…. as Babangida, Tambuwal, Osoba decry moves to gag free speech
It might be uhuru at last for proponents of free speech as plots to push the hate speech bill in the red chambers appears to be wobbling.
Senate President Ahmed Ibrahim Lawan was today presented with a court judgement to safeguard the Senate from falling into an error with regards to barring free speech in Nigeria.
The November 28, 2019 letter drew the Senate’s attention to a judgement of the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) which had debarred Nigeria’s government from criminalising free speech in whatever guise.
Delivered by Mackay Chambers and Associates, part of the letter reads: “We hereby inform you that, the exercise in pursuing this Hate Speeches Establishment Bill 2019 is one in futility and therefore, the taxpayers money should not be plunged into it, in view, of the Judgment of the ECOWAS Court which has been termed by the global community as a landmark Judgment, a trailblazer for the global freedom of expression.”
The judgement was the culmination of the arbitration in a case instituted by FestusOgwuche and Anor v. the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
A part of the certified true copy of the judgement reads:
“That on Tuesday the 11th day of December 2018 in Suit no; ecw/ccj/app/ 10/15; judgment no; ecw ccj jud 31/18, quashed and forbids the Federal Republic of Nigeria from criminalizing free speech in whatever form, colour or clothing and barred her from free speech or press censorships enshrined and guaranteed under Article XIX of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the ECOWAS protocol on Democracy and Good Governance.”
The judgement states that all these are covenants from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Nigerians enjoy its full declaration
The letter further stated that the hate speech bill runs contrary to section 22 and 39 of the Nigerian Constitution and other international convention to which Nigeria is a signatory.
The letter also disclosed that: “The Hate Speeches Establishment Bill 2019 is contrary to Section 22 and 39 of the 1999 Nigeria Constitution as amended which guarantees freedom of expression. It needs no saying that, any Law or Act that is or are contrary to the grand norm of the Constitution is null and void.”
Meanwhile, former military President, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (rtd) has said that there is no basis for the Hate Speech Bill before the National Assembly, insisting that no one can muzzle the voice of Nigerians.
General Babangida spoke at his Minna hilltop residence when he received the National President of the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ), Chief Christopher Isiguzo who was there on courtesy call.
A similar bill he revealed was presented before the Eighth National Assembly but that he advised against it saying: “I am surprised that this bill has resurfaced”.
“There is no basis for this now; we are developing and we should be allowed to develop; if we make mistakes people can be cautioned. If somebody goes off, you have the right to call him to say ‘no we don’t want this.”
He remarked that “unless people are able to express themselves that the government or those in authority will know what is happening in the country”
The former military president who said the only reason for the bill is that the sponsors want to show “eye- service as we call it in the army,” described the death penalty prescribed in the bill as “crude.”
“If somebody makes hate speech, and you put him in the gallows and shoot him, it is crude; it is not in the 21st Century. It could have happened may be some 300 years ago but not now.”
Babangida told his visitor that he will join the NUJ and other stakeholders in protesting against the passage of the bill saying, “I am with you on this. I will also talk to those of us who could be in position to bring sanity to some of these things”.
The former military president said he had been following media publications on the forth coming elections in the United States of America, adding that “if we had their type of media, I think they should be jailing you all by now.”
He credited himself with opening up the media space in the country even when some of his colleagues opposed his policy, “but today the country is better for it.”
Babangida challenged the media in the country to remain “strongly focused on what Nigeria wants, “ adding that we can only succeed if we allow this freedom unfettered without death threat or N10m it sounds silly”
Earlier the proposed Hate Speech and Anti-social Media bills came under heavy attack and condemnation at the 15th All Nigeria Editors Conference (ANEC) in Sokoto.
Leading the pack, host Governor, Rt. Hon. Aminu Tambuwal of Sokoto State, warned that omnious clouds are gathering over the country, and that Nigeria cannot continue to run democracy like a military dictatorship. According to Tambuwal, “Hate speech and Social Media bills have no place in a constitutional democracy.
Likewise, Osoba offered to lead the Guild, even as a chieftain of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), to lobby the senators, to ensure that the bills do not pass through.
Acting President of NGE, Mr. Mustapha Isa in his welcome address, reminded those behind the bills that there are already enough laws in the country to check the infractions which the proposed bills seek to address. Isa restated the the Guild does not, and will not, support the proposed bills, as they are tantamount to gagging the media
As the judgment continues to reveberate, a Nigerian lawyer with the hash tag IP #TM #UFAIRCOMPETITION had a say on “Trademark and Unfair Competition: how brands can commercialize their IP?”.
U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter | OpenJurist.org
PHILADELPHIA – Tropical Naturals won a copyright lawsuit over the use of a trademark for soap in a decision handed down Sept. 10 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Chinjindu Chris Maduka had brought a claim against the company seeking more than $1 million for profits earned in six years of use of the DUDU OSUN, which he claimed he had been using since 1986, and DUDU OSUM trademarks. The trademarks are used for marketing what’s referred to as “African black soap.”
These types of soaps and body products are sold to people in West African countries. They are also popular within the immigrant community living in the United States.
Tropical Naturals claimed that DUDU OSUN was its trademark. It sought $29,235.02 from Maduka as well as attorney’s fees. It also wanted Maducka to be permanently barred from using the DUDU OSUN and DUDU OSUM trademarks in the future, as well as to have his patents pulled from the U.S. Patent Office, and for the court to stop Maducka’s claim to patent the DUDU OSUM trademark.
In her 47-page ruling, Judge Gene Pratter said that Maducka’s claim to have used the trademark in the United States could not be verified until 2001, and that Tropical’s “ownership of the DUDU OSUN trademark predated any legally cognizable use in commerce by” Maduka. The company has used the DUD OSUM trademark, but they are “confusingly similar,” thus preventing Maduka from being able to claim ownership of DUDU OSUM as well.
Pratter said Tropical was not entitled to profits earned by Maduka and that the company was entitled to an injunction preventing Maduka from using either trademark in the future. Also, she said that the Patent Office must cancel Maduka’s registration for DUDU OSUM. But she would not cancel his patent application for DUDU OSUM. Additionally, Maduka must pay Tropical’s attorney’s fees.
PENNSYLVANIA RECORD
ANigerian Lawyer Tweets
ANWIRI
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99 Have you ever used or seen this bar soap in a super market/shop/minimart/store “DUDU OSUN”?…Today’s IP discussion is on Trademark and Unfair Competition: how brands can commercialize their IP?
Summary of the case- Mr Chinjindu Chris Maduka v Tropical Natural Ltd The plaintiff Mr Maduka claimed that he had developed a brand of “African black soap” and related body care products which he markets and sells using the marks DUDU OSUN and DUDU OSUM…
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99 And was suing a Nigerian entity called Tropical Natural Ltd (TNL) for trademark infringement of the mark “DUDU OSUN”, Unfair Competition and sought you recover from TNL $1,020,665.68 as alleged profit from the last 6 years of the use of DUDU OSUN…
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99 TNL counterclaims against Mr Maduka that they are the right owner of the DUDU OSUNark and sought to recover $29,235.02 as profit from the use of the DUDU OSUN & DUDU OSUM mark in the last 6 years, attorney’s fees,permanent injunction barring Mr Maduka from using the disputed mark …
@esmeraldo99 And also cancel Mr Maduka’s registration for the application for the DUDU OSUN mark as well as his pending application for the DUDU OSUN mark. Now you may be wondering what is in a name especially with regards to a business and brand?
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 Every entrepreneur who has intention or is in a business venture would require a name as a badge, origin and identification which may consist of combination of personal names, invented words or descriptive words, to ensure that it is been protected from passing off.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 And it does not matter the kind of business he /she wishes to engage in which could either be private or public. This is where Trademark as an IP comes into play; a TM is used to differentiate a product or service from another in order to avoid confusion…
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 which could be smell, logos, names, colour, numbers, letters, ‘three-dimensional features such as the shape and packaging of goods, non-visible signs such as sounds or fragrances’.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 A trademark is protected once it has been registered and if it has goodwill can be protected from infringement.
Function of trademark i. It identifies the commercial/ trade origin of a goods which is applied. In other words, it is seen as a badge of origin as in the case of…
ii. It advertises the goods/services sold by the traders in connection with the mark which is known as the ‘Investment Vehicle’. iii. It can be an indication of quality which helps in differentiating between inferior goods. For example, the Christian Louboutin shoes known for its red sole shoes with the signature can be identified anywhere it is seen.
SCOPE OF PROTECTION a. It protects the work to help distinguish between other goods/services
b. Gives monopoly over use of marks in respect to goods and services which has been registered.
c. Names, words and phrases can be protected as trademark as it represents and defines the brand, sends out information and distinguishes the products/services.
d. Once registered it is is valid for an initial period of 7 years and…
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 The conclusion of the court which struck me the most was No. 3 in the picture below. Use in commerce could be likened to the principle of first in time and establishment of the right to use a mark which prevents others from using a mark without the permission from the owner
@esmeraldo99 Mr Abiola Ogunride founder & owner of TNL started manufacturing and selling African Black soap in Nigeria using the “DUDU OSUN” mark in 1995. He gave detailed explanation on how he came up with the name of the mark which was gotten from one of the popular languages in Nigeria.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 DUDU in Yoruba means “Black”and OSUN means Camwood. He went further to show continuous use of the mark between 2002-2008 (6 years) while Mr Maduka stayed he started using the mark as far back as 1986 which he also called aspire Dudu Raw Black Soap & liquid black soap.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 Both Mr Maduka and TNL both sold soap products, including bar soap known as African Black Soap in the Soap Industry popular in Nigeria, West African countries and was also popular in the U. S especially among immigrants from West African nations.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 According to Daniel M McClure he was of the opinion that ‘the history of trademark law was seen as playing out the tension between protecting entitlements on the one hand and encouraging free market competition with access to other protected marks’.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 In this case you can see the parties tension in protecting their entitlements on the one hand and encouraging free market competition with access to other protected marks’. Same is applicable in every other IP
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 With invented words, names or phrases it is easier to protect,as it comprises of different combination to create and represent the brand and are not common words or terms and cannot be found in the English dictionary, and in this case DUDU OSUN/OSUM
This can also be referred to as trade names given protection under trademark to control unfair competition and dilution of trademarks. A brand name is an identity to the product and what makes them stand out from other product and services.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 It has been said that most brands speaks for itself hence making the product quality and price higher than its inferior. In the U. S, trademarked names are given utmost protection due to the fact that they represent the brand under both state and federal laws.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 Under the Supreme Court in the United States, the federal trademark law has two objectives:
1. Protection of consumers’ ability to identify and distinguish products of various manufacturers;
2. Protecting the business goodwill which a mark symbolizes.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 In Nigeria, the ‘FERODO CASE’ is referred to as the foundation (“locus classicus”) of trademark law in Nigeria.
b. Niger Chemist v Nigerian Chemist and D.K.Brown on pronunciation thereby causing confusion.
c. Iyke Merchandise v Pfizer Inc and Others where these two words
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 “Combartrin Plus” and “Combiterin” were the cause of confusion. Cc -DUDU OSUN v DUDU OSUM
In Omnia Nigeria ltd v Dyke trade ltd the issue was on the use of the word/phrases ‘SUPER ROCKET’ and the plaintiff had to obtain an Anton Pillar Order against the defendant.
A. Dilution of names: is said to be reducing of a brands values thereby making the consumers think it is unique, particular and singular. It is also being made up of two particular harms namely:
i. Blurring
ii. Tanishment
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 Blurring is by associating another mark to another while Tanishment is based on the reputation of a famous brand that is now associated with another brand. The United State enacted the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) which was established in 1996 to prevent dilution in any
B. Counterfeiting and piracy: buying of counterfeits products violates the real author’s right but the consumers themselves are vulnerable to some risk for instance poisoning. Every country is affected by counterfeiting and piracy therefore the law enforcements, agencies
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 and custom officials worldwide should work in tandem and trading laws should be created in other to frustrate the efforts of these impersonators in shipping, distributing and selling of these products.
C. Passing off in relation to pronunciations and similarities: what happens when two products have the same spellings but different pronunciation, which of the owners should be given the right to own the trademark. In the case of Céline SARL v Céline SA it was held that there was
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 no infringement. However, the Nigerian case of Niger Chemist v Nigerian Chemist and D.K.Brown may beg to differ or don’t you think so
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 Now let’s look at the claims the parties are seeking to recover a certain amount of profit made in th last 6 years TNL is asking for $1,020,665.68 while Mr Maduka is asking for … $29,235.02
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 Proof of ownership under the Lanham Act in the US for trademark is based on the first continuous use of the mark which TNL did between 2002-2008, ownership is not acquired by federal or state registration but from prior appropriation and actual use in the market through the sale ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 of goods and services while use in commerce is defined under the Lanham Act as the bona fife use of snark in the ordinary course of trade and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. Courts in the circuit also consider the following factors:
1. The volume of sales of the TMed product in this case DUDU OSUN which TNL showed to have I@ported into the US from 2001 over 150,000 bars of TNL’s DUDU OSUN up till 27 April, 2016 and showed a document of another 48,000 bars sold to different distributors in Virginia from
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 May 2002 and made $28,479.00 while Mr Maduka had less than $3000 and even sold some of TNL’s branded product. Infringing or not…you tell me
2. The growth trends are both +ve and -ve in the area
3. The number of persons actually purchasing the products in relation to the potential number of customers and TNL had the numbers and finally 4. The amount of product advertised in the area
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 TNL advertises his brand in the African Imports Catalogue in the Fall/Winter 2002 & Summer 2004 edition, Spring 2009 and Spring 2011 editions. Mr Maduka did none of that to meet market penetration. Ownership in Nigeria under Section 18(1) of the TMA is any person claiming
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 to be the proprietor of a trade mark used or proposed to be used by him who is desirous or registering it but must apply in writing to the Registrar in the prescribed manner for registration either in Part A or Part B of the Register
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 What is the deemed registerable under Part A and Part B ? What is the difference? Marks registered in Part A MUST be “distinctive” which is defined by Section 9 of the TMA to be that the work is adapted in relation to the goods in which it is registered to distinguish
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 goods with which the proprietor of the TM is or may be connected in the course of the trade
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99·Nov 19 While registration in Part B the mark must be capable in relation to the goods in respect of which it is registered or proposed to be registered and doesn’t have to be “distinctive” but be capable of being distinctive.
ANWIRI@esmeraldo99 Follow Intellectual Property and Technology lawyer, Arbitrator,Co-Contributor to the 6th ICLG on Data Protection, #Derbygrad2014
A psychology war is currently brewing in Nigeria. This is the serious decade-old battle between serious literature and pornography. The contemporaneous Nigerian society has been so bastardized by the influx of Western culture that we seem to be losing our foothold on our sense of values. Many Nigerians have assimilated to a significant degree, a multitudinous memorabilia of the Western culture that it would not be surprising to discover that many Nigerian youths dream Western dreams.
Pornography is that aspect of literature that is designed to entice the consumer sexually.
It comes in diverse forms, including writings, recordings, still pictures, motion pictures, Facebook statuses and profile pictures, Blackberry Messenger display pictures, and Skype I.m’s.
It is very sad to note however that pornography in its different forms is gaining the upper hand in this colossal battle.
It is no doubt intriguing at the rate at which the Nigerian public, especially the social networking sites, is being flooded by an influx of pornographic materials in its different forms these days. One can hardly visit a social networking site without being assaulted by a superfluous and redundant display of the mammary glands, and pictures of nude women in highly beguiling postures. These apart, the most annoying fact is that many Nigerian youths, most especially the females have taken to engage in an empirical experiment. Most indolent Nigerian youths unabashedly portray these animalistic attitudes in their vulgar mode of dressing and uncouth behaviour. And many of them are not ashamed to give Section 39(1) CFRN 1999 as the ratio for this primitive behavior.
In view of this obnoxious cankerworm that is eating deep into the recess of the Nigerian public, can it then be said that the framers of our constitution did not deem it worthwhile in balancing the freedom of expression as guaranteed in Section 39(1) CFRN with adequate checks on its abuse as other countries have done? The answer is very glaring. The Criminal Code which is an act of parliament that is in conformity with the totality of the constitution makes express provisions relating to this demoralising phenomenon. Section 233 of the Criminal Code Act under paragraphs A-F expressly prohibits any obscene article or publication. Subsection (B) went to great lengths to define “article” as used in this context to include: anything capable of being or likely to be looked at and read or looked at or read, and includes any film or record of a picture or pictures, and any sound records. Thus, going by the extensive definition of the Criminal Code Act, anybody who posts any picture on Facebook, Blackberry Messenger, Twitter, Skype, or any other social networking site which fulfils the intention listed in Section 233(B) and which also by virtue of Section 233(C)(1), is intended to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it; such a person is by virtue of
Section 233(D)(1), guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding four hundred naira or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or by both.
The English court of appeal the case of Shaw v DPP (1961)2 All ER 446, held that the courts have a residual power to enforce the fundamental purpose of the law which is to keep law and order, and that there is an offence known as conspiracy to corrupt public morals.
This judgement was upheld by the English Court of Appeal in DPP v Whyte (1972) AC 849, where it held that the court is duty bound to conserve safety and order, as well as the moral welfare of the state.
Thus, going by the astute provisions of the Criminal Code and the stand of the court on the issue, there is no doubt that many a student would spend at least half of his/ her academic calendar anguishing in gaol due to the lackadaisical attitude of the Nigerian youth towards the issue.
This writer would therefore like to sound a timeous note of warning to anyone who is guilty of this unwholesome attitude to beware, for a day of reckoning is coming when we will be to account for our deeds and misdeeds on this planet.
A student of Babcock University, Ilishan, Ogun State, “Miss Y”, was found in a trending sex tape which surfaced on online on Wednesday, 21/11/2019. According to the University, the lady was a third-year student of the Accounting Department.
Well, the University (a Christian co-educational Nigerian University owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Nigeria) confirmed the expulsion of the young lady and also confirmed that her partner had been earlier expelled in February, 2019 for various acts of misconduct. Interestingly, it was said that, according to her written statement, the immoral event took place at St. Bridget Hospital, Abeokuta, Ogun State, where the boy has been undergoing rehabilitation for “different destructive addictions”.
From the University’s report, she was expelled from the University after due process was followed, for violation of the University’s rules and regulations. More so, the written statement mentioned above is a pointer to the fact that some hearing took place.
Nature of relationship between a university and a student
What is the nature of the relationship between a university and a student? In the famous case of Garba v. University of Maiduguri [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 550, the great late Chief FRA Williams SAN had argued that, essentially, the relationship between a university and every student is based on contract. The university in question here was the University of Maiduguri (UNIMAID), a Federal Government institution, established by the University of Maiduguri Act. Late Chief referred to a number of authorities in support of his position including Notes by Professor H.W.R. Wade in 85 L.Q.R. 46 captioned “Judicial Control of Universities” and later in 90 L.Q.R. 157158 quoting Lord Devlin’s Report on the sit-in strike of students at Cambridge University which, inter alia, reads:
“Contract is the foundation of most domestic or internal systems of discipline. The power to discipline should be inferred from the acceptance of it in the contract of matriculation.”
The Supreme Court of Nigeria however rejected Chief William’s argument holding (in agreement with Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi – Counsel to the students) that the relationship between the students of UNIMAID in that case was principally statutory and not contractual; and that under Section 2 (1)(i) of the University of Maiduguri Act, the students were in fact members of the University.
More so, the Court held that the suit instituted by the students in that case was hinged on a constitutional provision (and not solely on contract) in that the students prayed the Court to declare that their expulsion from UNIMAID constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights to fair hearing. Their expulsion was sequel to the riotous behaviour of about 500 students in the University at the time.
Now, Babcock University is a private institution not created by statute. Thus, the relationship between the students and the University cannot be said to be statutory. It is safe to conclude that same is purely contractual. It also follows that the power of the University to discipline the young lady flows from that contract. Miss Y must have made an undertaking, both written and implied, to be of good conduct and not to indulge in any conduct that is capable of tarnishing the image of the University. She is bound.
Is engaging in private sex capable of tarnishing the image of the University?
Sex is a private affair that is hardly ever consummated in the open. Even the laws of the country do not criminalise fornication between two consenting adults. Casual sex/fornication is purely an immoral conduct and a sin properly so described in the Holy Books especially the Bible. The University may freely make it part of their rules and regulations that no student, especially unmarried students, must engage in sexual activity within the University premises. The students are bound to abide and put their youthful exuberance into check. However, if there is any rule stating that no student is allowed to have sex even outside the University, then that would be nearly impossible to enforce for being nearly an overzealous bargain.
A group of women had come visiting. The women, most of them, Choristers came from the Cathedral Of The Transfiguration Of The Lord, (CATOL), Anglican Communion, Owerri. They came to rejoice with one of their own, Hon. Justice Chioma Nwosu-Iheme, PhD, who had just come back from the Lion’s den. In her words she came out from the land of the dead.
So, the women came to celebrate with her and her family, to praise God for His mercies and protection.
Nwosu-Iheme, is CATOL’s parishioner.
From the gate to her residence in Owerri, the women ushered themselves into her living room, heartily singing, and dancing to a popular Church victory song: “He (God) has given us victory, we will lift Him Higher, Jehovah, we will lift Him higher”
As they entered, everybody in the house, including Nwosu-Iheme and her doting husband, stood up, and sang and danced along. It was like a dancing competition, with hands and eyes lifted unti God. For about 25 minutes, Church songs, one after the other held away. The praise songs, and the dancing, were apt.
For two weeks, Nwosu-Iheme’s house was so quiet that the drop of a pin would be heard. It was a house in mourning. The mother and the rock of the house has been abducted, her fate unknown.
Nkwerre, her maiden and marital community, fared no better. The town was like one big mourning home. Their influential Traditional Ruler, the Eshi of Nkwerre, declared days of fasting. The women decided to bring out their wrappers for sale. The proceeds was to be their contribution to the demands of her abductors. They had also prepared for war. They set a date to march to, and on the Government House, Owerri. The Eshi prevailed on them to wait. Rich, Nkwerre young men were rearing to go. The Church was also hit.
The Dioceses of Nkwerre and Owerri declared prayers and fasting. At the Synod of Egbu Diocese, the Bishop, The Rt. Rev. Geoffrey Okorafor, made her ordeal a prayer point. The Judiciary, her constituency, was not left behind. The National President of the Nigeria Bar Association, NBA, Paul Usoro, SAN, issued a strongly-worded statement, deriding and decrying her abduction. Both the Edo and Imo branches of the NBA boycotted the Courts for days, in protest.
Justice Chioma Nwosu-Iheme was abducted inside Benin City, around 11.30am, on October 30, not along the Benin- Agbor road as was reported in the media.
For four days, her abductors made no contact with her family or anybody. On the 5th day, they did, and named their price.
And negotiations began
Days ran into two weeks. The negotiation went back on forth. An agreement was reached. On the 13th day, they called for the ransom money to be delivered. They promised to release her that night, somewhere, in Benin. It didn’t happen. And they made no other contact.
But on the 14th day, late evening, Her Lordship’s voice was the sweetest heard by her family in decades of her being wife and mom.
She called from the Protea Hotel, Benin City, to say she has been released; that she was free, and safe.
The CATOL women who came visiting just wanted to see her. To thank God. To pray with, and for her. And to hear her voice, even one word, one sentence.
They got more than they bargained for. They heard the story of her ordeal, why, and how she was abducted.
At some point, a number of the women became emotional. And so did Nwosu-Iheme, especially, when she spoke about her Police Orderly of 12 years, an Inspector. Her voice cracked. Tears rolled down her cheeks. “He was my friend, my kid brother, my Chief Security Officer. He was different. An honest police officer. He lived with me for 12 years. For those 12 years, he protected me with his skin. And finally, he gave his life for me. As long as I live , as long as my family members live, his family will never suffer. His six children will go to any school of their choice, to any level. That’s a promise we, as a family, have made to God.”
Following, is Hon Justice Chioma Nwosu-Iheme’s story.
Abduction, Not Pre-planned. She Ran Into Her Abductors
Justice Nwosu-Iheme’s abduction shocked Nigerians and the International community. Nigeria’s first female Judge to have a PhD, reputed for her fearlessness and no-nonsense stand on issues, she had handled many sensitive cases, including the notorious ‘Otokoto case’. At a very young age, she fearlessly, took on the case which had been rejected by a couple of other Judges. The fear when she was abducted was: Who dunnit?
Of the Appeal Court Division, Benin, she was presiding over appeal cases emanating from the 2019 General election at the time of her abduction. So, was she kidnapped because of the cases the Court was handling and/or had handled – Political or otherwise?
But she rubbished such fears and thoughts. The Appeal Court, unlike the High Court, is not a-one man show. Usually, three Judges sit on an Appeal.
Her abduction was not pre-planned, she emphasized. She was at the right place at the wrong time.
Done with her duties in Benin,the Judge was on her way to Owerri when the unfortunate incident amazingly took place inside Benin City.
The abduction scene was a stretch of bad road in the city. Every motorist usually slowed down there. As her car was approaching the spot, there were “uniformed policemen” there. Well-kitted, they packed their double-decked Hilux vehicle, stood-by, AK 47 guns in hand.
They were kidnappers. She didn’t know. Nobody knew. They had already, earlier, kidnapped four people, including, mother and daughter. There was, also, a young ex-FUTO student, an engineer, who wept like a baby as soon as she recognised Nwosu-Iheme. He was classmates with her son at FUTO. The Judge was in the habit of feeding all of them fat, and giving them pocket money each time they visited.
The Kidnappers were waiting to kidnap more people when Her Lordship’s SUV, bearing an FG plate number and Judiciary, approached. They saw a Policeman sitting in front, and knew that whoever must have a kidnap value. They smiled, and readied themselves for action.
As her vehicle slowed down, they saluted her. She raised her hand and took their compliments. That was when they struck.
Before she brought down the hand she had just used to take the compliments, a volley of gun shots rained. Confused, she wondered where the shots came from. Momentarily, she relaxed, thinking she was in the midst of Policemen. But, instinctively, she bent her head down. And so did her Orderly, or so she thought. She didn’t know that he had been fatally shot. He was wearing a bullet proof vest. They knew and, so, aimed at his forehead.
Before she could comprehend what was happening, scores of bullets rained again, this time, shattering her car’s two back tyres.
She told her driver to drive on. Since it was in the city, broad day light, she thought, an intervention would come. None came.
She said she had two options: To feign she was dead, or to allow them take her. She discarded the former. If she feigned she was dead, they may in anger, for losing a high profile price, pump bullets into her. She opted to be brought out from the car, and put in the Hilux. That was where she met the others earlier kidnapped.
Six men, wearing Police uniform did the job.
“I was not a target. I was not trailed. Nobody double-crossed my car. I was not on the Benin-Agbor road. It was in Benin city. I ran into them. Four people had been kidnapped before me. If I had delayed anywhere by 20 minutes, that would have saved us. They would have driven off before our arrival”.
The Joy Of The Kidnappers
As soon as they put her in the hilux, the first thing they did was to grab her wrist watch. They looked at it, they screamed. Their joy knew no bounds. These guys knew the make. Then, they grabbed her rings and her bangles, and screamed some more. They went back to her car, took her hand bag, saw the quality, and knew they had hit a jackpot. Then, they went back and grabbed her suit case. They took their time. Yet, the thousands of Security personnel in Benin – Military, Police, Civil Defence, Para- military – were nowhere near! God has buttered their bread, the abductors exclaimed. They, therefore, discarded the idea of waiting for some more victims. Justice Nwosu-Iheme was more than enough. They drove off, unconfronted. And this was inside Benin City!
They asked their five victims to bend down, as they drove on, just so nobody would see them and suspect anything. But there was no need. They knew their route. Until they got to their final destination, they met no military or police check-point.
Madam Justice, You Have Broken The Internet
Final destination was a house – completed, not uncompleted, as had been speculated.
By the next morning, they had known her identity, fully. Smart guys, they relied on the internet to follow reactions to their exploits of the previous day. The Social media provided that. It was awash with her very rich Curriculum Vitae. What they read gave them joy unlimited. A Judge of the Appeal Court. (They called it Appeal Supreme Court). Nigeria’s first female Judge to have a PhD. Well respected and regarded. Holds the key to a city in the USA. Dotting husband. Well behaved children – all lawyers, medical doctor, engineer. Had handled high profile sensitive cases. What else? The Social media had it all. So, they told her: “Madam Justice, you have broken the internet. We thank God for providing you for us. We are happy you are in our midst. After you, we will not embark on any other job for the next six months. God has blessed us with you in our midst”.
Once they confirmed her kidnap value, with the help of the Social Media, they knew they had to protect their high profile victim by all means.
So, they treated her with respect and reverence. She was neither blind-folded nor molested in anyway. For her sake, they extended same to the other abductees. Madam Justice, they called her. Atimes, with a bow.
They provided her with a new mattress. “Madam Justice, see it, it is a new mattress”. They brought new bedsheets, told her same thing, tore the covering water-proof open before her to prove it’s new. They brought new Ankara wrapper, and told her: “It is a new one, Madam Justice.” She was wearing a boo-boo when she was abducted. So, the wrapper came in- handy. She could, at least, use it to ward off mosquitoes. There was no light.
They provided drinking water, and with apologies, told her: “We are sorry. We don’t have bottled water here. We have pure water. Look at the label. It is a good one. We know you don’t drink it, but manage it. You use you teeth to tear it open.” I know, she told them.
Every morning, they would boil hot water for her to take her bath.
And, they regularly asked her what she wanted to eat. “There is bread, rice beans, yam, anything you want”. She rejected all. But was grateful for the pure water. It would help her to re-hydrate. She had a small cut on the forehead which was bleeding. When they noticed it, they quickly put a call through to their boss. He asked them to quickly stop the bleeding. When she complained “of cough,” they called their boss who asked them to urgently get her the best cough medicine. They did. But, she didn’t take it.
Her Most Difficult Days
When they bought a new mattress for her, she knew she would be with them for a long time. But the first one week was her most difficult. Water was her most delicious food.
Where Is My Orderly? Tell Me The Truth, Did You Kill My Orderly?
Her Orderly. Her Orderly. After four days, one of them became friendly with her. On the fifth day, she asked him, “Where is my Orderly. Please, tell me the truth. Did you kill my Orderly?”
He answered her in the negative. “No, we did not kill him. We only took his AK 47 gun from him”.
Nwosu-Iheme was happy. She said she wanted both of them to tell the story of their ordeal together.
But, the next day, she asked him again: ” Tell me the truth, did you kill my Orderly? The friendly kidnapper hesitated, and again denied. But She is a Judge. She understood. She broke down, and wept. For days, she wept non-stop, mourning her Orderly who she describes as the best.
Hon. Justice Nwosu – Iheme
But the other woman, who was earlier kidnapped, along with her daughter, scolded and consoled her both, at once. “Stop crying. Be consoled that you are alive. You will tell his family what happened. With the number of bullets fired at your car, it is a miracle you were not killed. So, stop”.
The remaining number of days she stayed with the kidnappers was a healing period for her to come to terms with the death of her Orderly. “I will miss her forever”, she says.
The Negotiation: They wanted Osinbajo’s Trader-moni
The negotiation for her release was long and tough. For the first four days, her abductors made no contact with her family. That almost killed them. Said her husband :”I was finished and walking on my head. I didn’t know what to tell our children, grown up as they are. I was very worried about them. My wife is very close to our children. Our grand children knew what happened, and were in tears , everyday. As for me, I was a finished man already.”
Then, the kidnappers called. They asked for a ransom of, wait for this, One Billion Naira! The haggling began. They came down to N500million. Every offer made was rejected. They said the Federal Government should bring the money. She told them she was not working for the FG, but the Judiciary. “Your car plate number bears FG”, they countered. Then, they told her that Vice President Osinbajo should pay them Trader-moni. President Buhari should order him to do so. When she told them it doesn’t work that way, they rained curses on both men. The day the NASS expressed concern over the new trend of abducting Judges, using her case as a peg, and asked for adequate protection for Judiciary officers, they called them useless people. “It is now that they know they need to protect them. Useless people”.
The Release Through A Tunnel And The Prayers With The Kidnappers
Finally, a compromise was reached. They called the family, Tuesday, guided them on what to do and told them she would be released somewhere in Benin, which would be communicated to them.
All through that Tuesday night, they did not communicate with the family. The whole of Wednesday morning and afternoon, nothing.
Night came, no calls. The family’s hope of a re-union they thought would be quick after “the settlement” was ebbing.
But the abductee said she knew she would be released that Wednesday. What she didn’t know was the time.
How: “They were happy. Very happy. And were anxious to move on. Every abductee, but one, had “done something”, except one boy. Even at that, they didn’t mind. They had enough to cover his. So, why waste time?
At the appointed time they brought the five of them out, asked them to sit down. Then, the abductors called for prayers – prayers for God’s protection as they depart. They asked their victims if they were shocked that they too pray. To support their behaviour, they quoted the Bible, and told the story of Saul, who persecuted Christians, no end, but later repented, and even became a Saint – St Paul.
The harrowing journey to freedom began. It was through a tunnel. To go through it, they all had to bend down, guided by their abductors. It was a long stretch. At a point, her strength failed. She had not eaten for days. But God intervened. She trudged on. When they got to the end of the tunnel, there was a steaming vehicle, waiting for them.
They entered, and drove off at a break- neck, suicidal speed. Fear gripped them. “They had their hearts in their stomach” What if a trailer crushed them? But God was in charge.
They gave them N2,000 each, for transportation, and dropped them in the middle of nowhere. Three roads confronted them. One to Lagos, another to Benin, and the other to another town. They told their victims motorcyclists usually took that route. So, they stood there.
Soon motorcyclists began to drive-by.
The Good Samaritan
Justice Nwosu-Iheme took the first one. She was wearing a boo-boo, not comfortable for such a ride “This is my first time of taking an Okada.Please, take it easy, she appealed. He asked what they were doing at that lonely stretch. She told him they were kidnap victims, and asked to be dropped where she could get a taxi.
The motorcyclist turned out to be the biblican good Samaritan. He refused to take money from her. “Madam, they kidnap you, you came out, and you wan pay me. No ma.” Good young man, he waited until a taxi, carrying no other passenger came. She insisted on being the only occupant in any taxi.
Nwosu-Iheme was so touched by the man’s kindness that she asked him to write his phone number somewhere for her.
“For your kindness to me, when I get back to my family alive, by the grace of God, you will not be an Okada rider again. I will help you in life”, she told the motorcyclist. She is sticking to that promise.
Free At Last
She asked the taxi driver to take her to Protea Hotel, Benin. At the reception, she begged the receptionist to use their phone. She remembered her husband’s phone number. His youngest son, the negotiator, who suddenly became the voice of the family picked the call. When he heard his mother’s voice, he screamed: “Daddy, she is alive, she is free”.
Is She Bitter?
Not quite. But she is human. The killing of her Police Orderly is too much for her. It’s like a sore on the palm. She shudders each time she remembers him. And, it is often. Her Orderly’s family members were worried about her, knowing how close they were. On her way back to Owerri the day after her release, she went to the Police station where her bullet-riddled car was parked. She wanted to look at the car where her Orderly died, for the last time.
She attributed the fate that befell her to God’s wish, her destiny. God wanted to strengthen me, to show me His face and His love for me.
I owe Him. I will thank Him everyday of my life. It is thanksgiving to Him everyday.
“I love my job. And I love my country. I was appointed a Judge at a very young age. I have kept clean hands. I have never seen black and called it white. I have never seen white and called it black. In the shadows if death, I sang to God, I asked Him to judge me by my actions. God saw my heart, and saved me from the clutches of death. I appreciate Him.
May God bless our country. May God’s name be praised “.
This is the second time the family would go through this harrowing experience. A couple of years back, one of her twin sons was kidnapped in Owerri.
Torture is the intentional infliction of mental or physical pain/suffering on a person ignorer to obtain information/confession, or punish, intimidate and force him or a third party.
Torture includes; beatings, food deprivation, rubbing of pepper/chemicals, assuming of stressful bodily positions, rape, exposure to cold/sunlight, use of drugs, blindfolding, threat, prolonged interrogation, unscheduled transfer of persons, secret detention, denial of sleep, shaming, stripping naked and parading in public places. There is no justification for torture, not even war, national security or high profile case.
Any person that witnesses or is present when torture is being conducted is as liable as the person that conducted torture. He is deemed as having participated in torture. This applies to any person; military, para-military or civilian. The punishment for torture is imprisonment for not more than 25 years and there is no option for fine.
My authorities are sections 2, 8(1) and 14 of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017 and section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
My authorities are sections 2, 8(4) and 14 of the Anti-Torture Act, 2017 and section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
Feel free to reach the author, ask questions or make inquiries on this topic or any other via [email protected] or [email protected] or +2348037665878.
NOTE: Sharing or modifying or publishing this publication without giving credit to Onyekachi Umah, Esq. and “LearnNigerianLaws.com” is a criminal breach of copyright and will be prosecuted. Please share this publication till it gets to those that need it most. Save a Nigerian today!
To receive our Daily Law Tips for free follow our Facebook page, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube via “@LearnNigerianLaws”. This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for more information.
I came across these sordid images of the 11 year old girl who was rescued by activist Gwamnishu Harrison in Awka Anambra state. While details are still coming in at the time of writing this article I thought it wise to educate Nigerians on this atrocious and illegal acts called child abuse and child labor.
Child Abuse
Child abuse takes many forms and among the list is Emotional, Physical , Neglect and Sexual abuse. For the purpose of this article I will be focused on child physical abuse.
Nigeria’s Child’s Rights Act of 2003 in particular Part II of the Act lists out the rights of the Nigerian child. They are:
1. Right to survival and development.
2. Right to name.
3. Freedom of association and peaceful assembly.
4. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
5. Right to private and family life.
6. Right to freedom of movement.
7. Right to freedom from discrimination.
8. Right to dignity of the child.
9. Right to leisure, recreation and cultural activities.
10. Right to health and health services.
11. Right to parental care, protection and maintenance.
12. Right of a child to free, compulsory and universal primary education, etc.
13. Right of a child in need of special protection measure.
14. Right of the unborn child to protection against harm, etc
A brief look into the specific section of the law that pertains to Child Abuse is as follows:
Section 11 of the above act “Right to dignity of the child” states:
“Every child is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly, no child shall be‐
(a) subjected to physical, mental or emotional injury, abuse, neglect or maltreatment, including sexual abuse;
(b) subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(c) subjected to attacks upon his honor or reputation; or
(d) held in slavery or servitude, while in the care of a parent, legal guardian or school authority or any other person or authority having the care of the child
From the above it is clear that the rights of the young abused child pictured above have been infringed upon and it’s in the interest of justice that redress is granted to her.
Child Labour
Just like child abuse highlighted above child labor is another common scourge the average Nigerian child faces. According to the International Labour Organization, the number of working children under the age of 14 in Nigeria is estimated at 15 million. While it is understandable that the prevailing poverty in Nigeria is a likely factor that influences this, it becomes a problem when you realize many of this child laborers work and remit the proceeds to a parent or guardian. From under-aged pure water & orange hawkers on Nigerian roads to the under aged house helps and maids that serve Nigerians in their homes, these are the child laborers we’ve all come in contact with.
(Image of children hawking source:Buzz Nigeria/Chiamaka Okoh)
Nigerian Law prohibits child labour. Section 28 of the Child’s Rights Act states:
Prohibition of exploitative labour (1) Subject to this Act, no child shall be‐
(a) subjected to any forced or exploitative labour; or
(b) employed to work in any capacity except where he is employed by a member of his family on light work of an agricultural, horticultural or domestic character; or
(c) required, in any case, to lift, carry or move anything so heavy as to be likely to adversely affect his physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development; or
(d) employed as a domestic help outside his own home or family environment.
(2) No child shall be employed or work in an industrial undertaking and nothing in this subsection shall apply to work done by children in technical schools or similar approved institutions if the work is supervised by the appropriate authority.
(3) Any person who contravenes any provision of subsection (1) or (2) of this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand naira or imprisonment for a term of five years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
The law of Nigeria is clear from the above about the punishment for the crime of child labour. I can only hope Nigerians that do it will take heed and desist from such acts. The rights of the Nigerian child needs to be protected for they are the future of Nigeria.
Security agencies are created by law and their powers are spelt out by law. No security agency is allowed to go outside its powers and rights. The State Security Services (SSS) also nicknamed Department of Security Service (DSS) was created by the National Security Agencies Act, 1986. State Security Services was created to detect and prevent crimes within Nigeria that may threaten national security of Nigeria. It also has powers to protect and preserve non-militray classified matters concerning internal national security of Nigeria.
Aside the law that created the SSS, later in 1999, the Military Government through Instrument No. 1 of 1999, expanded and specifically listed the functions of SSS, to include;
A. Prevention, detection and investigation of: 1. Threat of Espionage; 2. Threat of Subversion; 3. Threat of Sabotage; 4. Economic crimes of national security dimension; 5. Terrorist activities; 6. Separatist agitations and inter-group conflicts; 7. Threat to law and order
B. Vetting of: 1. Prospective appointees to public offices; 2. Vital and sensitive corporate organizations before their incorporation in Nigeria and continuous covert monitoring of their activities to ensure that they are in line with national security interest; 3. Applicants for Nigerian nationalization and naturalization in Nigeria;
C. Provision of timely advice to Government on all matters of National security interest; and
D. Profiling etc.
My authorities are sections 1, 2(3) and 8 of National Security Agencies Act 1986 and Instrument No. 1 of 1999.
Feel free to reach the author, ask questions or make inquiries on this topic or any other via [email protected] or [email protected] or +2348037665878.
NOTE: Sharing or modifying or publishing this publication without giving credit to Onyekachi Umah, Esq. and “LearnNigerianLaws.com” is a criminal breach of copyright and will be prosecuted. Please share this publication till it gets to those that need it most. Save a Nigerian today!
To receive our Daily Law Tips for free follow our Facebook page, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube via “@LearnNigerianLaws”. This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for more information.
Lawyer-client relationship is a relationship that has at least three natures. Firstly, the relationship is contractual in that it is a product of contract whereby a client seeks the services of a lawyer in exchange for payment of professional fees. Thus, the contractual relationship is governed by established principles of Contract Law. Secondly, the relationship is fiduciary in that the lawyer stands in a position of trust when dealing with his or her client; and the client relies on the lawyer for reliable legal advice to guide the client’s decisions. The Rules of Professional Conduct mandates that the lawyer act professionally at all times, avoiding conflict of interest, and advances, to the best of his or her ability, the cause of the client. The lawyer is expected to maintain lawyer-client privilege by treating the client’s information in strict confidence. Thirdly, lawyer-client relationship may also translate to an agency relationship – the lawyer as the agent of his or her client, the principal. The law is that acts of a lawyer on behalf of the client are the same as the acts of the client. In many cases, lawyers enjoy express power of attorney to deal with some specific instruction as seen in the case discussed later in this piece.
Terminating your lawyer’s instruction
Every client reserves the right to terminate a lawyer’s instruction and the contract of engagement at any time, subject to the terms of the contract and meeting with every outstanding obligation, especially as it relates to payment of professional fees. Steps involved in terminating a lawyer’s instruction (after thorough consideration of relevant factors) include officially serving the notice of termination (which may be by simple letter) communicating the decision of the client to disengage the lawyer. Other prior steps include ensuring that the termination is not ill-timed. More so, additional costs of engaging another lawyer, if necessary, must be considered as the erstwhile lawyer is not obliged to refund fees already earned.
Ordinarily, serving the notice of termination is all that is required as the client may opt to instruct another lawyer or proceed further as the client deems fit.
Nevertheless, in certain circumstances (as we shall soon see), there may be need to notify third parties of the client’s decision to terminate the lawyer’s engagement. In doing this, all that is required is a simple notice informing the third party of nothing other than that the lawyer has been disengaged and that the lawyer no longer acts for the client. In deserving cases, instruct the incoming lawyer to write directly or to draft same on your behalf.
If the client feels seriously offended by the lawyer, necessitating the termination, the client has a number of options including instituting an action against the lawyer or submitting a petition against the lawyer at the Nigerian Bar Association for onward prosecution by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.
Making any careless statement or unsubstantiated claims when communicating with third parties regarding the termination of the lawyer may expose one to heavy liability. This is one mistake a client must never make. The case of Omon & Ors v. Ekpa [2019] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1696) 504 presents an interesting scenario.
Here are a few clauses in the proposed social media bill that has got some Nigerians really worried.
Senator Muhammad Sani Musa’s ‘Protection from internet falsehoods and manipulation and other related matters bill 2019’, popularly referred to as the social media bill, has generated quite some controversy and debate since it scaled second reading on the floor of the red chamber.
The bill contains 36 clauses altogether and we’ve got to admit that it was poorly written.
Pulse has taken the time to go through the lengthy document on your behalf. And since no one intends to bore you with all that legalese and not-so-fluid writing, we’ve highlighted some of the more germane clauses below for your awareness.
What is this bill really about?
There’s a footnote in the document that reads as follows:
“This Act is to prevent Falsehoods and Manipulations in Internet transmission and correspondences in Nigeria. To suppress falsehoods and manipulations and counter the effects of such communication and transmissions and to sanction offenders with a view to encouraging and enhancing transparency by Social Media Platforms using the internet correspondences.”
Among the bill’s aims and objectives are the following words:
“To prevent the transmission of false statements/declaration of facts in Nigeria and to enable measures to be taken to counter the effects of such transmission; to suppress the financing, promotion and other support of online locations that repeatedly transmit false statements/declaration of facts in Nigeria.”
In simpler language, this is a bill that seeks to check the spread of falsehood, fake news and regulate the social media space as we know it, in defense of national security.
Let’s proceed with some of the clauses and punishment for offenders.
Transmission of false statement of facts
(1) A person must not do any act in or outside Nigeria in order to transmit in Nigeria a statement knowing or having reason to believe that :-
(a) the transmission of the statements in Nigeria is likely to :-
(i) be prejudicial to the security of Nigeria or any part of Nigeria;
(ii) Be prejudicial to public health, public safety, public tranquility or public finances;
(iii) Be prejudicial to the friendly relations of Nigeria with other countries;
(iv) influence the outcome of an election to any office in a general election or a referendum;
(v) incite feelings of enmity, hatred directed to a person or ill‑will between different groups of persons; or
(vi) diminish public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by the government.
This clause applies where :-
(a) a person that is an internet intermediary fails to comply with a Part 4 Regulation or Remedial Order; (b) the subject material is being transmitted in Nigeria on an online location; and
Sani Musa’s bill has caused quite the controversy in Nigeria (Faces International)
(2) Subject to subClause (3), a person who contravenes subClause (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction :- (a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding N300,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both; or
(b) in any other case, to a fine not exceeding N10 Million.
(b) Where an inauthentic online account or a bot is used :-
(a) to transmit in Nigeria the statements mentioned in subClause (1); and
(b) for the purpose of accelerating such transmission, the person is guilty of an offence under that subClause, shall be liable on conviction –
The President of the Senate, Ahmad Lawan and the Deputy President of the Senate, Ovie Omo-Agege during plenary [Twitter/@OvieOmoAgege]
(c) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding N300,000 or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 3 years or to both.
Your internet service provider could also be in trouble
(1) A person must not, whether in or outside Nigeria, make or alter a bot with the intention of :-
(a) transmitting, by means of the bot, a false statements of fact in Nigeria;
or (b) this clause applies where :-
(a) a person that is an internet intermediary fails to comply with a Part 4 Regulation or Remedial Order;
(b) the subject material is being transmitted in Nigeria on an online location; and
(c) the Law Enforcement Department is satisfied that one or more end‑users in Nigeria have used or are using the services of an internet access service provider to access that online location.
(2) Law Enforcement Department may direct the NCC to order the internet access service provider to take reasonable steps to disable access by end‑users in Nigeria to the online location called in this Clause an access blocking order), and the NCC must give the internet access service provider an access blocking order.
The Nigerian Senate in session [naijapolity]
(3) An internet access service provider that does not comply with an access blocking order shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding N1 million for each day during any part of which that order is not fully complied with, up to a total of N10 million.
(2) A person who contravenes subClause (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction :-
(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding N200,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both; or
(b) in any other case, to a fine not exceeding N5 million.
Our site uses cookies. By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you direct Law and Society Magazine to store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Statement: cookie policyACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
