By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja.

Since the year 1999, when Nigeria returned to democratic governance, apart from Godwin Kanu Agabi, SAN, Bola Ige, SAN and Adetokunbo Kayode, SAN, every other Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) has been involved subjected to litigation for both their words and actions during their tenure!!!

This is one of the occupational hazards that any occupant of the office of AGF is exposed to.

As the cliches go, the possibility of litigation goes with the territory!!!

However, the purpose of this write-up is to sound a note of warning to the incumbent AGF, who is a neophyte considering that this is his first time holding public office in Nigeria.

There are three sets of persons that are likely to serve as the agent provocateur that goad and lures any AGF to face litigation arising from their line of duty.

The three sets of persons are as follows:

1. politicians;
2. civil servants, and
3. the AGF’s personal desire to enrich themselves through embezzlement of public funds and other personal desires.

Politicians and civil (“evil”) servants whom any AGF must work with are the most dangerous species of humans. 99.9% of the lawsuits that are brought against any AGF are as a result of acting upon the directives, instructions and counsel of both politicians and civil servants!!!

In the case of politicians they often issue both ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL directives and instructions to the AGF which later boomerangs and results in litigation against the AGF.

In the case of civil servants they deploy two methods to entrap any AGF. The two methods are as follows:

1. They inform the AGF that their illegal and unethical methods of doing things is the way that things have been done from time immemorial; and
2. Even if the AGF initially refuses to succumb to the illegal and unethical suggestions of the said civil servants, they would frustrate the said AGF by refusal to implement the “righteous” directives of the said AGF.

A few weeks after the appointment of this incumbent AGF, I held two meetings with his good self at his office at the Federal Ministry of Justice.

The foregoing is based on first-hand experience of my working with three AGFs including the incumbent!!!

For example, a German international donor organisation had offered funding for training of staff of the Federal Ministry of Justice in an aspect of labour law. However, even though this was at no cost to the said Federal Ministry of Justice, and was happy endorsed by the AGF, up till today it has never happened because the civil servants saw no immediate financial benefits of the said training to themselves.

The duty of any AGF is akin to the duty of the historical “night soil men” to the extent that it is their duty to invent legal means to handle and dispose of the unpleasant and often illegal and unethical instructions of politicians and civil servants.

Before the advent of water flushing toilets, even up to the 1980s, the toilets were made of buckets which were evacuated at the end of the week by persons known as “night soil men”.

Below is a brief description of “night soil men” as follows:

A “night soil man” was a person, historically, whose job was to collect human waste, often euphemistically referred to as “night soil,” from privies and other receptacles, typically at night, and transport it for disposal or use as fertilizer.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Historical Context:
The term “night soil” is a historical euphemism for human excreta, and “night soil men” were the workers who removed this waste, usually at night to avoid public scrutiny.

Occupation :
Their work involved scooping waste into barrels or tanks on a wagon, emptying and cleaning privy vaults, and dealing with the often-unpleasant aspects of the job.

Social Significance :
Night soil men were often marginalized, and the work was considered unclean, leading to them being seen as outsiders.

Other Names :
They were sometimes also known as “gong farmers” or “nightmen”.

Modern Usage:
The term “night soil” is now largely seen as historical, with “fecal sludge” and “fecal sludge management” being more common terms used in discussions about sanitation in developing countries.”

Below are some litigation that were faces by previous AGFs as follows:

“On 13th April 2018 it was reported as follows:

“The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled that a former Justice Minister and Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke, cannot be held personally liable for his role in the $1.1 billion Malabu oil scandal.

In a judgement delivered by Justice Binta Nyako on Friday, the court agreed with the submissions of Mr Adoke that his involvement in the controversial deal which resulted in the sale of Nigeria’s oil well, OPL 245, was in compliance with his constitutional duties.

In a suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in December 2016, Mr Adoke, a former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Dan Etete, and other defendants were accused of fraudulent diversion of $1.1 billion in the controversial transaction.

In a reaction to that charge, however, Mr Adoke sued the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, asking the court to declare his trial for the said transaction illegal.

Mr Adoke requested the court to determine whether by virtue of sections 5(1), 147(1), 148(1) and 150(1) of the 1999 Constitution a serving minister can perform the “executive power of federation vested on the president as directed by the president.”

Section 5(1) of the Constitution deals with the executive power of the president and how such powers can be exercise or delegated.

Section 147(1) and 148(1) outlines the duties and responsibilities of ministers and how those responsibilities are exercised in accordance with the wishes of the president while Section 150 (1) specifically deals with the responsibilities of the AGF.

Mr Adoke submitted that his entire involvement in the OPL 245 oil deal was “in full compliance to lawful directives given to him,” by former President Goodluck Jonathan.

He prayed the court to declare that he cannot be held personally liable for actions emanating from his obedience to lawful directives made by the president.”

In the year 2019, it was reported as follows:

“The immediate past Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mallam Abubakar Malami will on June 14, 2019 face the Disciplinary Panel the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee over a prejudicial statement made against the detained former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki.

The Hearing Notice obtained by PRNigeria which was signed by Patricia Orhomuru Esq, the Secretary Disciplinary Committee of the Legal Practitioners’ Privilege Committee has a reference No: PET/LPPC/23/2018 and dated May 16, 2019.

The Notice read in part: “Take notice that the above matter is fixed for hearing by the Disciplinary Committee of the Legal Practitioner Privileged Committee of the Office of Registrar Supreme Court of Nigeria Abuja on June 14, 2019 at 11.00 o’clock in the forenoon.

Malami is expected to face the panel for investigation in a statement credited to him in the Voice of America (VOA) Hausa Service on July 13, 2018 in which he was quoted that Dasuki would not be released despite all subsisting court orders for his release on bails.

In the audio recording of the interview he granted VOA, Malami had accused Dasuki of being responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 Nigerians during Jonathan’s era.

In the interview, Malami had said; “Remember, we are talking about a person who was instrumental to the deaths of over 100,000 people. Are you saying that the rights of one person are more important than that of 100,000 who lost their lives?”

Another example of a lawsuit against a former AGF is reported as follows:

“On February 23, 2022
Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun of the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment delivered on December 10, 2021, affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar division, which had earlier upheld a Federal High Court decision that barred the former Minister under late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s administration from occupying public office in Nigeria.

A former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Michael Aondoakaa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, has been barred from holding public office in the country for life.
Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun of the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment delivered on December 10, 2021, affirmed a judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar division, which had earlier upheld a Federal High Court decision that barred the former Minister under late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s administration from occupying public office in Nigeria.”

In the year February 2019, it was reported as follows:

“Bayo Ojo (SAN), former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, on Thursday admitted receiving a “compensation” of $10million from former Petroleum Minister Dan Etete for his work as a legal adviser in the sale of OPL 245.

Ojo made the admission in a passage of his examination in Milan in the ongoing trial of former top officials of Royal Dutch Shell and Italian Agip-Eni over the payment of $1.092billion to Etete, the former Minister who awarded himself the lucrative OPL 245 by willing it to Malabu Oil and Gas, a company he had earlier set up using a false identity. He was also convicted of money laundering in an unrelated case in France in 2007.

Among the defendants in the matter are the CEO of the ‘Dog six-legged’, Claudio Descalzi; his predecessor, Paolo Scaroni; their accuser and former Manager of the Sahara area, Vincenzo Armanna; and also the same company and Shell.

Ojo admitted, in fact, that the worth of his compensation was $50million but he only received a part.”

By Mabel Adinya Ade

A nation’s strength is not only measured by its economic power, military might, or political influence. It is also gauged by the values it upholds, the dignity it grants its people, and the level of inclusivity and respect embedded within its institutions. Today, Nigeria stands at a dangerous crossroads. The recent developments in the 10th National Assembly, marked by physical and verbal abuse, character assassination, and an alarming display of disregard for women, are not just political scandals they are a symptom of a larger decay that threatens the very soul of our democracy.

When a young senator physically and verbally abuses a Bolt driver, it signals a troubling trend of impunity among those who should be model citizens. When Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, a woman who has fought against corruption and injustice, is met with unimaginable dehumanising abuses, online bullying by some of her colleagues in the Senate and an unjust suspension at the hands of Senate President Godswill Akpabio, it exposes a legislature that has abandoned decorum and fairness. When Senator Onyebuchi Onyebonyi launches public insults Hon. Senator Natasha and demeaning words at women, including a former Minister of Education, it underscores the systemic misogyny that continues to thrive in Nigerian politics.

But beyond these individual incidents lies a more sinister reality. This culture of unchecked power, where leaders believe they can disrespect, humiliate, and attack women with impunity, seeps into society at large. Today, Nigeria is witnessing an increase in the brutalization of women and girls ritual killings targeting young girls, rising cases of rape and gender-based violence, and domestic violence that has claimed the lives of countless women, often at the hands of their own husbands. This week alone, I have read the news report of a husband who butchered his wife, a police officer who constantly raped a 12 and 23 year old girls at gun point and the 13 year old is pregnant. I have lost count of the number of girls brutally murdered and their organs removed. I have read of young boys killing even their mothers for money rituals. I have read and seen many girls that were trafficked. I have written a few articles about these terrible happenings.

What future can we speak of when the very leaders who should champion justice and equality are the ones perpetuating oppression? What kind of democracy are we building when women in leadership are bullied into silence while those in the grassroots suffer in greater numbers, with no one to speak for them?

A Nation in Moral Crisis

The Nigerian Senate should be the highest platform for decorum, intellectual engagement, and policy-driven discussions. Instead, it has become an arena for public humiliation, power play, and gender-based degradation. When a senator one of the few women in the chamber is silenced through unjust means, it sends a loud message: that women, no matter how competent, are unwelcome in governance. It emboldens men in society who already see women as lesser beings.

The consequence of this is evident in our homes and streets. More young girls are being lured into dangerous situations, their lives cut short in ritual killings. More women are dying in the hands of abusive husbands. More cases of sexual violence are reported daily, yet justice remains elusive. The normalcy of these horrors is proof that we are breeding a generation of men who see violence as a tool of power and a generation of women who live in fear of speaking out.

The Need for Urgent Intervention

Progressive leaders across the world are pushing for the inclusion of women, girls, and marginalized groups in governance and decision-making. They recognize that societies thrive when the voices of all are heard. Yet, in Nigeria, we are witnessing a backward slide an environment where women in politics are bullied out of their seats, where misogyny is given a stage, and where gender-based violence is dismissed as mere domestic issues.

Women bring a different perspective to leadership, one rooted in empathy, inclusivity, and long-term planning. They see the impact of policies not just in economic numbers but in human realities. A nation that silences its women silences half of its potential. A democracy that sidelines its women is not a democracy at all.

We cannot afford to normalize this descent into lawlessness and moral decay. Civil society, human rights organizations, and the Nigerian people must demand accountability from their leaders. We must push for legislative reforms that protect women in leadership and criminalize all forms of abuse, including online bullying and character assassination. We must stand against the growing wave of violence against women and girls, ensuring that perpetrators face the full force of the law.

This nonsense of total disrespect for human rights, the law and abuse of democracy is not just a women’s fight it is Nigeria’s fight. The very fabric of our democracy is at stake. If we continue to allow the abuse, intimidation, and degradation of women at the highest levels of government, what hope is there for the ordinary girl child? What hope is there for the young woman dreaming of leadership?

Every sane mind in this country must rise against this trend. We must refuse to let impunity reign. We must demand a Nigeria where respect, integrity, and inclusion are the foundation of governance.

A country that disrespects its women is a country that disrespects its future. And without change, that future is bleak.

Mabel Adinya Ade
Executive Director,
Adinya Arise Foundation (AAF)
8 EKET Close Area 8 Garki Abuja

By Sylvester Udemezue

Admitted to the largest Bar in Africa in 1991, Okey I. Anichebe was the first lawyer to come from Umulokpa Town, just as Christopher Alexander Sapara Williams was the first lawyer in Nigeria. Accordingly, Okey Anichebe was a pioneer of the legal profession in Umulokpa

He had opened the door and led the way for Umulokpa’s entry into the law profession; we then followed the path he opened, into the legal profession, a peregrination we do not regret.

Learned senior, Okey was a top-notch in Zenith Bank’s Legal Department.

I must say that unknown to many, Mr Okey Anichebe had contributed a lot to my growth in one special way: just as our views and opinions are different in the same way our faces are different, we enrich our reservoir of knowledge and wisdom when we are treated to different sides of every arguments and issues. On a great deal of a lot of issues, Mr Anichebe and I held different opinions – i. e., disagreed, yes, we did – which I think was normal because being on different sides of discussions gave me an opportunity to learn a lot; holding different opinions encouraged me to consistently and persistently be on research and objective verification of all information available to me, and of all my positions on every and all such subjects, all towards, in search of, and in promotion of, truth. Such consistent efforts at research and verification increased the horizons of my knowledge and wisdom which wouldn’t have been possible if I did not have someone who never agreed with me nor ever believed in me.

Truth is, speaking generally, there’s hardly anything anyone can learn from anyone else who always agrees with one, but from one with whom one always disagree. A philosopher once said that “The greatest learning comes from those who challenge your assumptions”. Thus, he who has learned to disagree without being disagreeable has discovered the most valuable secret of a diplomat. As Linus Pauling put it, “The only way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas….”. Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate. Great leaders are those who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand. Accordingly, as Robert Jones Jr. wrote, “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” Thank you, learned senior, sir; you’ve played your part according to your convictions. Unfortunately, death struck without notice to cut short a huge voice. Sad!

An unfortunate, sudden death! Death is a certainty, an inevitable realization, the only thing that we know will befall us. Indeed, just like birth, aging and sickness, death too is an inescapable reality of life. This emphasizes its certainty and undeniable nature, and encourages people to cherish life by acknowledging that death will eventually end the life we live. However, as Laura Bohannan’s said, “We all owe life a death, an inevitable death which we can meet. But the unnecessary death that wastes life denies all consolation.” In my opinion, the present death is a huge tragedy to us all – tragic to Enugu-na-Uwani, to Akiyi-Umulokpa, to Uzo-Uwani, to Enugu State, and to Nigeria. We have lost a notable figure. Unfortunate!

Dear Mr Okey I. Anichebe, LL.M, Barrister and Solicitor of Supreme Court of Nigeria, I would miss my elder brother and a great lawyer. Sir, rest in peace in the Lord’s exalted bosom. Amen🙏

Respectfully,
§¢µð𝓮̂𝓶𝓮̂𝔃µ𝓮̂
Sylvester Udemezue (udems),
Legal Adviser,
Akiyi-Umulokpa Town Union (ATU).
(02 April 2025)

By Tiamiyu Aliyu Imogbemi

The power of a court to correct clerical errors, accidental slips, or omissions in its own judgment is well-established in Nigerian jurisprudence. It is a power rooted in both procedural rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the courts to ensure that justice is not hindered by inadvertent technical mistakes. However, the exercise of this power is subject to clear limits: it must not become a vehicle for the substantive review or re-evaluation of the case under the guise of correction.

It is now well settled beyond any doubt that where a judgment is in need of clarification or correction in respect of clerical slips or omissions, the same court that delivered the judgment is empowered under the law to make such corrections. This position was affirmed in Asiyanbi & Ors. v. Adeniji (1967) 1 All NLR 82, and has since been followed and applied by the courts in several cases, including Umunna & Ors. v. Okwuraiwe & Ors. (1978) 6–7 SC 1 and Berliet (Nig.) Ltd. v. Kachalla (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt. 420) 478 at 493–494.

In Umunna & Ors. v. Okwuraiwe & Ors., the trial court had mistakenly assumed that the plaintiffs sought a declaration of title to land, and accordingly entered a non-suit against them. However, during the delivery of judgment, the plaintiffs’ counsel drew the court’s attention to the fact that the actual relief sought was a declaration for exclusive possession. Upon realizing the error, the trial judge invoked the court’s inherent power, and relying on the slip rule under Order 20 Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England, 1965 (then applicable), corrected the judgment and delivered a proper decision in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim for exclusive possession. The court also found in their favor on the claims for damages and injunction, all without inviting further address from counsel.

Dissatisfied, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the trial judge erred in correcting the judgment without first inviting counsel to address the court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Obaseki, J.S.C., delivering the lead judgment, held that in addition to the powers under the rules of court, the trial court possesses original or inherent power to correct any slip or omission in its judgment, provided the error is brought to its attention at the time of delivering the judgment.

The principle was similarly affirmed in Berliet (Nig.) Ltd. v. Kachalla, where the Supreme Court held that even where the judge who delivered the original judgment is unavailable, another judge of the High Court is, by virtue of the general powers granted under sections 6(6)(a) and 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution [now sections 6(6)(a) and 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution], in as good a position to correct any palpable clerical errors, accidental slips, or omissions in the judgment. This further underscores that the power to correct errors resides not solely in the individual judge but in the court itself.

In Federal Public Trustee v. Mrs. C. A. Sobamowo (1967) NMLR 350, Taylor, C.J., acting as trial judge, rightly exercised the power to correct accidental slips or omissions in the judgment and orders of the court. This was affirmed by the appellate court, which regarded his intervention as proper and within the limits of the court’s corrective powers.

The courts have therefore established that the correction of clerical errors and accidental omissions is permissible, whether by the same judge who delivered the judgment or by another judge of the same court, and such correction may be made either under specific procedural rules or by exercising the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

However, while courts enjoy this power, it is not without limits. Where a judgment contains an error or omission on a matter of law, the court cannot correct it, even if it appears on the face of the judgment or order. This restriction is aimed at preserving the finality of judgments and preventing courts from revisiting or re-evaluating matters already adjudicated under the guise of correction.

This limitation was clearly stated in the English cases of Bright v. Sellar (1904) 1 K.B. 6 and Re: Gist (1904) 1 Ch. 398, both of which were cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Umunna & Ors. v. Okwuraiwe & Ors. (supra). The guiding principle from these authorities is that the power to correct should not be used to alter a substantive finding of the court or to review a concluded decision.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this boundary in Race Auto Supply Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Alhaja Faosat Akib [2006] 13 NWLR (Pt. 997) 333 at 352–354. In that case, the appellants sought to have Shitta-Bey, J. determine the specific time at which the 1st appellant was to cede four shops and two stores in a reconstructed property pursuant to a consent judgment earlier delivered by Obadina, J. The trial court treated the application as one seeking clarification or correction of an accidental omission. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. In dismissing the appeal, the court held that what the appellants sought went far beyond the scope of a clerical error or accidental slip. The issue of timing, which the trial court attempted to determine, required interpretation of the consent judgment, which is not permissible under the guise of correction. Mohammed, J.S.C., emphasized that Shitta-Bey, J. was not entitled, either inherently or by statute, to subject the judgment to interpretation, particularly in a manner that effectively reviewed the consent terms.

This important distinction has been consistently maintained in various decisions, including Alao v. A.C.B. Ltd. (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt. 672) 264 at 299–300, Sodipo v. Lemminkainen OY (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 547, Speaker, Bendel State House of Assembly v. Okoye (1983) 7 SC 85, and Minister of Lagos Affairs, Mines and Powers v. Akin-Olugbade (1974) 9 NSCC 489. In all these cases, the courts emphasized that a court becomes functus officio once judgment is delivered, and it cannot, under the cover of correcting a slip, undertake a re-evaluation of the issues or re-interpret its findings.

By and large, Nigerian courts possess the power, both inherent and procedural, to correct clerical errors, accidental slips, or omissions in their judgments. This authority is essential to ensuring that judgments accurately reflect the court’s intention and are not undermined by unintended mistakes. However, this power must be exercised within its narrow limits. Courts may not revisit, interpret, or vary the substance of their judgments under the guise of correction. Any correction that touches on substantive matters must be left to appellate intervention. The careful balancing of these principles preserves both the integrity of the judicial process and the finality of judgments.

If you found this discussion insightful, let’s connect or share your thoughts below!

Tiamiyu Aliyu Imogbemi is a law graduate of Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto

Contact: 09027976446, Email: [email protected]