Home Blog Page 976

TOWARDS RESTRUCTURING NIGERIA (2)

Law & Society Magazine
-
0
TOWARDS RESTRUCTURING NIGERIA (2)

Sonnie Ekwowusi canvasses fiscal federalism

The Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution calls for memorandum on the following subject-matters – gender equality; federal structure and power devolution; Local Government/Local Government Autonomy; Public Revenue; Fiscal Federation; Public Revenue/Fiscal Federal and Revenue Allocation; Nigeria Police and Nigerian Security Architecture; Comprehensive Judicial Reforms; Electoral Reforms; Socio-Economic and cultural rights; Strengthening the Independence of oversight institutions and agencies; Residency and Indigene problem; Immunity; The National Assembly; State Creation and other matters capable of promoting good governance in Nigeria. With the exception of “gender equality”, all the other subject matters listed by the Senate for consideration for amendment, in my view, are completely in order.

Considering that section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution has amply provided for the principle of non-discrimination and for equality between male and female in Nigeria, there is no need for another provision on “gender equality”. “Gender equality” is a red herring. The appropriate word is “sex” not “gender”. This is why section 42 (1) of the Constitution talks about “sex” not “gender”. “Sex” means “male” or “female” whereas “gender” expansively connotes homosexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism, bisexuality, intersexuality, queer sexuality, abortion, non-binarism, animalism and bestiality. Section 42 (1) of the 1999 Constitution stipulates that no citizen of Nigeria should be discriminated against on ground of his or her sex, ethnic group, place of origin, religion or political opinion. So, section 42 (1) protects all women and men from discrimination on ground of sex. This is all we need. So, no need for “gender equality”. Let me quickly say that many people and many governments do not understand the real meaning of the phrase, ”gender equality”.

The phrase may sound laudable and palatable to the ear of the unwary and undiscerning but the phrase is a Trojan horse used to deceptively smuggle in LGBT rights into a country’s Constitution as in the case of South Africa. I have attended many United Nations negotiations in New York. My experience is that whenever the phrase “gender equality” appears in any United Nations policy document during negotiations in New York, the African Group (with the exception of South Africa which has legalized gay marriage and gay practices) always vehemently opposes the inclusion of the phrase. Why? Because the generic phrase “gender equality” is not given a biological construct (that is, it does not mean two sexes – “male” and “female”- as some of us think it means: it is now given an expansive social construct to include aberrations such as homosexualism, lesbianism, etc. Let me shock you a bit: whenever the generic term “gender” or “gender”-based appears in any United Nations policy document it is automatically interpreted as LGBT right or transgender right.

The following terms are given the corresponding interpretations in United Nations policy documents: “gender analysis” means LGBT analysis; “gender sensitive” means LGBT sensitive; “gender–based violence” means LGBT-based violence; “based on gender” means based on LGBT status; “gender sensitive schools” means LGBT-sensitive schools; “gender neutrality” means neither male nor female (In fact, many in the U.S. and Europe have gone to court to declare that they are “gender neutral” meaning that they are neither male nor female. These “gender neutral” people or non-binary people crusade for the abolition of a separate “Male Toilet” for males and a separate “Female Toilet” for females in public places such as the airports. They want a “gender-neutral” toilets for both male and female and transgender people.

South Africa is the first and only African country, and, in fact, the fifth country in the world to legalize LGBT rights. Perusing through the Constitution of South Africa I discovered to my chagrin that South Africa operates a non-sexist Constitution with a non-sexist language, meaning that South Africa does not recognize any difference or prejudice between male and female. The most significant provisions of the constitution relating to “gender equality” are found in the Bill of Rights, particularly the section on “equality.” This section contains a general commitment to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, and states that “the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including “gender”. Now, does Nigerian want to be a gay country like South Africa? I hope not.

I have painstakingly presented the forgoing to assist our governments and many gullible people who are often deceived into believing that the phrase “gender equality” means the radical equality between a man and a woman. It is not. LGTB has been outlawed in Nigeria by virtue of the Same Sex (Marriage) Prohibition Act 2014. Therefore an inclusion of “gender equality” in our constitution, no matter how mildly couched, will entail repealing the Same-Sex (Marriage) Prohibition Act 2014 (because the Constitution is the grundnorm of Nigeria), and by extension, legalizing LGTB in Nigeria. So, away with “gender equality”. It is high time Nigeria stopped imbibing barbaric Western lifestyles that are antithetical to Nigerian cultural heritage.

Considering the low premium placed on human life in Nigeria, section 33(1) of the 1999 Constitution should be amended to include the following: “Life begins at conception and every person has an inherent right to life at any stage of growth and development, and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of a sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty in Nigeria”. In order to enthrone a decentralized and democratized federal structure, we must reduce the powers of the federal government.

In that regard, the exclusive list in our constitution should be shortened to include only national defence, foreign affairs, security, commerce and currency while enlarging the concurrent list to include state police, state educational system, state economy, state taxation, state health system and so forth. The challenges of fiscal federalism should be tackled by making revenue sharing formula to be inversely related to revenue generation. States producing the oil wealth should get the lion share of the revenue. The current sharing formula which allocates 52.68% to the federal government, 26.72% to the states and, 20.60% local government councils should be reviewed. More revenue should be allocated to the oil producing states.

The Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy [Chapter 2 of the 1999 Constitution] should be made, and, manifestly seen to be, justiciable. Plea bargain should be abolished in our criminal justice system. In order to decongest the Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Supreme Court, State Court of Appeal and State Supreme Court should be established for each state to serve as the final courts on many state matters except in some crucial constitutional issues.

To reduce cost of governance, Nigeria should have only a unicameral-federal legislature. Elected members of the legislative arms of all tiers of government should serve on part-time basis without emolument. The posts of political aides and political advisers should be scrapped. Provision should be made for the principle of zoning and power rotation.

Senate To NESG: Don’t Mislead Nigerians On New Banking Act

Law & Society Magazine
-
0

The Senate Committee on Banking, Insurance and other Financial Institutions Chaired by Senator Uba Sani on Wednesday morning expressed concern over the campaign against the presidential assent to the recently passed Bank and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 2020 by the Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG).

The lawmaker said that the NESG, which ignored the call to participate in the public hearing, has possibly not carefully studied the contents of the Act before attempting to mislead the public about it.

NESG had in a statement expressed concern about certain provisions of the ‘repealed and re-enacted’ Bank and Other Financial Institutions Act 2020, recently passed by both houses of the National Assembly, and in the process of being transmitted to President Muhammadu Buhari for assent, requesting Mr President to withhold his assent.

Reacting to this development in a statement he personally signed, Uba Sani (APC, Kaduna Central) said his Committee received the Nigeria Economic Summit Group’s statement with shock and disappointment.

To him, ‘we hold the NESG in the highest regards. It is one of the key stakeholder groups that were expected to take a critical look at the repealed and re-enacted bill but they failed to do so even when the Bill was subjected to the public hearing where stakeholders made a total of 32 written submissions and were present at the National Assembly to canvass and defend their positions.

‘Some of the key stakeholders that made written and oral submissions are Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation ((NDIC), Federal Ministry of Finance, Development Bank of Nigeria (DBN), Money Deposit Banks, Infrastructure Bank, Bank of Agriculture, Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Association of National Accountants of Nigeria, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

‘Others are Association of Bureau De Change, Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees (NUBIFE), Nigeria Security Printing and Minting Company, Nigeria Labour Congress/Trade Union Congress, FINTECH Development & Advocacy Initiative, Association of Senior Staff of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions, Access Bank PLC, Ministry of Communications and Digital Economy, and Finance Correspondents Association of Nigeria (FICAN).

‘It, therefore, beats our imagination that the leadership of NESG that failed its members by refusing to attend a very important public hearing can just wake up and condemn a bill that was painstakingly put together and passed by the National Assembly.

‘It is also clear to us that, the leadership of NESG has not read the bill and may just be acting on hearsay. They need to know that, the bill did not confer immunity on the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) officials. It does not exempt actions by the CBN from judicial review,’ he said.

For the avoidance of doubt, he said, ‘the specific provision of BOFIA 2020 that NESG may have been told confers immunity on CBN was Section 12 (6) which states that: Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other enactment, no restorative or like order howsoever described, shall be granted against the Bank or the Governor in any action, suit or proceedings in relation to the revocation of a licence by the Bank under this Act, and the remedy of any claimant or applicant against the Bank or the Governor in any such action, suit or proceedings is limited to monetary compensation not exceeding the equivalent of the value of the paid-up capital of the bank at the time of the revocation of its licence.

‘This is a new clause, not contained in the existing BOFIA law. The limits of the redress that can be sought/obtained in the event of a challenge of a revocation of a bank’s license were not provided for in the repealed law. The proviso does not state that the CBN Governor is immune from being sued in the case of revocation of a bank’s license. However, the proviso restricts the limits of the claims that can be made against the CBN to monetary claims which are subject to the paid-up share capital of the bank at the time of the license revocation. It is important to note that the new law does not give the CBN Governor leeway alone in the revocation of a bank’s license.

‘For the benefit of NESG and other groups, BOFIA 2020 contains 130 clauses which sought to update the laws governing Banks, Financial Institutions and Financial Services; enhance efficiency in the process of obtaining and/or granting of banking licenses; impose stiffer penalties for regulatory breaches in the financial services industry and also regulate the activities of Financial Technology Companies (FINTECHs).

‘If the group means well for the country, it is advised to drop its campaign against Presidential assent to the bill and may wish to consult members of the National Assembly for an Amendment Bill because this is time for stakeholders to work cooperatively in the interest of the Nigerian people,’ he submitted.

Illegality Of National Water Resources Bill 2020

Law & Society Magazine
-
0

By Femi Falana SAN

INTRODUCTION
Sometime in 2017, the Buhari administration had forwarded the National Water Resource Bill to both chambers of the National Assembly with a request that it be passed into law. The bill which sought to transfer the control of water resources from states to the Federal Government was rejected by many Nigerians. Hence, it was dumped by the eighth edition of the National Assembly.  But Honourable Abubakar Fulata,  the  Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Rules and Business recently reintroduced the executive bill. The faulty procedural manner of reintroducing the bill has questioned the motif of its sponsors. As usual, the bill is being used to further polarize the country along ethnic and sectional lines. This intervention however seeks to examine the constitutional status of the bill and the denial of access to portable water by the majority of the Nigerian people.

The National  Water Resource Bill 2020 being debated in the House is incurably defective on procedural ground. While members of the nineth session of the national assembly are at liberty to sponsor  bills that were previously rejected by their predecessors it is unconstitutional to reintroduce and continue to process any bill debated but not passed by members of the eighth edition. The sponsors of the National Water  Resources Bill ought to have been advised to present it de novo. Even though the bill has been passed and forwarded to the committee of the whole house for third reading and final passage it should be withdrawn as it has breached the Rules of Procedure of the House  and the relevant provisions of the Constitution. 

COMMERCIALISATION OF DRINKING WATER
Until about three decades ago, there was abundance of water for domestic and agricultural purposes in Nigeria. In the 1970 and 1980s the federal and state governments invested in river basins and dams which ensure the availability of water all over the country. In fact, the urban areas were guaranteed regular supply of water to the extent that there was pipe borne water in homes and even on the streets. The dream of rural areas to have pipe borne water extended to them was shattered when the Ibrahim Babangida junta imposed the Structural Adjustment Programme which led to the drastic reduction of public funds earmarked for the provision of of social services. In particular, the available water resources were privatised and priced out of the reach of the poor. Water from boreholes is packed in sachets and sold to the poor while the rich can afford bottled water produced by factories. Even the commercialisation of pure water has become part of the internally generated revenue of universities and other tertiary institutions that should have researched into how water can be produced, purified and supplied to the Nigerian people 

Instead of collaborating with state and local governments to address lack of water supply in the country the federal government has repackaged and forwarded to the National Assembly a National Water Resource Bill designed to further commercialise access to water resources by the people.  Specifically, the federal government will take over water resources, licence the supply and commercialise the use of water. In particular, a government which has failed to discharge its responsibility of supplying water will turn round to give approval and charge people for digging boreholes. Instead of reviewing the proposed water policy  in the light of the provisions of the Constitution and relevant judicial authorities some state governments and regional socio cultural have accused the federal government of taking over the water resources of certain sections of the country. Indeed, the federal government has been accused of using the proposed national water resource bill to implement the controversial policy through the back door. 

HIGHLIGHTS OF WATER RESOURCE BILL
Section 13 of the Bill empowers the Minister of Water Resources to formulate national policy and water resources management strategy to guide the integrated planning, management, development, use and conservation of the nation’s water resources and provide guidance for formulation of hydrological area resources strategies under section 94 of this bill.” The Bill recognises the right of Nigerians take water from a water source to which the public has free access for the use of his household or for watering domestic livestock and for the purposes of subsistence fishing or for navigation to the extent that such use is not inconsistent with this Bill or any other existing law. Section 75 states that no corporate organisation or individual shall commence borehole drilling business in Nigeria unless such driller has been issued a Water Well Driller’s Licence by the commission. 

The Bill creates a Commission regulate, protect, conserve and control water resources identified in this Bill as water sources crossing state boundaries in accordance with section 2 as well as the first schedule of this act for equitable and sustainable social and economic development and to maintain environmental integrity. The Commission shall also regulate the allocation, supply and distribution of water resources for all uses, and to promote equitable, sustainable and efficient best practices and conduct. Section 37 provides that whatever the commission decides is binding and enforcement may be done by the federal high court “as if the decision is a judgment of such Court provided that the Commission has issued a certificate to the Complainant for leave to proceed to the Court for enforcement of the decision.”  Stiff penalties have been prescribed for contraventions of the provisions of the Bill by individuals and corporate bodies.

ILLEGAL PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE BILL
Contrary to the provisions of the proposed Bill the Federal government cannot authorise or licence persons who may want to sink boreholes outside the federal capital territory. In Attorney General of Lagos State v Attorney General of the Federation the Supreme Court held that the power over physical planning in any state of the Federation is exclusively vested in the state government and that the National Assembly lacks the power to legislate on the physical planning outside the federal capital territory. In Attorney-General of Lagos State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2003) 4 WRN 124 the Supreme Court (per Uwaifo JSC held that “In the circumstances, I have to say that Professor Osinbajo is right, in my view, in his submission that urban and regional planning for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja is within the exclusive legislative function of the National Assembly but only by virtue of section 299(a) conferring residual power on it and not the controversial section 20 of the Constitution. Similarly, each State House of Assembly has the exclusive function to make planning laws and regulations for the State under its residual power. It must follow that the National Assembly cannot make a law in the form and to the detail and territorial extent of the present Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Decree No.88 of 1992. To do so will be in clear breach of the principles of federalism and an incursion into the legislative jurisdiction of the States. But it can make planning laws for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja only on the basis of its residual powers. Again, the National Assembly cannot enact any law, in contravention of the Constitution, imposing any responsibility on a State and expect obedience to such a law. It is a noncontroversial political philosophy of federalism that the federal government does not exercise supervisory authority over the state governments.”

In granting the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff the Supreme Court held that urban and regional planning as well as physical development were residual matters within the exclusive legislative and executive competence of the state governments. It is therefore submitted that on the authority of the Supreme Court judgment the provision of the Bill seeking to confer power on the federal government to give approval or licence for digging boheholes in any part of the country is illegal and unconstitutional.

It  is trite law that the Land Use Act is one of the laws  entrenched in the Constitution by the defunct military junta. To that extent, it enjoys statutory flavour and  cannot be altered via the National Water Resource Bill or  through any other bill. In other words, the bill is illegal in so far as it seeks to take over water resources on landed properties without amending  section 315 of the Constitution in accordance with  section 9 thereof. In In Nkwocha v Governor of Anambra State [1984] 1 SCNLR 634 at 652
the Supreme Court held that the Land Use Act is not an integral part of the Constitution but claims the special protection of section 9(2) of the Constitution in terms of its amendment. It was however made clear by the court that the land comprised in a state is vested in the governor of that state.

Even when the country was ruled by military despots the people of Nigeria resisted the attempts  to take over their landed properties by decrees. The most daring decision to corner  land in Lagos State and other coastal states was taken by the Ibrahim Babangida  junta which had enacted the Lands (Title Vesting etc.) Decree No. 52 of 1993. The said Decree vested the ownership, control and management of all lands within 100 metres limit of the 1967 shoreline of Nigeria and any other land reclaimed from any Lagoon, Sea, Ocean in the Federal Military Government of Nigeria “without any further assurance than this Decree.” The commencement date of the obnoxious decree was said to be 1 January 1975, a date when the military Government of General Yakubu Gowon was still in power. In Elegushi v Attorney-General of the Federation (2000) JELR 57863 the constitutional validity of the obnoxious decree was challenged. The learned trial judge, Odunowo J. struck down the decree on grounds of inconsistency with the rights of the indigenous land owners in Lagos State. 

Instead of collaborating with state and local governments to make water available thorought the country the federal government is desirous to grant approval for people to sink boheholes. It is unfortunate that the governments have failed to realize that indiscriminate sinking of  boreholes will lead to unnecessary incursion into the water table and thereby increasing the risk of tremors. In fact, the power of the federal government to grant licences for dredging and other related purposes in Lagos state was also successfully challenged in the case of the  Lagos State Waterways Authority & Ors. v. The Incorporated s of Association of Tourist Boat Operators & Water Transportation in Nigeria (unreported  CA/886/14) where the Court of Appeal held that that the Inland waterways within Lagos State are not and cannot by any stretch of interpretation be covered by any item in the exclusive legislative list under Part 1 to the Second Schedule of the Constitution. It was the unanimous decision of the Court that the Lagos State House of Assembly has exclusive  powers to legislate on inland waterways in Lagos State. According to the Court of Appeal:  

“The more obvious area of coverage under the exclusive list are the sea tidal waters and maritime ports declared by the National Assembly to be Federal Ports. But one finds nothing in the Exclusive List dealing with intra-state waterways either in Lagos or any other State in the Federation. The burden is on the Respondents to show that any of the Lagoons, creeks or waterways used for intra-state navigation has run across the parameters of Lagos State into international or interstate boundaries and is so declared in a law promulgated by the National Assembly. Item 64 is couched in no narrower scope as it deals with water from such sources declared by the National Assembly to be sources affecting more than one State. The inland waterways within Lagos State are not and cannot by any stretch of interpretation be covered by any item on the Exclusive Legislative list under Part 1 to the Second Schedule of the Constitution and I so hold… ” The Court stated that the Lagos State House of Assembly is competent to make laws in respect of the intra-inland waterways in Lagos State except the inter-State waterway declared as International or Interstate Waterway under item 5 in the 2nd Schedule to the National Inland Waterways Act.

CONCLUSION
From the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Bill it is indisputable that sponsors have  not adverted their minds to the relevant cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal which have upheld the exclusive powers of states governments over land use, physical planning and Inland waterways in the coastal states. In view of the current state of the law the sponsors of the National Water Resources Bill should be told that it is dead on arrival because it is illegal and unconstitutional. The sponsors should withdraw it and stop confusing the Nigerian people.

NBA Balkanization: Uncertain Times And Our Common Destiny

Law & Society Magazine
-
0
NBA Balkanization: Uncertain Times And Our Common Destiny

By Almustapha Yusuf

The Nigerian Bar Association is facing a moment of crisis and change, a time of strife and despair and an hour of challenges and opportunities. The outcome of the recent National Officers’ Elections and the understandable anger of our colleagues who were not favoured by the result of the Presidential election and the reactions of our learned brothers who feel aggrieved by recent happenings in our Association especially in the build up to the just concluded Annual General Conference have pushed our Association to the brim in a way that has not been witnessed in recent times. The past days and weeks have witnessed drums of balkanization, threats of secession from the NBA and disloyalty to constituted authority.

The new President of the NBA certainly has a full plate of urgent issues to address to restore hope and confidence in the Association. Thankfully, Mr. Akpata has indicated in his inaugural speech that he will run an all-inclusive Bar. He has also admitted that he will work as a bridge builder taking on the important issues and addressing agitations that tend to divide the Bar. The President was very emphatic in his call for unity “The Bar that I want to lead henceforth is one that is united on all fronts and that recognises that our diversity is perhaps, our greatest strength. I plead with all Nigerian lawyers to bear this philosophy of unity in mind as we commence a new journey together”. I share the views of many that the President deserves the benefit of the doubt. The issues on the front burner are mostly inherited but the new administration under Mr. Akpata appears committed to finding lasting solutions. Take for instance, the repeated challenges we have with our NBA elections which has created a lot of disaffection. Mr. Akpata has not hidden his feelings about his resolve to initiate urgent reforms of our electoral processes to reflect greater transparency, integrity and efficiency both in the collation and management of database of lawyers and in the procedure and process of voting. To set the stage, the President has already proposed a twelve-man Electoral Audit and Reforms Committee to audit the 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections.  Interestingly, the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria have chosen to set up their own parallel committee with the same mandate – an act which I consider as an affront to the mandate given to Mr. Akpata and his team by the generality of Nigerian lawyers.

Regardless of how difficult it may be, it is patriotic that we sacrifice our emotions and disaffections and rally round the new NBA National Officers under Akpata’s leadership. We may not all agree with his style or strategy but even his fiercest critics have acknowledged Akpata’s humanity, love for peace and capacity to deliver the much-needed leadership and result. There is no question that the NBA under his watch will see leadership and transformation in a way that guarantees respect, sensitivity and regards to the diverse interests, values and persuasions of our large membership.

While I believe the new national officers under Mr. Akpata will do their job frankly and boldly, I hold the view that we as Nigerian lawyers irrespective of rank, tribe, gender or religion can engage in honest conversations and debates on issues that affect every one of us without shrinking from our sacred obligation to remain a united association with a common destiny. Even when we disagree, we can stand together to make our great association endure, revive and prosper for the good of all. While balkanization or secession may offer a temporary emotional respite from some of the troubles the NBA is facing, only a united body under a purposeful leadership can offer us an enduring and permanent solution.

Regardless of our differences or where each of us stands on the issues that affect the NBA, it will be a fundamental paradox of our training and learning as lawyers if we allow ourselves to be stampeded by vested interests that do not reflect our shared values or identify with our common destiny as Bar men and women. At this uncertain time in our collective journey as Nigerian lawyers, let’s challenge ourselves and demonstrate to the next generation and non-lawyers that we have the wisdom enough to use the depth of our unique training and the wealth of our experience to unite, enrich and advance the NBA. We have to set aside partisanship and divisions and work together to move beyond our differences for that in my view will be the most deeply honourable thing we can do at this time.

The President’s inaugural address was a clarion call and I encourage every Nigerian lawyer to spare a time to read it. Our wounds may still be fresh, but we must heal and answer the call of duty. I urge us all to abandon our differences and bond together to pull down this wall of division and explore the wonders on the other side. History is testing our faith and character and I hope posterity will be kind with our choices at this time.

Magu Probe: I Am Ready To Appear Before Panel — Malami

Law & Society Magazine
-
0
Magu Probe: I Am Ready To Appear Before Panel — Malami

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN, on Wednesday, expressed his willingness to testify before the Justice Ayo Salami-led Presidential investigating the alleged financial infractions against the suspended Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu.

Malami was directly reacting to a letter by Magu requesting the probe panel to summon him to appear and give evidence on some of the allegations.

The Minister disclosed this during an interview on Arise TV on Wednesday which was monitored by our correspondent.

Malami, who stated that he has nothing to hide from the public, expressed his willingness and readiness to appear before the Justice Salami led investigative panel if a summon is served on him.

While responding to a question put across to him, Malami said: ‘So, if indeed the Ayo Salami panel invites Abubakar Malami as a person or the AGF in the person of Abubakar Malami for any testimony, for any clarification, for examination or cross-examination for that matter, Abubakar Malami will wholeheartedly, gladly within the spirit and context of the rule of law be there to testify, be there to be cross-examined, be there to be examined within the context of the rule of law.

‘Our position as a government is to be submissive to the rule of law and the rule of law component of it requires that when we are called upon to clarify issues, when we are called upon to be examined, when we are called upon to be cross-examined, Abubakar Malami will be there and will gladly cooperate with the inquiry institution and that indeed was an attribute of the government that translated to the victory we are seeing today arising from P&ID.

‘Abubakar Malami has along the line, within the chain of the arbitral process, submitted to uncountable invitations, responded to uncountable requests for clarification of issues and indeed executed uncountable witness statements for the purpose of putting the record straight and the case of Salami will certainly not be an exception.’

Magu has asked the Justice Ayo Salami -led Presidential panel probing him to summon the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF), Mr Abubakar Malami to appear before it.

Magu anchored his request on the constitutional principles of fair hearing as provided under section 36 of the amended document.

Caster Semenya Loses Appeal In Swiss Court Over Restriction Of Testosterone Levels

Law & Society Magazine
-
0
Caster Semenya Loses Appeal In Swiss Court Over Restriction Of Testosterone Levels

Caster Semenya of South Africa, the two-time Olympic track champion with a rare genetic condition that significantly elevated her testosterone levels, on Tuesday lost what appeared to be her final appeal to compete at 800 meters, her signature event, at the postponed Tokyo Olympics next summer. Semenya’s natural testosterone levels are far above the standard female range.

The ruling by the Swiss Supreme Court was a victory for World Athletics, track’s governing body, in a highly charged case about biological sex, gender identity and fair play. The organization had passed regulations in 2018 stating that intersex athletes who have a disorder of sexual development and have both X and Y chromosomes, the standard male pattern, would have to lower their testosterone levels to keep competing in women’s events from the quarter mile to the mile, which combine speed and endurance.

World Athletics has acknowledged that its regulations were discriminatory but said they were necessary to preserve a level playing field in women’s events. Intersex athletes with testosterone in the male range, the governing body argued, have an unfair advantage in lean muscle mass, strength and oxygen-carrying capacity. The lowest level in the male testosterone range is four times greater than the highest level in the women’s range, according to the governing body.

In 2019, the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport, or CAS, ruled 2-1 in favor of the restrictions placed on athletes in some female track events. Semenya then appealed to the Swiss Supreme Court.

In issuing its final ruling on Tuesday, the Swiss Supreme Court said that CAS had “the right to uphold the conditions of participation issued for female athletes with the genetic variant 46 XY DSD in order to guarantee fair competition for certain running disciplines in female athletics.”

The Swiss court also said that Semenya’s “guarantee of human dignity” was not undermined in agreeing that an athlete’s biological characteristics may supersede a person’s gender identity to protect fair competition.

Semenya, 29, identifies as a woman. According to doctors, people with the 46 XY disorder of sexual development have genitalia that are not typically male or female and can be ambiguous.

Semenya has faced intense scrutiny in her sport for more than a decade. She has refused to undergo hormone therapy to comply with the current regulations. She has suggested that she would attempt to run the 200 meters at the Tokyo Olympics, an event that is not governed by the testosterone restrictions.

In a statement on Tuesday, Semenya said, “I am very disappointed by this ruling, but refuse to let World Athletics drug me or stop me from being who I am. Excluding female athletes or endangering our health solely because of our natural abilities puts World Athletics on the wrong side of history.”

Semenya said she would continue to fight for the human rights of female athletes “until we can all run free the way we were born.”

Lawyers for Semenya said she was still considering her legal options. One of her attorneys, Dorothee Schramm, who led Semenya’s appeal, said in a statement, “This decision is a call to action — as a society, we cannot allow a sports federation to override the most fundamental of human rights.”

Semenya’s supporters include the World Medical Association, which has requested that doctors not implement the World Athletics regulations, questioning the ethics and potential harm of requiring athletes to take hormone therapy not based on medical need.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has also called for the regulations to be revoked. Human Rights Watch has called the regulations “stigmatizing, stereotyping and discriminatory,” saying they amount to “policing of women’s bodies on the basis of arbitrary definitions of femininity and racial stereotypes.”

But World Athletics welcomed Tuesday’s ruling. One of its expert witnesses in the Semenya case, Doriane Lambelet Coleman, a Duke law professor and an elite 800-meter runner in the 1980s, said the rulings by CAS and the Swiss Supreme Court were “the right result in law and in policy.”

Both courts recognized that “sex equality in competitive sport is a legitimate goal” and that “separating athletes in competition by biological sex traits is the only way to achieve this goal, given the physical advantages associated with male puberty and testosterone levels in the male range,” Coleman said in a statement.

The Tokyo Olympics, originally scheduled for July to August 2020, were postponed to next July because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The outcome of Semenya’s case has been widely anticipated for a number of reasons, including the separate issue of transgender athletes who have transitioned from male to female and whether they possess residual physical advantages that might be unfair.

It has been expected that, after the Tokyo Games, the International Olympic Committee will adopt the same testosterone limits for transgender athletes that World Athletics has imposed on intersex athletes.

Culled from nytimes.com/

Osaro Eghobamien (SAN) Rejects BOSAN Appointment As Committee Member To Audit NBA Elections

Law & Society Magazine
-
0
Osaro Eghobamien (SAN) Rejects BOSAN Appointment As Committee Member To Audit NBA Elections

Osaro Eghobamien, SAN, has rejected his appointment as a member of the Committee set up by the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) to audit the 2018 and July 2020 national elections of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)

Eghobamien, in a statement made available to TheNigeriaLawyer (TNL), said he was not informed of the appointment but rather read about it in the media. He, therefore, described the such as “discourteous”.

The learned silk also faulted BOSAN for constituting the committee without involving the NBA adding that the committee is “without defined expectations”

Read the full statement below:

COMMUNIQUE ON MY APPOINTMENT AS A MEMBER OF AN ELECTORAL AUDIT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE BODY OF SENIOR ADVOCATES OF NIGERIA (BOSAN)

My attention has, today, September 8, 2020, been drawn to several publications in the dailies and law blogs, stating that I have been appointed a member of a Committee to audit the past elections of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the said Committee having been constituted by the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN), and led by Chief JoeKyari Gadzama, SAN, with Chief Yomi Aliu SAN, Prof. Offornze Amucheazi, SAN, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, and myself as members.

But for the said publications, I would not have been aware of that appointment. I have, in the past couple of months, been in and out of Benin City, preparing for the burial of my late father, Sir Chief (Dr.) Alfred Eghobamien, SAN, who passed on to glory on June 4, 2020. As a result of being immersed in the preparations for my late father’s burial, I was not in attendance at the virtual meeting held by BOSAN on September 5, 2020.

Being absent at the meeting where I was appointed a member of the Committee, it behooves of BOSAN to inform me of the fact of my appointment privately, and not leave me to find out as I have. That way I would have had the opportunity to quietly express my views to BOSAN.

The Communique issued by BOSAN, as regards the constitution of a Committee to audit the past elections of the NBA states that BOSAN is “…determined to achieve the installation of a flawless electoral system for the NBA and conscious of the need not to take a decision on the said elections without the benefit of detailed facts based on proper investigation and the experience with previous elections, further resolved to set up a five-man Committee for the audit of the 2018 and 2020 NBA elections, in partnership with the Nigerian Bar Association…”

I am not necessarily against BOSAN setting up a Committee for the audit of past NBA elections, nor do I think BOSAN’s setting up an Audit Committee derogates from the powers of the NBA. Anybody with sufficient interest can set up a Committee. I am however concerned that the process through which BOSAN has set up this Committee is totally flawed for the following reasons:

1. The NBA (through one or more representatives) was not invited by BOSAN to participate in the formation and modus operandi of the Committee. This would ordinarily have been proof of collaboration. While BOSAN states that it intends to collaborate with the NBA, this would have been shown if BOSAN had invited the NBA prior to setting up the Committee. I believe that dictating to the NBA is totally unacceptable.

2. BOSAN did not (at least with me) ascertain the readiness of the members of the Committee to work in the Audit Committee, and to extract representations/assurances from the said members as to any conflict of interest they may have in that capacity. It was discourteous of BOSAN to appoint any member of the Committee without prior confirmation of that member’s willingness to work in the Committee.

3. BOSAN should have set up a platform that infuses some level of independence in the Committee, which also ensures that every member of the Committee is independent.

4. BOSAN did not set out clearly the mandate of the Committee, and the outcomes expected of the Committee’s audit exercise. It would therefore be of no use to set up a Committee without defined expectations. It is for the sake of the unity of the Bar, and my concerns expressed above, that I humbly decline the appointment to be a member of the aforesaid Committee. I sincerely apologize for publishing my decision. This would have been done privately had I been afforded the same courtesy.

Osaro Eghobamien SAN

Fuel price hike: Atiku tackles FG, says price should have dropped if we truly deregulated

Law & Society Magazine
-
0
Fuel price hike: Atiku tackles FG, says price should have dropped if we truly deregulated

A few says after he rejected electricity tariff hike, former Vice President and presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the last election, Atiku Abubakar, has frowned at the sudden increment in the pump price of petrol by the Nigerian government.

Atiku in a tweet on Tuesday said the hike in fuel price did not in any way support certain claims regarding deregulation in Nigeria.

Atiku said his view on the matter stemmed from his experience as a businessman “who is seeing things from an economic perspective.”

He argued that in the US and Europe, fuel prices were far lower than they were in 2019, adding that if Nigeria truly deregulated, then fuel prices should have dropped.

Petrol stations across the country increased the price of Premium Motor Spirit, popularly known as petrol, on Thursday, September 3.

The prices ranged from N155 to N162 per litre across the country observed.

Budget support: IMF, World Bank conditions behind subsidy withdrawal, electricity tariff hike

Law & Society Magazine
-
0
Budget support: IMF, World Bank conditions behind subsidy withdrawal, electricity tariff hike

The Federal Government’s removal of petrol subsidy and the increase in electricity tariff are in line with reforms being sought by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, economic experts have said.

The IMF had on April 28 approved Nigeria’s request for emergency financial assistance of $3.4bn to support the country’s efforts in addressing the severe economic impact of the COVID-19 shock and the sharp fall in oil prices.

The Washington-based fund also published the country’s letter of intent in a detailed report released on April 29.

In the letter, the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Mrs Zainab Ahmed, and the Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Mr Godwin Emefiele, pledged that fuel subsidy would not return.

The sharp drop in crude oil prices on the back of the spread of coronavirus saw the landing cost of petrol hit a record low in March, wiping off subsidy on the product. The Federal Government, on March 18, reduced the pump price of petrol to N125 per litre from N145.

“The recent introduction and implementation of an automatic fuel price formula will ensure fuel subsidies, which we have eliminated, do not reemerge,” the Federal Government told the IMF in the letter dated April 21, 2020.

In a report on August 17, Reuters quoted sources as saying that the World Bank was unlikely to approve a much-needed $1.5bn for Nigeria in August as planned due to concerns over desired reforms.

It said the World Bank, which had said Nigeria could be heading towards its greatest fiscal crisis in 40 years, had aimed to bring the loan to its board for approval last month, but the sources said negotiations over what Nigeria would do to secure it were incomplete.

According to the report, World Bank loans are often contingent upon reforms, and it has not outlined any demands, but said previously that it was ‘recommending’ a more unified, flexible exchange rate.

Reuters said fuel subsidies and electricity tariffs were also being discussed, adding that a banking source said the loan could now not be approved until October.

An economist and Chairman of the Foundation for Economic Research and Training, Prof. Akpan Ekpo, said, “Once a country does not run its economy well and it wants to borrow from the IMF, it will be given conditions. If the economy is well-run, the country may be given soft conditions.

“But if the economy is not well-run, the country will be given tough conditions. At times, the reforms the World Bank or IMF wants the country to implement may not augur well with the common man. Some reforms are in our interest.”

The Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Cowry Asset Management Limited, Mr Johnson Chukwu, told our correspondent that apart from the World Bank and the IMF, some Nigerians had been advocating the removal of fuel subsidy.

He said, “With or without external pressures, there was an absolute need for Nigeria to remove subsidies on consumption and channel the resources to more critical sectors of the economy that will stimulate the economy.

“What the IMF and the World Bank were emphasising was that Nigeria had some inefficiencies in resource allocation and that if the country wanted them to give it support, the inefficiencies should be eliminated.

“They were urging the government to plug the wastages in the system.”

Chukwu said to optimise the use of the loans, the government should provide critical infrastructure that would help to create jobs and help the economy to grow.

An economist and Senior Lecturer, Lagos Business School, Dr Bongo Adi, said, “We know what the Bretton Woods institutions stand for. They are pro-market, liberal economic institutions. Before you access their loans, you have to be ready to meet certain conditions.

“Surely, you can see that there is a linkage between the loans we are trying to get and the conditionalities they have always traditionally required of any country seeking loans.”

Adi described the removal of fuel subsidy and the move towards cost-reflective electricity tariff as right policies but said they were being implemented at the wrong time.

THE PUNCH

SERAP condemns arbitrary electricity tariff, fuel price hike

Law & Society Magazine
-
0
SERAP condemns arbitrary electricity tariff, fuel price hike

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has condemned “the patently unfair and arbitrary hike in electricity tariff and fuel price by the government of President Muhammadu Buhari.

”The group said , “This is unjust to many people living in extreme poverty, and entirely incompatible with the Nigerian Constitution of 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations.

”Kolawole Oluwadare, SERAP deputy director said in a statement that: “The hike will endanger lives and increase inequality and poverty exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.“SERAP will challen

ge this travesty in court if the Federal Government does not immediately drop these retrogressive measures against the Nigerian people.

“Specifically, the increase in electricity tariff and fuel price clearly violates Nigeria’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which the country is a state party, not to take ‘deliberately retrogressive measures’ unless there are no alternative options and full consideration has been given to ensure that the measures are necessary and proportionate.

“SERAP urges President Muhammadu Buhari to immediately drop the misguided hike, and to establish independent impact assessment of the increases on the poorest segments of society, and to identify alternative measures, such as cutting the bogus allowances of people in the Presidency and members of the National Assembly.“The hike is lacking in compassion, as it will hit the poorest and most vulnerable Nigerians the hardest, increase inequality levels in an already very unequal Nigeria. It definitively signals that socio-economic rights are a very low priority for this government.“President Buhari should reconsider these arbitrary measures and put human rights at the centre of his government’s policies.”

1...975976977...1,105Page 976 of 1,105

Law & Society Magazine is a general interest magazine with a bias for law and its effects on the society

Contact us: [email protected]

© 2024 Copyright - Law & Society Magazine