Enugu based Legal Practitioner and the originator of the Online Petition calling for the suspension of the AGF’s SAN rank, Mr. Izu Aniagu has petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria over the numerous sins of the Attorney General of the Federation.

In  the detailed petition sent to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mohammed Tanko, Mr. Aniagu narrated the gravity of the various acts allegedly committed by the AGF against the legal Profession.

Aniagu urged the CJN to take appropriate steps to address the act of unpardonable impunities emanating from the office of the Attorney General of the federation and Minister of justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN.

BarristerNG recalls that about 10,000 lawyers signed the Online Petition by Mr. Aniagu when it was published online.

Mr. Izu Aniagu Esq

Read the full petition Below

1st October, 2020

The Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman,
Legal Practioners’ Privileges Committee,
Supreme Court of Nigeria Complex,
Three Arms Zone,
Abuja.

Through:

The Chief Registrar of Supreme Court and Secretary of the
Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee,
Secretariat of the Legal Practioners’ Privileges Committee,
Supreme Court of Nigeria Complex
Ground Floor, Abuja.

Your Lordship,

SUSPENSION OF THE RANK OF SENIOR ADVOCATE OF NIGERIA AND ALL RELATED RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ON MR. ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SAN, ON THE GROUNDS OF CORRUPTION, ABUSE OF OFFICE, BALKANIZATION AND INTIMIDATION OF THE NIGERIAN BAR AND THE JUDICIARY.
Please, accept and record this letter as my petition against the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, with reference to the subject matter also captured therein.

This petition, first and foremost, arose in view of the recent Statutory Instrument No. 15 of 2020 (the “Instrument”) issued by Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN, which purportedly amended the 2007 Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC). The said amendment effectively removed certain provisions, including the provisions on stamp and seal for legal practitioners and payment of practicing fee.

It would be recalled, my Lord, that the above amendment of the RPC evoked agitated reactions from Nigerian lawyers and was also greeted with so much anger even from among ordinary people for not following procedure as prescribed by the enabling law.

Section 12 (4) of the Legal Practitioners Act (as amended) confers the power to issue rules of professional conduct for legal practitioners, and any amendments thereto, on the General Council of the Bar (the “Bar Council”). The Bar Council comprises the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, the Honourable Attorneys-General of the thirty-six states of Nigeria, and twenty members of the NBA. Consequently, the RPC and any amendments thereto may only be validly issued after it has been deliberated upon and approved at a properly convened meeting of the Bar Council.

My Lord, there is, unfortunately, no evidence of a meeting convened by members of the Bar Council with respect to the said instrument. As a matter of fact, no member admitted to have been issued with notice of any meeting leading to some of them vowing to challenge the action of the Attorney General in the law court. Therefore, to that extent, it is only safe to conclude that the Attorney General of the Federation acted unilaterally and illegally in his decision to amend the RPC.

My Lord, the action of Mr. Abubakar Malami should have been ordinarily glossed over as a mere “passion of the moment”. However, doing so at this point will be dangerous, especially in view of his habitual desecration of the legal profession since his assumption of office. Mr. Abubakar Malami, from inception has abused his position to the extent that further indifference to his impunity, which of course has already pervaded the entire judicial process, will inevitably lead to the implosion of the legal profession in Nigeria.

Aside his other malfeasance, by circumventing the Bar Council to arrogate to himself the unilateral power to make laws for the body of the legal profession, Mr. Malami has shown his unpretentious loathing for the rule of law and as such must be punished in accordance with the laid down procedures.

The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) by virtue of section 5 (7) of the LPA CAP L11 LFN, 2004 is saddled with the responsibility to make the guidelines and confer the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria to qualified legal practitioners in Nigeria. The guidelines contain certain criteria that must be considered for the conferment/withdrawal of the rank, which must not only pre-exist in a candidate but must inure in him even after the conferment of the rank. Some of these criteria as provided in Paragraph 19 (1) of the Guidelines are as follows:
“a candidate must demonstrate high professional and personal integrity; be honest and straightforward in all his professional/personal dealings; be of good character and reputation; show observance of the Code of Conduct and etiquette at the Bar; and demonstrate high level of understanding of cultural and social diversity characteristic of the Nigerian Society”. See also Sub-paragraph (17) (a) which provides “that a candidate should demonstrate clear qualities of leadership and loyalty to the legal profession.”

My Lord, Mr. Malami has overtime demonstrated uncommon disregard and disloyalty to the legal profession. His unilateral issuance of a new RPC has deepened the division among lawyers. He is accused to have unilaterally amended the RPC with intendment to facilitate the breakaway of lawyers from the northern part of the country from the national body and create a factional body known as the Northern Bar Association.

It is a public record, my Lord, that some group of lawyers from the north in the guise of protesting the disinvitation of Governor Nasir El-Rufai by the NBA to her annual Bar Conference, wrote to the Attorney General and demanded his endorsement and recognition of a splinter body. It is also on record, that following that demand, Mr. Malami, responded a few days after by issuing a new RPC. The timing of his illegal action which unfortunately coincided with the time the new leadership of NBA was trying to settle grievances generated during the bar election has brought a sad day in the legal profession.

There’s no doubt that Mr. Malami’s action is a clear contravention of the guidelines which provide for honesty, straightforwardness and loyalty to one’s professional/personal dealings. He is also guilty for failing to understand the cultural and social diversity characteristic of the Nigerian Society as provided in the Guidlines. This is because, rather than demonstrating leadership, Mr. Malami exploited the misunderstanding arising from the diversity in culture and opinion among legal practitioners to alter the power of a united bar in favour of a select few.

My Lord, while we agree with Mr. Malami that every citizen of Nigeria has the right to freedom of association and right to conduct his or her cases in the law courts, the requirement of NBA’s stamp and seal has never been to prejudice those rights. The RPC only seeks to checkmate the activities of quacks parading as lawyers. Without a strong body and/or instruments to checkmate practitioners, my Lord will agree with me that every profession will undoubtedly go the way of the dogs.

Going further, my Lord, it is also a well known fact that Mr. Abubakar Malami, as the Attorney General and Minister of justice, has been in the eyes of the storm for many wrong reasons including wanton disregard to court orders, lack of diligent prosecution, failure to prosecute, shielding of suspects, usurpation of offices, indiscriminate filing of nolle prosequi and/or withdrawal of cases, as well as bias and corruption.

By virtue of Paragraph 25 (1) (a) of the Guidelines, “the rank of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria may be withdrawn from any person holding the rank by the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee if the person is adjudged to have conducted himself in a manner incompatible with the dignity and honour of the rank; or guilty of professional misconduct.”

Mr. Malami, by persistently obstructing the cause of justice, even as the chief law officer of the federation, has conducted himself in a manner incompatible with the dignity and honour of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

On November 18, 2018, through a lawyer from his office, Pius Akuta, Mr. Malami withdrew a fraud case filed by the EFCC at Lagos High Court against John Abebe, younger brother to late Stella Obasanjo. As the Attorney General of the Federation, he also filed for the discontinuation of a N25 billion criminal charge against Senator Danjuma Goje without any justification after over seven years of diligent investigation and prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Furthermore, my Lord, Mr. Malami withdrew a criminal case against the Chairman, Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), Danladi Umar; and also demanded for the withdrawal of the cases against Mohammed Bello Adoke, Diezani Alison-Madueke and others involved in the Malabu Oil scandal.

As the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, Mr. Malami also withdrew criminal charges against soldiers accused of killing police officers and a civilian in the bid to aid the escape of billionaire kidnapper, Bala Hamisu, popularly known as Wadume; and also suspended the investigation of alleged fraud in Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL).

Other ignominious acts by the Attorney General, my Lord, include halting the prosecution of former Comptroller General of Customs, Mohammed Inde Dikko, shielding the ex-Customs boss from refunding of $8million to the governmen; and writing a letter dated 16th December, 2016 withdrawing the case of fraud filed against Godsday Orubebe, former Minister for Niger Delta; as well as the reinstatement of Abdulrasheed Maina, former Chairman of the Pension Reform Task Team, into the Federal Civil Service Commission without due process.

My Lord, Mr. Malami is also accused of auctioning of sea vessels holding crude oil seized by the Federal Government, violating Section 31(2) and (4) of the EFCC Act 2004. He is also said to have authorized the sale of vessels by companies under EFCC prosecution for similar offence of illegal bunkering. Furthermore, he was indicted of duplicity of payment of $16.9million fees to two friends as new lawyers for the recovery of the loot traced to a former Head of State, Sani Abacha, after a Swiss lawyer, Enrico Monfrini, who helped in the recovery was fully paid by the previous government.

Going further, my Lord, Mr. Malami has also consistently disobeyed court orders by refusing to release persons who have been granted bail by competent courts of jurisdiction such as the leader of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, Sheikh Ibraheem El-Zakzaky; National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd.), as well as the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Nnamdi Kanu who remained in custody for over three years despite being granted bail by courts.

There are also serious allegations that Mr. Malami shadily acquired assets worth billions of Naira after his appointment as the Attorney General and Minister of justice. These assets include Rayhaan Hotels worth about N500million, located at opposite Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Zaria Road, Kano State; a property worth about N600million located at Ahmadu Bello Way, Nasarawa GRA, Kano; a newly constructed school at the back of Nitel at Gesse Phase 1, Birni Kebbi, Kebbi State, worth about N700million. Other assets include property allegedly built by Malami for his son located at Gesse Phase II in Birni Kebbi worth over N400million; a mansion known as Azbir Arena allegedly built by Malami for his second son; Azbir Arena, an entertainment centre worth over N3billion, with a big plaza and kids playing centre and hotel, all combined in one expansive property.

My Lord, the above accusations against Mr. Malami are too weighty to be ignored and therefore requires an urgent reactions. To this extent, my Lord, we demand that the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee should immediately commence a process to withdraw the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from Mr. Abubakar Malami. The withdrawal of the rank can be done before setting up inquiry into the matter to ascertain his level of his innocence. This is in accordance with Paragraph 25 (2) of the Guidelines which provide thus:
“The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee may suspend a legal practitioner from the use of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria pending the determination of any disciplinary action, complaint or prosecution against such a legal practitioner.”

My Lord, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee has always demonstrated a strong capacity to discipline Senior Advocates of Nigeria. In 2010, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee debarred and ostracized Michael Kaase Aondoakaa SAN, a former Attorney-General of Nigeria and Minister of Justice following a petition written by Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) against him for subverting the rule of law in the country.

The Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee also in 2018 suspended the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria on one Mrs. Oluwatoyin Ajoke Bashorun over her refusal to pay rent for nine years on a rented property she occupied. In the same way, the committee also announced the withdrawal of the rank from Mr. Kunle Ogunba for abusing court process and derailing the course of justice. My Lord, without doubt, none of the above instances of misconducts could have been as fatal, gloomy and destructive as the many allegations of infringement against Mr. Malami.

My Lord, the level of confidence that a nation’s justice system enjoys depends on how far those heading the system are willing to observe the written laws themselves. To this extent, we urge my Lord to take appropriate steps to address the act of unpardonable impunities emanating from the office of the Attorney General of the federation and Minister of justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN.

May my Lord be pleased.

Yours faithfully,

Izu Aniagu Esq

Cc: The President,
Nigerian Bar Association,
National Secretariat,
NBA House,
Plot 1101 Mohammadu Buhari Way,
Central Business District, Abuja,
F.C.T, Nigeria.

OWERRI – Contrary to reports in some newspapers, the Justice Benjamin Iheaka Panel of Inquiry which investigated the award of contracts in Imo State is specific on the administration of former Governor Rochas Okorocha, according to a statement by the Imo State Government.

Mr Oguwike Nwachku, Special Adviser/Chief Press Secretary to Governor Hope Uzodinma in the statement clarifying the report submitted the governor on Monday, said: “Recall that the Panel submitted its report to Governor Hope Uzodimma on Monday, October 5, indicting the Okorocha regime and saying it uncovered fraudulent contracts worth N106billion which the regime should be made to refund.

“Consequently, the report by a local newspaper, Nigerian Watchdog, that former Governors Achike Udenwa and Ikedi Ohakim are to refund N106 billion together with Okorocha should be ignored as the probe period did not extend to their regimes.

“The mix-up arising from the duration of the probe – 2011 to 2019 – and not -2006 to 2019 – is highly regretted.”

The International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) Nigeria has called on Security Agencies to secure the release of its member, Ms Paulette Bisola Ajayi, who was recently abducted in Rivers State

This is contained in a statement signed by FIDA Nigeria’s Country Vice-President/National President, Mrs Rhoda Tyoden and National Publicity Secretary, Eliana Martins made available to TheNigeriaLawyer (TNL)

“FIDA Nigeria received the shocking and terrible news yesterday of the abduction of her Rivers State Branch Member, Ms Paulette Bisola Ajayi, by four fully armed men in front of her home in Port Harcourt.

“We join in calling for the prompt safe release of Ms. Paulette Ajayi by her abductors and appeal to the Security operatives to put all machinery to rescue this young and promising lawyer.

“We further appeal to the Governor His Excellency Ezenwo Nyesom Wike, to put all resources at his disposal in place to assist in the immediate rescue of our colleague.” the statement reads in part

FIDA also sympathized with the family and mother of the abducted who sustained injuries while trying to save her daughter.

“Our hearts go out to her family especially her mother Mrs. Ngozi Kathryn Ajayi, a past ViceChairperson and active member of the same FIDA Rivers State Branch. We also pray for her quick recovery as she was seriously brutalized while trying to save her daughter from the hands of the abductors.”

Furthermore, FIDA commended the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) for setting up Task Force regarding the abduction and urged all those who know the whereabouts of Paulette Ajayi to provide information

FIDA said, “FIDA Nigeria commends the prompt action of the NBA National President, Mr. Olumide Akpata, in this matter; we repose our confidence in the six-member task force he has set up and offer our full support.

“We similarly call for assistance from well-meaning Nigerians with key information about the whereabouts of Paulette Ajayi to come forward with the requisite information.

“The issue of security of lives and property in the country is of paramount importance and the
government must step up in dealing with this menace daily plaguing our communities. All around Nigeria the story is the same. Prompt cohesive action is required by the Government to save Nigerians.”

Access to Justice (A2J) has accused President Muhammadu Buhari of abusing his powers in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

The group, in a statement entitled: “Appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court:  President Buhari’s antics sets alarm off on the future of the Nigerian Judiciary”, said the manner the President handled the appointment to the Bench of the country’s apex court  ”damaged the integrity and independence of the Judiciary in Nigeria’’.

The statement,  signed by A2J’s Convener Joseph Otteh and Project Director Deji Ajare, claimed that the President’s actions created suspicions about the independence of Supreme Court Justices and could kindle in-fighting and jostling within the court itself.

“His antics speak also to blackmail; the President tells the Judiciary that if his favoured names are not submitted for appointment, no other persons recommended to him by the NJC will be appointed into the Supreme Court. And the Judiciary apparently got the message!”

Access to Justice recalled that “in October 2019, the National Judicial Council (NJC) submitted a list of four serving Justices of the Court of Appeal, Justices Adamu Jauro, Emmanuel A. Agim, Samuel Oseji and Helen M.Ogunwumiju, to the President of Nigeria, for appointment as Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

“Until August 31, 2020 – i.e. nearly one year – the President did not forward the aforesaid names to the Senate for confirmation.

“By mid-August 2020, the NJC again submitted another list of four Justices of the Court of Appeal to the President for appointment into the Supreme Court. The four comprise Justices Lawal Garba, Addu Aboki, I. M. M. Saulawa and Tijjani Abubakar.

“On the 31st of August 2020, the President submitted the names of the first and second sets of nominees for appointment to the Supreme Court of Nigeria to the Senate for confirmation.

“The Senate read the letter asking for confirmation of the nominees on the 29th of September, 2020.

“Therefore, while it took about 11 months for Nigeria’s President to send names of the first set of nominees for Supreme Court positions to the Senate for confirmation, it took just about two weeks to do so for the latter set of nominees.”

The group noted that the Presidency has offered no explanations for what it described as “a huge and remarkable contrast in the pace with which it acted on the recommendations of the NJC with respect to both sets of nominations”.

According to the group, the processes leading to the recommendations of both sets of nominees for appointment to the Supreme Court were unarguably flawed, given that the NJC and the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), did not observe the requirements of the applicable Judicial Appointment Guidelines regarding notification and publicity for the vacancies, alongside offering an opportunity and level-playing field to every qualified person to be considered for selection as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

It argued that the FJSC  withheld information of its “compliance” procedures in spite of Freedom of Information Requests made to it by Access to Justice.

“Therefore, it appears reasonable to conclude that the President’s reluctance to act on the first setof nominations sent to him in October 2019 was not as a result of any flaws or defects with the process leading to the nominations.

The group asked: “So why did the President wait for so long before acting on the NJC recommendations, even when it was clear that the Supreme Court was, following the retirement of six of its eighteen justices within the last year, functioning at breaking point for so long? In spite of the volatile inferences that can be drawn from his actions, the President has not found it fitting to offer any explanations with respect to these nominations?.”

It said: “The impression all of this creates is that the President was set on manipulating how the Supreme Court is configured, politically and ethnically, now and for the near future; he wanted to determine how seniority amongst the Justices of the Supreme Court is ordered as well as which Justices of the Court can be expected to succeed to the highest judicial office as Chief Justice of Nigeria.

“The President’s letter to the Senate makes specific mention of the confirmation being “according to their ranking of seniority at the Court of Appeal”.

“The conduct of the entire process leads to the conclusion that the Presidency had withheld from seeking the confirmation of, and making the appointments of the four Justices whose names were on the first set of recommendations from the NJC simply because it was targeting the inclusion of further names for appointment to the Supreme Court,  names that were not included in the first list.

“Furthermore, that the President was willing to wait out the occurrence of that event, as well as ensure that its targets did not lose their comparable rankings with earlier nominated persons notwithstanding that the Supreme Court was almost collapsing with overbearing workloads due to its lean workforce.

“The President has also created unpalatable public suspicions about his motives for delaying the Supreme Court appointments, and, in fact, some sections of the public have alleged there is a quid pro quo motive involved in it.”

The group said the  Presidency’s interference with appointments into Supreme Court appointments further undermines the integrity and independence of the court, and politicizes membership of a court that ought to be a neutral, impartial, non-partisan and non-political institution.

It said the precedent the President had set would diminish the stature of the Supreme Court, as well as promote similar efforts in the future to manipulate the process along lines of vested or opportunistic  interests.

“The Presidency has abused its powers of the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, belittling it also by antics, which only serve overarching parochial, selfish interests.

“While the President has often voiced support for judicial reform and respect for the Judiciary, what he does in actual fact belie the rhetoric. President Buhari has inflicted incalculable long-term damage to the integrity and independence of the Judiciary in Nigeria,” it stated.

For the past few weeks, the Imo State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Law No. 2 of 2020 has dominated discourse and generated controversies among concerned individuals, including legal practitioners, human rights activists, civil society groups, within the state and beyond.
  
Particular attention was on section 484 of the law, which provides that the governor can detain anyone at his pleasure. The section says: “Where any person is ordered to be detained during the governor’s pleasure, he shall notwithstanding anything in this law or in any other written law be liable to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the governor may direct and whilst so detained shall be deemed to be in legal custody”.

Also, section 485 provides: (1) A person detained during the governor’s pleasure may at any time be discharged by the governor on license. (2) A license under subsection (1) of this section may be in such form and may contain such conditions as the Governor may direct. (3) A license under this section may at any time be revoked or varied by the governor and where license has been revoked, the person to whom the license relates shall proceed to such place as the governor may direct and if he fails to do so, may be arrested without a warrant and taken to such place.
  
Many people have given different interpretations to the above sections and have spoken for or against the chief proponents of the law, in this case, the state House of Assembly and the governor.
  
Observers say the most ridiculous of the words used in framing the law is expressed in the phrase, “governor’s pleasure”. Some have also questioned the legality of the law because it permits the governor to detain people at his pleasure against the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria that guarantees fundamental rights to citizens.
  
A former commissioner for information and Professor of Law, Nnamdi Obiaraeri, while delivering a lecture as part of the 2020 assizes legal year in Owerri recently, described both sections of the law as draconian, stressing that they vested too much power on the governor to order and detain anyone.

The two sections of the law, to some persons, equally imply that the governor can detain a suspect at will and direct the custody in which such a person is to be kept. The Guardian learned that a member representing Oguta in the state, Frank Ugboma, sponsored the bill that birthed the law. Governor Hope Uzodimma signed the law on March 11, 2020, after it had passed all the due processes.

However, Ugboma who is also the Deputy Minority leader of the Assembly has in a recent press statement denied knowledge of the controversial sections of the law.

He insisted that the sections were not part of the bill he presented and sponsored, nor were they deliberated on the floor of the House as expected.
  
He further stated that both sections must have been smuggled into the law by unknown people. “It is the hand of Esau,” he quipped and described it as “an evil manipulation to throw Imo people into the dungeon.”The statement reads: “As the chief sponsor of the bill, I have had cause to search through all the documents that cumulated into the bill. I have done this repeatedly and have equally taken further pains in reaching out to my colleagues in the House. I must admit that they have each expressed shock over the sudden obnoxious sections of the Law, more particularly section 484 of the said ACJL of Imo State.
  
“For the avoidance of doubt, the bill I presented had about a total of 372 sections. How and where it was amended, recreated, and reshaped into 484 Sections and beyond remains a mystery and a legislative wonder of our time, as what I presented and circulated to my colleagues during plenary, both in the first and second readings did not contain such obnoxious and embarrassing section 484. Neither was it deliberated in the House Committee of the whole. It indeed never existed in the House.
  
“No one has been able to explain to the members of the 9th House how and at what stage the said section 484 was inserted into the bill. It smacks of evil manipulation to throw Imo people into the dungeon.
  
“As a lawyer, I have had cause to fight against such obnoxious laws and as an activist, there is no way this section would have scaled through the plenary in the 9th House, which I am part of. All of us are already potential victims of these obnoxious sections. Not even those who planted this calculated affront on the Constitution are exempted.”According to him, the provision is a nullity ab initio in view of the unambiguous provisions of sections 1(1), (3), 4,5,6, and 36 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). Describing it as appalling, Ugboma explained that when he searched to ascertain those who perpetuated the anomaly, his attention was drawn to a list said to be the names of Imo people that facilitated the domestication of the law in the state.        
  
He expressed sadness over the incident and stated that there is no record that such an obnoxious contribution was presented to the House for consideration. “There is no record anywhere that such contributions were laid and/or circulated to members during plenary.
  
“I have requested that my colleagues constitute a committee to ascertain how such a horrendous act was practiced on this ordinarily good legislation. Its outcome, I believe would interest all lovers of democracy and enable future legislative vigilance. This was not the bill I presented and sponsored.
  
“In the manuscripts that I received after each hearing and which I have today compared with that given to my colleagues, there is no hand of Esau. This has informed my view and I have today forwarded a bill for the immediate amendment of those offensive and draconian sections,” he declared.

But in a swift reaction, a political analyst, Chinedu Igbokwe accused Ugboma of being economical with the truth about the bill cum law. He wondered why Ugboma would choose to raise alarm on the content of a law six months after it was passed.

He said: “You sponsored a bill. It was signed into law. You are entitled to a copy of the bill that was assented to, which you received, or refused to ask for one. You did not care to review the bill that was signed and possibly raise the alarm of any criminal manipulations on the bill if there were any. Six months later, the content of your bill was analysed and found obnoxious. You wrote a press release shouting that it was doctored.

“It is negligence on the part of a lawmaker not to have monitored the bill he sponsored until it was signed into law. It is laziness and carelessness from him not to have discovered an alteration on his bill until six months after. Such carelessness and negligence could endanger the lives of Imo people. In a working clime, the process of recalling Ugboma would have been initiated yesterday by the good people of Oguta.”

Igbokwe affirmed that sections 484 and 485 of the Imo State Administration of Criminal Justice Law No. 2 of 2020 is anachronistic, draconian, and savagely incompatible with the provisions of the 1999 constitution.

Such sections, he said ought not to find their way into the laws in the first place.
 
Another member of the House representing Mbaitoli, Mr. Okey Onyekanma in his reaction affirmed that the sections were never inherent in the bill, which he joined his colleagues to deliberate on and passed, stressing that some of the sections were strange to him.
  
He said: “These stipulations were not in any shape or form part of the draft bill, which was passed by the Imo State House of Assembly, where I am an active and punctual member. The bill did not contain such a phrase as ‘the pleasure’ of the governor.
  
“The injection of the toxic clauses into the ACJL is the height of absurdity. It intends to create a climate of terror in the state and make Imo a desert of totalitarianism in an oasis of democracy. The obnoxious clauses have rendered the so-called law unacceptable. It cannot stand.”

Also, Onwuasonya Jones, factional state Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state, believes that the law is allowed to exist would spell doom for the state. He argued that those sections did not mention any of the known law enforcement agencies as the arresting authority, but made a vague provision that someone may be detained at the pleasure of the governor.

According to him, those sections imply that anyone could actually be empowered by the governor to affect that arrest. It could be any thug or aide who the governor feels can carry out that assignment. “The obnoxious provision goes further to say that the detained person may be kept in any place and under any condition which the governor directs. You could be picked up anywhere, anytime, and kept in any place or in any condition.

“The law did not even provide for what infractions the governor may at his pleasure order someone’s detention. It could be for anything as bad as asking that the governor pay civil servants their entitlements. The vacuousness of these sections of the law is further accentuated by the provision that a detainee may be released only by getting a licence from the governor. This licence may be likened to paying ransom for a kidnapped victim. And by that provision, the license will be provisional and could be revoked at any time,” he stated.

Jones explained that by such power, the governor’s hostages would never be free. The license, he continued, would contain some provisions that would eternally deprive such victims of basic rights to freedom. “So, once detained at the governor’s pleasure, you remain a slave to the governor, perpetually. And there is also another provision that authorises the governor to banish such individuals should they default on the terms of their ‘release licences.’

“I do not know why and how a governor in this 21st Century could imagine that such an anachronistic law could be implemented in Imo of all places. This is most disrespectful to the sensibilities of average Imolites, renowned for their intellectualism, political awareness, stubbornness, and exposure,” he said.
  
However, the Deputy Speaker in the State Assembly, Amara Iwuanyanwu has no problem with those provisions. He debunked any foul play in the process of asserting the bill into law, adding that every section of it was formulated in the general interest of the people and state.
  
He said: “Detaining someone at the governor’s pleasure is not new to the Nigerian law; it has always been part of the criminal procedure law and the penal code. Check section 303 and 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).”
AdvertisementAdvertisement  
He insisted that there is nothing tyrannical or draconic about the controversial sections of the law, adding that the Assembly should instead be commended for thinking about the citizens who would be protected by the law.

According to him, section 484 was a reproduction of the 401 of the criminal procedure law, which has been in existence since 1960. “The said section only gives directions with respect to section 230, 235, 328, and 368 of the criminal procedural act.

“These provisions apply when a person is arrested on the ground of insanity, (section 230) or cannot understand the proceedings, though not insane (section 328) or an offender has not attained the age of 17 or 18 (as the case may be) as at the time he or she is found guilty of a capital offence.
  
“If Ugboma feigns ignorance of these provisions of the law, it is obvious he is playing to the gallery of the other political divide he belongs to. This is because if a bill is sponsored, it is deliberated in the House. There is room for public input, which in this case happened under the leadership of the immediate past Chief Judge of Imo State, with technical support from the Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP). Those erudite lawyers, professors, and human rights advocates could not have supported this law if indeed it was draconian and oppressive,” he declared.

Iwuanyanwu also exonerated Governor Uzodimma from any wrongdoing regarding the signing of the bill into law, saying, “for emphasis, the law in question was not an executive bill. What more? It has been in existence for six months now and there is absolutely no evidence of executive abuse. Those making a mountain out of a molehill should advise themselves accordingly. Leave governor Hope Uzodimma out of this attempt to score cheap popularity.”

Senior Special Assistant on Print Media to Governor Uzodimma, Mr. Modestus Nwamkpa, in his reaction accused the opposition of heating up the polity and trying to instigate the people against the governor with the law.

He said: “Remember, this bill, from what we were told, was passed six months ago. Expectedly, however, the opposition has been cashing in on this to make their usual mountain out of a molehill, apparently trying to smear the integrity of the governor.

“Is Uzodimma a member of the State Assembly? Is that bill an executive bill or private bill? If it was a private bill, was the governor part of the originators of the bill? Was Uzodimma’s opinion sought before the bill was proposed in the first place? Did he participate in the debate leading to the passage of the bill by the House before the governor eventually assented to it?

“Does it mean that the House can send to the governor for assent, a bill they never collectively cross-checked? Does it mean that the proposers of the bill did not make an effort to see its final draft before it was finally taken to the governor for assent?”

He argued that the governor only assented to the bill, which emanated from the legislature. Nwamkpa reiterated that the paperwork of any bill is usually done by the legislature, including the debate and its passage. “What the governor does is only to put pen on paper and even the House legally has the right to override the governor in case he refuses to sign any bill within a stipulated time.

“So, I don’t know why the blame is on the governor for merely performing his constitutional role. This is even an indictment on the state legislature, particularly the sponsors of the said bill,” he declared, questioning the alertness of the internal review mechanism of the lawmakers.

Also speaking, Willie Amadi, a lawyer and a Federal Commissioner representing Imo in the Public Complaints Commission (PCC), said the controversial sections were in conformity with provisions of the constitution of the land.

He said: “I have taken time to dissect, analyse and discuss sections 484 and 485 of the ACJI. It is contrary to the widely held views that the provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). It is rather a provision specifically and deliberately designed to protect offenders below the age of criminal responsibility and persons of unsound mind.

“The ‘any person’ drafting clause is, therefore, an inelegant drafting delivery, which in my humble opinion, created ambiguity in its understanding. ‘Any person’ should have read ‘Persons of unsound mind’ and or ‘Persons under the age of 17.’

“Recall that detaining someone at the governor’s pleasure is not a novel development; it has always been in our criminal procedure law and other states of the federation have a similar law in their criminal administration law.”

He explained that there are categories of persons in respect of whom the courts can make such orders. Persons falling under this category, he added are usually specified, i.e. persons bereft of the requisite sanity to face trials and juveniles that are condemned by the courts, but cannot be sent to prison because of their age.

Citing sections 319 of the Criminal Code, which provides that when a child is below the age of 17, the court cannot sentence him/her to death, but will be detained at the governor’s pleasure and chapter 44 of the Criminal Procedure law, he argued that those sections empowered the court to order detention at governor’s pleasure.

He finally admonished that it is important to read sections 484 and 485 with clear legal understanding, rather than with the belief and or suspicion that the provision is applicable to normal citizens, which may be prone to abuse by the governor. “Commentaries, including the House of Assembly and other stakeholders, should not just shake the table for political mischief, but for the security, welfare and good governance of the state,” he said.

Similarly, Bertram Faotu, an Abia State-based lawyer agrees with him. He believes that there is nothing new about the said Section 484. He noted that it is simply a reproduction of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which has been in existence for ages. The only difference, he said, is the substitution of the word “president” with “governor”.

His words: “The said section only gives directions in respect of sections 230, 235, 328 and 368 of the said CPA. These provisions apply when a person is acquitted on the grounds of insanity (Section 230) or cannot understand the proceedings though not insane (Section 328) or an offender has not attained the age of 17 or 18 years (as the case may be) at the time he is found guilty of capital offence.

“Some states or region’s laws provide that in such circumstances, the accused person may be detained at the governor’s pleasure or the president’s pleasure. We were all taught about this in Law School.

“I am quite amazed at the outcry by lawyers, some seasoned, who are making a great hue as if the said provision was being heard for the first time in our jurisprudence.
  
“Assuming but not conceding that it was even new, I would still be surprised at the amount of noise it has generated, knowing that all lawyers are aware that it is only a procedural law. No part of the said law states that the governor shall have the power to detain any person. It starts by saying, “when any person is ordered to be detained…” That clearly and without any ambiguity implies that there must first be an order for a person to be detained before the governor can apply the provisions of the said Section 484 of the Imo State ACJL.”

He insisted that there is nowhere in the law where it is written that the governor can wake up and simply order that somebody is detained at his pleasure. “Let us read properly before we criticize,” he advised.

Also, the state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Cyprian Akaolisa, and House Committee Chairman on Information and Judiciary, Dominic Ezerioha in their separate reactions on the matter, insisted that neither the Assembly members nor the governor committed any wrongdoing by bringing the law to life.

According to them, both parties performed their statutory roles in the best interest of the state and her people and should be encouraged and supported to do more.

Meanwhile, after several legal threats from various concerned groups to compel the state governor to push for amendment, an Abuja based lawyer, Maxwell Opara has approached the High Court, Owerri judicial division seeking for the expulsion of the controversial sections.

In the suit no: How/746/2020 dated September 21, 2020, the plaintiff argued that the sections are repugnant to the right of fair hearing, equity, and good conscience as well as violates section 35 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended.

The case has Governor Uzodimma as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the state as the second defendant.

He asked the court to determine among other things, “whether the powers conferred on the 1st defendant under section 484 and 485 of the Imo State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Law No. 2 of 2020 are not an affront and inconsistent to the clear provisions of Sections 34 (1) and 35 (4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution and as such void to the extent of its inconsistency?”

He also argued that both sections equally, “usurp and oust the powers of the judiciary as entrenched in sections 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution.

Opara finally argued that the expulsion of the sections would be in the best interest of justice and would further strengthen the fundamental rights of citizens of Nigeria as guaranteed and protected under the 1999 Constitution.

“That I honestly believe that the grant of this application would be in the greater interest of rule of law and that the defendant would not in any way be prejudiced,” Opara averred.

At this point, only time will tell whether the legislature would amend the law or allow the court to make a decision on the matter.

Mr John Mayaki, Chairman, Edo All Progressives Congress (APC) Media Campaign Council, on Tuesday denied authorising any form of defamatory publication or libellous material against Mike Igini, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Resident Electoral Commissioner in charge of Akwa-Ibom.

It would be recalled that Igini had on Monday instituted a N10 billion libel suit against David Imuse, the factional chairman of APC in Edo and John Mayaki.

Mayaki in a letter signed by his solicitor, A I. Osarenkhoe, addressed to counsel to Igini, Clement Onwuenwunor and made available to newsmen in Benin denied responsibility and liability of the libellous publications.

The letter reads” we are solicitors to John Mayaki hereinafter referred to as our client of POI campaign office, 37 Etete Road GRA Benin city.

“Your letter dated August 31, 2020, with above caption addressed to our client has been handed over to us with the instructions to reply thereto in the following terms

“Our client categorically denies causing publication of any defamatory or libellous material relating to your client by anyone on any newspaper or article.

“Our client did not publish and did not authorise anybody to publish any allegedly defamatory or libellous material on page 4 of the Sunday Vanguard of August 30, 2020.

“Or in any other medium or at any other date against your client.

“Our client denies responsibility and liability to your client in the terms demanded by you on behalf Of your client in your letter under reference.

“Consequently, we suggest that you advise your client against embarking on any fruitless legal journey,” the letter said.

Police authorities have commenced the criminal trial against a former governor of Imo State, Chief Ikedi Ohakim, before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja.

In the charge marked CR/993/2020 and dated September 23, 2020, the office of the Inspector-General of Police accused Ohakim of fraud and false information.

The former Governor was equally accused of using the name of the Minister of Works and Housing, Babatunde Fashola, SAN, to defraud unsuspecting Nigerians.

In addition, the prosecution alleged that Ohakim claimed in his statement to the police that he gave Lady Chinyere Lilian Amuchienwa the sum of N100 million for his governorship in 2019, which he could not prove in the statement.

The Police said the former Governor will soon be arraigned in court.

The three-count charge against Ohakim, signed by Mr Stanley Nwodo read:

‘That you Ikedi Ohakim, on or about the 23rd day of May 2019 at Asokoro, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did unlawfully gave false information against one Chinyere Amuchienwa, that she threatened you with gun knowing it to be false and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 140 of the Penal Code Law of the Northern Nigeria, 1968.

”That you Ikedi Ohakim, on or about the 23rd day of May 2019, at Asokoro, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did unlawfully gave false information against one Chinyere Amuchienwa, that you have a plot of land for sale at Lagos state, knowing it to be false and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 140 of the Penal Code Law of the Northern Nigeria, 1968.

‘That you Ikedi Ohakim on or about the 23rd day of May 2019 at Asokoro, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did unlawfully used derogatory the name of Raji Fashola as the owner of the purported land situated at Ikeja, Lagos state and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 140 of the Penal Code Law of the Northern Nigeria, 1968.’

In a related development, an Upper Area Court sitting in Mpape, Abuja, has sentenced one Kingsley Ogam, who is said to be working for the former Governor to eight months in prison with an option of N30,000 fine.

In the charge marked CR/496/2020, Ogam was sentenced to prison on September 24, 2020.

According to the First Information Report (FIR), Ogam was arraigned before the court for defamation of character, injurious falsehood and criminal intimidation.

The prosecution said the offence is punishable under Section 392, 393 and 397 of the Penal Code Law.

Ogam was said to have defamed the character of Lady Chinyere Lilian Amuchienwa.

He was sentenced to prison by Mohammad Maraca after he pleaded guilty to the charges against him.

The court also ordered him to write an apology letter to Amuchienwa.

The judge instructed that Kingsley Ogam should tender an apology to lady Amuchienwa of which she rejected

Also, a certain Chinedu Opereke was arrested alongside Kingsley Ogam and was remanded in Suleja prison by the court.

The former Governor was also supposed to be arraigned before the Upper Area Court for conspiracy.

He was invited on September 10 by the police in relation to a petition against him by Lady Amuchienwa, over alleged defamation of character, injurious falsehood and criminal intimidation.

But rather than honouring his invitation, Ohakim rushed to a high court in Imo State for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights.

In the application filed at the High Court of Justice of Imo state, with suit number HON/717/2020, he asked for an order of the court stopping the police from inviting, arresting and detaining him.

After listening to the motion, Justice VI Onyeka granted the order

However, a thorough look at the document shows that the motion was filed on September 10, 2020, assigned same day and the order granted the same day.