towards checking piracy, citing its recent timely intervention to curb the online piracy of books belonging to the literary icon, Professor Wole Soyinka.
Mr. Ukah lauded the Commission’s long-standing cooperation that the Association has enjoyed, particularly during the reform of the copyright system and assured of its continued collaboration with NCC.
The ANA President further assured the Commission that the new executive would work closely with the NCC to promote copyright knowledge among authors and ensure that literary authors continued to use the copyright system optimally.
Representatives of the Commission and ANA were constituted into a working group to identify areas of immediate interest and facilitate collaboration.
Other newly elected ANA executives in attendance were Mrs. Farida Mohammed, Vice President; Mr. Mark Ortserga, General Secretary; Mr. Freeman Okosun, Assistant General Secretary; Mr. Torlafia Benjamin Terhile, Legal Adviser and Mr. Umar Yogizaj, Publicity Secretary, North.
Our site uses cookies. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you direct Law and Society Magazine to store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Statement: cookie policyACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
