Home Blog Page 990

Legality of the EFCC Order on Bank Employees’ Declaration of Assets

Onyekachi Umah

Assessment of the EFCC Order

On 16 March, 2021, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) announced that all employees of financial institutions (including banks) in Nigeria must declare their assets before 1st June, 2021 in line with the provisions of the Bank Employees, etc. (Declaration of Assets) Act 1986 (the EFCC Order).

The Bank Employees, etc. (Declaration of Assets) Act (BEDA Act or the Act) which was promulgated on 26 September, 1986 (35 years ago), is lawful, valid and operational in all parts of Nigeria. The Act does not need an EFCC Order, before any person can be investigated or prosecuted under it. Hence, the EFCC Order is a mere friendly Notice (reminder) of the existence of the BEDA Act. However, such reminder is unknown to law and the BEDA Act; it lacks the force of law, and has no legal effect; a mere Noise.

The BEDA Act mandates all employees and former employees of the Nigeria Customs Service, the Central Bank of Nigeria, Banks, Bureau de Change, Cryptocurrencies operators and all other financial institutions in Nigeria or in foreign branches, to declare their assets annually and to continue to do so even 2 years after termination of the employment. It also allows the President of Nigeria to add more persons, to the list of persons to be bound by the law to declare their assets.

At the time of this publication, the writer is not aware of any Federal Gazette stating a deadline for the mandatory declaration of assets by employees of financial institutions from the Federal Government of Nigeria in the BEDA Act. Rather, the public media is awash with reports that the Chairman of the EFCC made a public comment, ordering the mandatory declaration of assets by employees of financial institutions in line with the Act.

Generally, Government orders are to be made by instruments published on the Federal Gazette. Specifically, Sections 12 (2) and 13 of the BEDA Act permit only the President of Nigeria to make directions and regulations for the it. Obviously, being a 1986 law, the Act never mentioned the office of the Chairman of the EFCC as the person to make any such directions. It is a power given to the President of Nigeria alone, and there is no room for such powers to be delegated to another person. In exercise of delegated law-making powers (quasi-legislative powers), the executive arm of government (like the President, Ministers, Heads of Federal Parastatals, Governors, State Commissioners and Heads of State Parastatals) make Executive Orders, Regulations and Rules for effective and efficient implementation of existing laws. Consequently, written Executive Orders, Regulations or Rules legally made by an executive government, are binding law.

It must be mentioned that mere television/radio comments, policy documents/broadcasts, social media posts or public threats and pleas of President, Governor or their agents, are not law or regulation. At best, such threats/pleas are policy guidelines/directions, and in Nigeria, policy guidelines of Government are not laws. Unlike Executive Orders, Regulations or Rules which are law and having the force of law, policy documents/guidelines of government and other comments of government are not Law”. Consequently, the EFCC Order is not an executive order, regulation or law.

Hence, it is unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional for any person to be arrested or prosecuted, based on a mere television/radio comments, policy documents/broadcasts, social media posts or public threats and pleas of President, Governor or their agents (the EFCC Chairman). Offences must be clear, and can only be created by law or regulation, and not by common sense, inference, wishes, conjecture, popular opinion, “judicial rascality” or executive abracadabra.

The BEDA Act has no room for reminders and notices, and rather expects the Federal Government of Nigeria to enforce it against all employees bound under it. The EFCC and other security agencies should have, on the orders of the Secretary to the Federal Government of Nigeria, been verifying and investigating asset declarations of employees under the Act, and the assets of such employees. And, where such employees failed to declare assets since 1986, they should have been prosecuted and convicted.

The EFCC Order is a Notice, to the extent that it is a reminder of the existence of the Act, however, it is also a Noise, since it is not a binding regulation/directive of Federal Government, and has no force of law. The grace period from 16 March, 2021 to 1st June, 2021 purportedly created by the EFCC Order is unknown to law; rather, it is a violation of the BEDA Act, and as such, unlawful and illegal.

Debunking Myths Relating to the BEDA Act

Several myths and conspiracy theories have been birthed around the BEDA Act. Below is an attempt to debunk some of the myths.

The BEDA Act is not a creation of the EFCC or the President Buhari. Rather, it is a 35 year old existing Federal legislation, that has rarely been enforced in Nigeria.

An aide of President Buhari, Lauretta Onochie, was reported by the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR) to have while relying on the BEDA Act and the EFCC Order, twitted that: “Lifestyle audit is now legal in Nigeria. Those who flaunt lifestyles they cannot afford, can now be investigated by any of the anti-graft agencies to produce evidence of the sources of their wealth. You can now be called upon to explain how you acquired certain properties.”. It is important to note that, the BEDA Act does not affect persons who are not employees that are under the Act.

Although, Section 7 of the BEDA Act creates the offence of “Unjust Enrichment”, it focuses only on employees that are under the Act, that is: “… owns assets in excess of his legitimate, known and provable income and assets”. The Act does not by any chance create room for lifestyle auditing of all Nigerians. However, by a coalition of existing laws in Nigeria, lifestyle auditing can be conducted on any person in Nigeria.

Questions

Chief Dele Momodu asked some questions in response to the EFCC Order and the BEDA Act, which seem to represent views of some Nigerians. Chief Momodu asked; “Are we in a military regime? Why not start with Government agencies and Politicians? Banks belong largely to the private sector.” In response to his question; it is important to note that the BEDA Act is an existing Federal Government and not a Presidential Order. By the BEDA Act, some specific private persons are to declare their assets, and the President of Nigeria can also increase the categories of persons that must make asset declaration. Nigeria is not under a military regime but under democracy, and under the democracy is a democratic legislation that mandates certain private persons to declare their assets annually. Also, Government and Politicians are often public officers, and are to declare their assets under the Code of Conduct. However, as rightly pointed out by Chief Momodu, there is need for the President of Nigeria to exercise his powers under the BEDA Act, and enlist Politicians into the list of private persons who should declare their assets annually.

Objections

The Association of Senior Staff for Banks, Insurance and other Financial Institutions (ASSBIFI) was reported to have objected to the EFCC Order, and its President was reported to have said: “EFCC has the right to investigate the top management and board of directors of banks, but ordinary workers who are diligently carrying out their responsibilities as professionals should be exempted.” In response to his statement, the Act has not exempted any bank or financial institution worker from making declaration of assets. Hence, the EFCC and even the President of Nigeria, lacks the power to remove or exempt any person listed in the BEDA Act.

The National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial Institutions Employees (NUBIFE) in communicating its displeasure, stated through its Deputy General Secretary, that, “Another thing is that they said bank workers. Now, who are the bank workers? They should go to CBN (Central Bank of Nigeria) and ask who are the bank workers? The CBN has said that about 90 per cent of those working in banks, are not bank workers. So, if you are saying tellers, marketers and others are not bank workers, then fine. In that case, they (EFCC) should focus on the MDs (managing directors) of banks.” The BEDA Act has gone ahead of the growing confusion on the status of bank workers, and bank casual/part-time workers. The BEDA Act expressly states that all manner, title and types of workers in the bank and financial institutions are to declare their assets. The Act covers all employees of financial institutions in Nigeria and those in their foreign branches, from the bank executives to cleaners, drivers, messengers, and the last person on their chain, whether in full or temporal employment.

It has also been canvassed by some persons that the CBN collects asset declaration from top executives of financial institutions, and as such that the BEDA Act and the EFCC Order are not necessary. This conclusion is wrong. Whatever asset declaration that the CBN collects, is good and commendable. However, the Act is specific on how asset declaration forms are to be completed, submitted, delivered, timelines and the relevant person to receive such forms. Under the BEDA Act, the CBN is not a collector of asset declaration forms; rather it is the Secretary to the Federal Government of Nigeria or his/her agents.

Onyekachi Umah LL.M, ACIArb(UK), Managing Partner of Bezaleel Chambers International; Executive Director of Sabi Law Foundation (thisdaylive)

Man Shoots Landlord To Death For Sleeping With His Newly Wedded Wife On His Matrimonial Bed.

This 32 year old man, Babajide Akinsanya has been arrested by the Osun State Police for shooting his landlord to death while his wife sustained life threatening injuries.

The wife and the landlord was caught on his matrimonial bed when he got back just after 3 hours of leaving for work

The suspect who confessed to the crime said “ i have been suspecting my wife and the landlord for about a month now, so i decided to come back home earlier when i saw a text message my wife sent to a number saying by 11am.

I got in through the kitchen door and went straight to my room where i caught them naked, this is a person my wife do complain about that she so much dislikes not knowing she was saying otherwise.

I’m ready to face the law, i really don’t care what happens at this time.

Compulsory Care for Passengers of Cancelled Flights

Compulsory Care for Passengers of Cancelled Flights. Daily Law Tips (Tip 769) by Onyekachi Umah, Esq., LL.M, ACIArb(UK).

Introduction: 

There can be cancelled flights for many reasons. For every time there is a cancelled flight, passengers of such flight (domestic or international) suffer different forms of hardship. Airlines operators that cancel flights are by law mandated to refund passengers’ air fares. Delay in sending notice of cancellation of flight as well as a late cancellation of flight may cause airlines more than refunds, and force airlines to provide some free care to passengers. The free care ranges from free snacks, free meals, free accommodation to free calls, depending on the level of hardship caused by the airline. 

However, to ensure standard and recommended practices and maximum compliance, the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) has not left free care to the discretion of airline operators. Rather the “NCAA” has in its; the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 2015, defined and established the compulsory free care that airline operators must provide for passengers of cancelled flights (domestic or international). The compulsory free care must be provided where there is a delay in communicating cancellation of flight or a late cancellation of flight.

Notice of Cancellation, Passengers and Care: 

NCAA is the federal regulator for all commercial airline operators and their staff. It regulates all local and foreign commercial airline operators in Nigeria. In 2015, the NCAA made the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 2015 while relying under its powers contained in a federal law (the Civil Aviation Act, 2006). Part 19 of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 2015, focuses on consumer protection; providing redress for common passengers’ complaints, including; overbooking, delayed flight, cancelled flight both for domestic and international flights as well as for delayed, lost and damaged baggage. 

According to the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 2015, where there is a cancelled flight and the passengers were not timely informed about the cancellation, the airline must provide free care to its passengers, including; 

  1. Free refreshment including water, soft drinks, confectionaries or snacks; 
  2. A free meal 
  3. A free hotel accommodation
  4. Free transportation between the hotel and the airport
  5. Free two telephone calls, SMS or e-mails.

An airline is deemed not to have provided timely notice of cancellation of flight to passengers, where;

1. For domestic flights, there is not at least within 24 hours before the departure time of the flight 

2. For international flights, there is not at least 7 days before the departure time of the flight. Passengers of international flights can also be informed with 3 to 7 days before the departure time so far as they are offered a re-routing, a re-routing that allows not more than 2 hours earlier departure from the departure time of the cancelled flight and to reach final destination within not more than 4 hours from the earlier scheduled arrival time of the cancelled flight.  Also, passengers of international flights can also be informed within less than 7 days before the departure time, so far as they are offered a re-routing, a re-routing that allows not more than 1 hour earlier departure from the departure time of the cancelled flight and to reach final destination within less than 2 hours from the earlier scheduled arrival time of the cancelled flight.

Conclusion: 

Aside the refund of air fares or rerouting of passengers, where there is a late cancellation of flight or delay in communication of cancellation of flight, the airline must provide some free care to passengers. The law will never allow a wrong to pass without a remedy. The hardship caused on passengers by airlines are to be resolved by the airlines. The free care to be provided by airlines are mandatory having been made by a federal law (the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 2015) and as such comes with serious punishment for any airline or its staff that breaches the law. 

Generally, the maximum punishment for an airline is N5, 000,000.00, the moderate is N2,000,000.00 and the minimum is N500,000.00. The maximum punishment for staff of an airline is N200,000.00, the moderate is N100,000.00 and the minimum is N50,000.00. The punishment for any airline that fails to obey the directives of Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), or to investigate any case of passenger on compensation, is moderate penalty of N2,000,000.00 or suspension of license. Where there is a cancellation of flight, the sanction for failure to render assistance is from moderate to maximum civil penalty. And failure to process ticket refund within time is also punishable with refund of the ticket and an additional 5% of the ticket value.

The NCAA may not often know when an airline breaches the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority Regulations 2015, fails to refund fares or to provide care to a passenger. Hence, it is the duty of an aggrieved passenger to make complaints to the NCAA or to engage the services of a lawyer and approach a court. Sending complaints to the NCAA does not prevent an aggrieved passenger from filling a case in a court. The appropriate court here, is the Federal High Court. 

My authorities, are:

  1. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
  2. Sections 1, 2, 27, 30, 31, 54, 61, 63, 71, 78 and 79 of the Civil Aviation Act, 2006.
  3. Sections 1.1.1.2, 1.3.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 19.1, 19.2, 19.7, 19.8, 19.9, 19.10, 19.13, 19.14, 19.16 and 19.20 (Parts 1 and 19) of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Regulations, 2015. Accessible for free via https://learnnigerianlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NCAA-Regulations-2015.pdf
  4. Table 1- Table of Civil Penalties of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Regulations, 2015.
  5. Sanctions VII, Para 5, 10 and 11 of Table 2- Recommended (Part 1) of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Regulations, 2015.
  6. Onyekachi Umah, Compensation for Cancelled Flights (Domestic & International) (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 24 March 2021) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/compensation-for-cancelled-flights-domestic-international/> accessed 6 April 2021.
  7. Onyekachi Umah, “Unlawful Refund Policy and Practice of “Aero Contractor” Airline” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 15 March 2021) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/unlawful-refund-policy-and-practice-of-aero-contractor-airline/> accessed 6 April 2021.
  8. Onyekachi Umah, “Deadline for Refunds for Cancelled Flights” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 11 March 2021) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/deadline-for-refunds-for-cancelled-flights/> accessed 6 April 2021.
  9. ”Onyekachi Umah, “Why You Can’t Get Compensation for Cancelled Flights” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 3 March 2021) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/why-you-cant-get-compensation-for-cancelled-flights/> accessed 6 April 2021.
  10. Onyekachi Umah, “The Two (2) Rights Of Any Person Whose Local Or International Flight Is Cancelled In Nigeria” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 27 November 2018) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/the-two-2-rights-of-any-person-whose-local-or-international-flight-is-cancelled-in-nigeria/> accessed 6 April 2021.
  11. Onyekachi Umah, “Dangerous Flying” Is An Offence In Nigeria” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 21 September 2018) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/dangerous-flying-is-an-offence-in-nigeria/> accessed 6 April 2021.
  12. Pic credit: the active times.com

Sabi Law Projects:

#SabiLaw

#DailyLawTips

#SabiBusinessLaw

#SabiElectionLaws

#SabiHumanRights

#SabiLawOnTheBeatFm

#SabiLawLectureSeries

#CriminalJusticeMonday

#SabiLawVideoChallenge

Speak with the writer, ask questions or make inquiries on this topic or any other via [email protected], [email protected] or +2348037665878 (whatsapp). To receive free Daily Law Tips, join our free WhatsApp group via https://chat.whatsapp.com/L7h4f1exItZ38FeuhXG4WN or Telegram group, via the below link: https://t.me/LearnNigerianLaws

To keep up to date on all free legal awareness projects of Sabi Law Foundation, follow us via

Facebook Page:@LearnNigerianLaws,

Instagram:@LearnNigerianLaws,

Twitter: @LearnNigeriaLaw,  

YouTube: Learn Nigerian Laws, 

WhatsApp Groups via (https://chat.whatsapp.com/L7h4f1exItZ38FeuhXG4WN),

Telegram Group: (https://t.me/LearnNigerianLaws),

Facebook group: (https://www.facebook.com/groups/129824937650907/?ref=share)

or visit our website: (www.LearnNigerianLaws.com)

Please share this publication for free till it gets to those that need it most. Save a Nigerian today! NOTE: Sharing, modifying or publishing this publication without giving credit to the author or Sabi Law Foundation is a criminal breach of copyright and will be prosecuted. This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for more information.

This publication is powered by www.LearnNigerianLaws.com {A Free Law Awareness Program of Sabi Law Foundation, supported by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (BCI).} Sabi Law Foundation is a Not-For-Profit and Non-Governmental Legal Awareness Organization based in Nigeria. For sponsorship and partnership, contact: [email protected], [email protected] or +234 903 913 1200.

Limitation to the Recovery of Property Wrongly Seized By Court.

Limitation to the Recovery of Property Wrongly Seized By Court. Daily Law Tips (Tip 770) by Onyekachi Umah, Esq., LL.M, ACIArb(UK) 

Introduction: 

There are a lot of cases of people that had their property wrongly seized by court. Among the powers of a court is the power to order the seizure of property of a party to a case before the court. The Judges and Magistrates that make the orders, need not enforce the orders themselves. Rather, the courts act through the bailiffs and sheriffs (staff of court) from the execution unit of the courts. During an enforcement, the property of an innocent person may be mistakenly attached and seized. 

Since courts work according to laid down legal procedures, where there is an attachment and seizure of property (whether rightly or wrongly seized), it is only a court that can order for the release of the seized property. This simply means that a person whose property was wrongly seized cannot recover the seized property by begging or violence, rather may recover it by approaching the concerned court. 

Nothing is ever automatically granted or obtained from a court. Courts are like the Benin Kingdom’s “Iye Akugbe” (Mother of Unity), a female seer that protects the community but will never render her services unless she is beckoned. So, in seeking for a court to release a wrongly seized property, the party/person seeking such release must beckon on the court. However, there is a single simple issue that can frustrates the entire process of praying a court to release a wrongly seized property. The issue is the only limitation to the recovery of a property wrongly seized by a court.

Duty on an Interpleader: 

Generally, the process or procedure for seeking to recover a property that was wrongly seized by a court, as well as the party/person seeking for such recovery/release of property are known as “an Interpleader”. The proper court processes (form/document) to file in court and commence an interpleader is known as “Interpleader Summons”. The duty on the interpleader is the greatest limitation to the recovery of a property that was wrongly seized by a court. 

Logically any person that makes any claim should be the person to prove his claim. So, where a person claims that a seized property belongs to him, the same person must show evidence to prove that he truly owns the seized property. It is never enough to merely state a claim without proving the claim. This is the summary of the duty on an Interpleader. An interpleader, being a person that claims that his property was wrongly seized by a court, must be able to convince the court that the seized property belongs to him and that the seized property was wrongly seized. This is the duty on an interpleader in a court and where an interpleader fails this duty, he fails to recover the seized property. Hence, proving that a seized property belongs to an interpleader and that the same property was wrongly seized by a court, make up the limitation to the recovery of property wrongly seized by a court. 

The Supreme Court of Nigeria as well as the Court of Appeal of Nigeria have both made known their support for the above understanding, through their judgments. Among such judgments are; 

1. The apex court had in the case of ALHAJI MUSA KALA v. ALHAJI BURAU POTISKUM & ANOR (1998) LPELR-1648(SC), held that; “It is trite that in interpleader proceedings, the claimant generally is deemed to be the plaintiff and the judgment creditor, the defendant. Accordingly the burden of proof, again as a general rule, is on the claimant as the plaintiff in the proceedings. The onus lies on him to establish his title to the property in dispute, or where his claim is not absolute title, he must prove the precise interest or title he claimed. Where, however, the claimant was in possession of the property in issue at the time of its attachment, it would seem that the judgment creditor shall, in that case, be deemed a plaintiff and the burden of proof shall reverse accordingly.  In that case, the onus must be on the judgment creditor to establish his claim. See Rabiu Jinadu v. Babaoye (1966) 2 All N.L.R. 241 per Taylor, C.J., as he then was. ”Per IGUH ,J.S.C (Pp. 25 paras. C). 

2. In the case of DALE POWER SYSTEMS PLC v. WITT & BUSCH LTD & ANOR (2007) LPELR-4011(CA), where the Court of Appeal, held that; “In an interpleader proceedings the burden of establishing ownership of the attached goods is on the applicant.” Per PAUL ADAMU GALINJE ,J.C.A ( P. 13, para. C)

3. The Court of Appeal in the case of ISOKO COMMUNITY BANK LTD v. EDOFREN (NIG) LTD & ORS (2018) LPELR-44998(CA), held that “No doubt, the purpose of inter-pleader proceedings is to seek relief by initiating an action to determine the ownership of the property or goods seized or attached by the sheriff or intend to seize or attach in the Court against a judgment debtor. The third party who claims ownership of such property or goods in question has the onus under the law to establish title to the property or goods wrongly attached. See BULUS VS OKPALA & ANOR (2017) LPELR 43423 (CA). In OLATUNDE VS OAU & ANOR (1998) 5 NWLR (PT. 549) 178 the Supreme Court held that in inter-pleader proceedings, the claimant is deemed to be the plaintiff and the judgment creditor, the defendant. Accordingly, the onus is generally on the claimant, to establish title to the property he claims to be his.” Per SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI ,J.C.A ( Pp. 26-27, paras. C-A )

4. Same was held in the case of COBRA LTD & ORS v. OMOLE ESTATES & INVESTMENT LTD (2000) LPELR-6809(CA), when the Court of Appeal, held that; “The learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the Inter pleader/appellant summons based on affidavit evidence and the documents placed before him. The Inter pleader claimant should not act fraudulently so as to defeat judgment creditor’s interest by claiming that the title to the seized goods are vested in the third party. In Okwoche v. Dibia (1994)2 NWLR Part 325 at P.195 at page 205 this case per Uwaifo JCA (as then was) had this to say: “The good faith of the claimant in the present case is certainly come into question as a crucial issue having regard to the question in nature of the alleged transfer of the vehicle under which judgment debtor would endeavour to avoid his obligation to the judgment creditor. The fraudulent transfer took place no doubt, after the case of execution had been delivered to the sheriff. The claimant cannot be said to have established his claim upon the facts. It must be said that he has discharged this burden before he can be granted relief. He has, in my view, from the totality of the evidence failed in regard…” It is in the light of what have been said above that I feel that the learned Judge gave the Inter pleader/Claimant an opportunity of being heard before dismissing their claims. I also affirm that decision.” Per SULEIMAN GALADIMA ,J.C.A ( Pp. 25-26, para. E )

Conclusion: 

Part of the basic tenets of law and court room procedures, is that the party that makes a claim must be the party to prove the claim. Hence, where a party comes to court to claim that his property was wrongly seized, it is the party that must prove that the seized property belongs to him or that part of the property belongs to him. Where a party fails to prove his total or partial ownership of a wrongly seized property, the party cannot have a good stand to pray for the wrongly seized property to be released. This duty to prove ownership or interest on a wrongly seized property is the Limitation to the Recovery of Property Wrongly Seized By Court.

My authorities, are:

  1. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 36, 318 and 319 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
  2. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of ALHAJI MUSA KALA v. ALHAJI BURAU POTISKUM & ANOR (1998) LPELR-1648(SC)
  3. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of OBUMSELI & ANOR v. UWAKWE (2019) LPELR-46937(SC).
  4. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of DALE POWER SYSTEMS PLC v. WITT & BUSCH LTD & ANOR (2007) LPELR-4011(CA)
  5. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of ISOKO COMMUNITY BANK LTD v. EDOFREN (NIG) LTD & ORS (2018) LPELR-44998(CA)
  6. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of COBRA LTD & ORS v. OMOLE ESTATES & INVESTMENT LTD (2000) LPELR-6809(CA)
  7. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of DAWOOD GLOBAL INTERGRATED CO. LTD v. GAJERE & ANOR (2017) LPELR-43369(CA).
  8. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of MUHAMMED v. MARTINS ELECTRONICS CO. LTD (2017) LPELR-43138(CA).
  9. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of NATHANIEL BULUS v. A.C. OKPALA & ANOR (2017) LPELR-43423(CA).
  10. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of WEST AFRICAN COTTON LTD & ANOR v. MAIWADA (2007) LPELR-5097(CA).
  11. Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of TANGENT LIMITED v. BARR. JUDE I. OGAMBA & ORS (2018) LPELR-44803(CA).
  12. Onyekachi Umah, “How to Recover Property Wrongly Seized by Court.” (LearnNigrianLaws.com, 9 March 2021) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/how-to-recover-property-wrongly-seized-by-court/> accessed 6 April 2021
  13. Onyekachi Umah, “Effect of an Application Brought Under a Wrong Order or Rule of Court” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 8 March 2021) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/effect-of-an-application-brought-under-a-wrong-order-or-rule-of-court/> accessed 9 March 2021.
  14. Onyekachi Umah, “Why Courts Must Hear Stupid Applications/Motions?” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 17 September 2020) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/why-courts-must-hear-stupid-applications-motions/> accessed  April 2021
  15. Onyekachi Umah, “When Courts Must Refuse To Consider Issues/Applications Before It” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 10 September 2020) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/when-courts-must-refuse-to-consider-issues-applications-before-it/> accessed  April 2021
  16. Onyekachi Umah, “Oral Application for Bail is Allowed in High Courts” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 31 August 2020) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/oral-application-for-bail-is-allowed-in-high-courts/>  accessed  April 2021
  17. Chris Admin, “A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) ordered the issuance of contempt proceedings against the directors of Diamond Bank PLC” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 9 August 2018) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/a-high-court-of-the-federal-capital-territory-fct-ordered-the-issuance-of-contempt-proceedings-against-the-directors-of-diamond-bank-plc/> accessed  April 2021
  18. Onyekachi Umah, “You Cannot Enforce A Judgement After 2 Years and 6 Years Against A Party and His Representatives Respectively” (LearnNigerianLaws.com, 1 August 2018) <https://learnnigerianlaws.com/daily-law-tips-by-onyekachi-umah-esq-tip-154-you-cannot-enforce-a-judgement-after-2-years-and-6-years-against-a-party-and-his-representatives-respectively/> accessed  April 2021

Sabi Law Projects:

#SabiLaw

#DailyLawTips

#SabiBusinessLaw

#SabiElectionLaws

#SabiHumanRights

#SabiLawOnTheBeatFm

#SabiLawLectureSeries

#CriminalJusticeMonday

#SabiLawVideoChallenge

Speak with the writer, ask questions or make inquiries on this topic or any other via [email protected], [email protected] or +2348037665878 (whatsapp). To receive free Daily Law Tips, join our free WhatsApp group via https://chat.whatsapp.com/L7h4f1exItZ38FeuhXG4WN or Telegram group, via the below link: https://t.me/LearnNigerianLaws

To keep up to date on all free legal awareness projects of Sabi Law Foundation, follow us via

Facebook Page:@LearnNigerianLaws,

Instagram:@LearnNigerianLaws,

Twitter: @LearnNigeriaLaw,  

YouTube: Learn Nigerian Laws, 

WhatsApp Groups via (https://chat.whatsapp.com/L7h4f1exItZ38FeuhXG4WN),

Telegram Group: (https://t.me/LearnNigerianLaws),

Facebook group: (https://www.facebook.com/groups/129824937650907/?ref=share)

or visit our website: (www.LearnNigerianLaws.com)

Please share this publication for free till it gets to those that need it most. Save a Nigerian today! NOTE: Sharing, modifying or publishing this publication without giving credit to the author or Sabi Law Foundation is a criminal breach of copyright and will be prosecuted. This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for more information.

This publication is powered by www.LearnNigerianLaws.com {A Free Law Awareness Program of Sabi Law Foundation, supported by the law firm of Bezaleel Chambers International (BCI).} Sabi Law Foundation is a Not-For-Profit and Non-Governmental Legal Awareness Organization based in Nigeria. For sponsorship and partnership, contact: [email protected], [email protected] or +234 903 913 1200

The work was finished

‘The cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up.’
John 20:7 NLT

In Bible days when you wanted a fine piece of furniture made, you picked someone with a reputation for excellence – a master carpenter or a finish carpenter. But these carpenters had an interesting custom. When a carpenter completed a job, he took off his apron, folded it up, and set it on his finished work, signifying the job was complete. With that picture in mind, read this: ‘Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance. She ran and found Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved.…Peter and the other disciple started out for the tomb. They were both running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He stooped and looked in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he didn’t go in. Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there, while the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings. Then the disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in, and he saw and believed – for until then they still hadn’t understood the Scriptures that said Jesus must rise from the dead’ (vv. 1-9 NLT). Note the words ‘the cloth that had covered Jesus’ head was folded up’. The master carpenter had finished the job. Our salvation was complete. You don’t have to work to be saved, you only have to put your trust in Christ, and your sins are forgiven and your place in heaven assured. He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!! Happy Easter! !!

Bible in a Year: Luke 6:1-26, Psalms 33-34

Credit: The Word for Today

MTN AND Banks Tussle: Easter Financial Liberation for law income earners

By Stephen Azubuike

MTN Nigeria Communications Plc (MTN) is one of the biggest telecom companies in Nigeria, and Africa. MTN began operations in Nigeria in 2001. It became the first GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) network in the country, following the Nigerian GSM auction conducted by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC) earlier in the year. Since MTN launched full commercial operations in Nigeria, it has known stupendous growth.

As part of its quest to expand its wide reach, coverage, and patronage, MTN (like other telecom companies) partnered with the commercial banks to deliver services that will enable their customers purchase airtime directly from their bank accounts. For instance, through electronic banking – mobile and internet banking facilities, including the use of bank mobile Applications (Apps), Automated Teller Machines (ATM), customers can seamlessly recharge their MTN lines. It is also possible to recharge your line without internet-enabled devices by simply using Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) codes.

MTN’s partnership with the banks is contractual, in that the banks are to earn certain agreed percentage from every recharge. However, from the reports, on Friday (Good Friday, 2 April 2021), banks removed MTN from their platforms following a disagreement over the sharing of fees. This means that MTN line users will not be able to buy airtime directly from their banks. It was alleged that the disagreement began after MTN reduced the percentage it remits to the banks for each amount of airtime from 4.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent.

But there seems to be more to it than meets the eyes.

While a resolution is expected, MTN is said to have announced an alternative means of recharge which includes the use of the services of already existing FinTech companies (financial technology companies). FinTech companies use technology to deliver financial services. Many Nigerians are already familiar with the use such platforms provided by the FinTech companies.

But what’s the good news for low income earners?

Undoubtedly, direct recharge from bank accounts brings commendable level of ease. Conversely, this ease has led to nearly addictive and seemingly uncontrollable level of expenditure by low income earners. An average person naturally finds that there is an unintended increase in the budget for airtime purchase within a given period. This tends to eat deep into their pockets and affects their savings. Perhaps, this might be one of the factors by which financial captivity may be defined.

Therefore, the news that the service is currently unavailable appears to be an Easter financial liberation for low income earners. Easter is a period Christians all over the world celebrate the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Generally, it is seen as a period of liberation. Thus, until the service is restored, the fracas may become a turning point in the financial lives of many seeking to regain their freedom from the “shackles” of direct line recharge from bank their accounts.

Credits: The post titled MTN AND BANKS TUSSLE: EASTER FINANCIAL LIBERATION FOR LOW INCOME EARNERS was first published on Stephenlegal on April 4, 2021 by Stephen Azubike, legal practitioner, consultant and social entrepreneur.

Young Shall Grow Motors attempts to buy property with photocopies of bank draft but the court stood in the way

By Stephen Azubuike

The Story

Young Shall Grow Motors Ltd. v. Onalaja [2021] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1763) 300

The facts of this case are quite interesting. A popular transport company, Young Shall Grow Motors Ltd, also known as “The Young” (“the Appellant”) was a tenant to the Onalaja Family (1st – 4th Respondents) at the property known as No. 1, Ikorodu Road, Jibowu, Yaba, Lagos. The Young has been there for many years.

The Onalaja Family eventually advertised the Property for sale. The Young indicated interest as a sitting tenant. Surprisingly and for some inexplicable reasons, negotiations spanned through some years. But the real drama began when parties agreed to meet at the office of the Solicitors to the Onalaja Family on 5 May 2001. On that date, members of the Onalaja Family showed up but no representative of The Young was available.

On 7 May 2001, The Young eventually forwarded to the Onalaja Family photocopies of Zenith Bank draft in the sum of 18 Million Naira issued on 4 May 2001 in the name of the Solicitors and in favour of the Family.

The Onalaja Family was displeased. The Family eventually sold the Property to the 5th Respondent (Mr. Mamah) for the sum of 20 Million Naira.

The Young sued the Family and the 5th Respondent claiming an Order of Specific Performance of the agreement to sell the Property to the Company. The Family members filed their defence, contending that they went into another deal with the 5th Respondent because The Young failed to consummate the transaction. The 5th Respondent counter-claimed for a declaration of title. The 5th Respondent gave evidence that The Young’s Chief Executive expressly informed him that the Company was no longer interested in buying the Property.

The trial Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the case of The Young. The Company further appealed to the Supreme Court. It argued that it furnished consideration in the form of concrete promise – the issuance of a Zenith Bank draft in the sum of 18 Million Naira requested by the Family as purchase price and the delivery of the photocopies of the draft to the Family. The Young further urged the Court to allow the appeal as the loss of the Company cannot be remedied in damages having been a sitting tenant in the Property in dispute since 1998 and still in possession as at the material time of the suit.

The Supreme Court was not persuaded at all. In the Judgment delivered on 19 June 2020, the Court expressed shock as to why the Company preferred to play hide and seek games through the years instead of concluding the transaction promptly. The Supreme Court held that a bank draft can be accepted as cash equivalent in some business transactions and all depends on the contractual terms and agreement between the parties. However, a photocopy of a bank draft issued by the Appellant to the Onalaja Family did not qualify as consideration.

At page 318 of the report, Abba Aji, JSC expressed the opinion of the apex Court thus:

In the instant appeal, although the bank draft issued the 1st – 4th Respondents’ Counsel may suffice and qualify as a bill of exchange to bind the parties, these points must be carefully examined: 1. The 1st – 4th Respondents did not have the bank draft but the photocopies. 2. The Appellant instructed that they should not be given the original. 3. The Appellant nor its representative did not show up to conclude the transaction. 4. The 1st – 4th Respondents decided not to deal with the Appellant any more on the land transaction following the conduct of the Appellant. 5. The Appellant supposedly informed the 5th Respondent (the present purchaser of the Property) that he was no longer interested in the transaction. All the above are pointers that the Appellant by express conduct did not want to conclude the transaction and to establish a valid contract. Therefore, where an agreement is inchoate and has not gone beyond negotiations, it cannot be enforced as concluded contract.

The Supreme Court also considered the issue of possession of the Property by The Young. Abba Aji, JSC quoted with approval the holding of the trial Court before arriving at a valid conclusion thus (at page 319):

“It is surprising that a purchaser who initiated bank drafts towards payment would for some clever reasons withhold the original drafts and hand-over photocopies and insist that such serves as sufficient consideration, this is certainly far from it…” The implication of this is simple: the Appellant did not pay the price of the said Property; hence there was neither consideration nor contract. Where the purchase price is not fully paid, there can be no valid sale; notwithstanding that the purchaser is in possession. Possession cannot defeat the title of the vendor. 

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the claims of The Young, unanimously, and upheld the claims of the 5th Respondent that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any encumbrance; and therefore entitled to the Property.

Part of the lessons to be learnt from the above is that while it is important to be circumspect in land transactions, prospective purchasers must bear in mind the core principles of contract. For there to be a binding and enforceable contract, there must be some positive conduct(s) which will point to that direction, to enable the Court make necessary orders for specific performance in deserving cases. In this case, The Young stretched its advantage of being in possession too far. It ended in disaster. Photocopy of a bank draft is worthless as evidence of payment, when the original was never handed over. The Supreme Court was right. 

Credits

The post titled: http://YOUNG SHALL GROW MOTORS ATTEMPTS TO BUY PROPERTY WITH PHOTOCOPIES OF BANK DRAFT BUT THE COURT STOOD IN THE WAY was first published on Stephenlegal on April 7, 2021 by Stephen Azubike, legal practitioner, consultant and social entrepreneur.

Unfit Parent Not To Have Custody Of Children

#OBSCURELEGALFACTS BY AROME ABU

In Nigeria, where the parent of a child abandons or deserts that child or allows the child to be brought up by another person at the expense of that other person for a long period of time, no court shall make an order for the child to be delivered to the parents, except the court is satisfied that the parent is fit and proper to have custody of the child.

See Section 72 of the Child Rights Act.

Arome Abu is the Managing Partner of TCLP.

CAVEAT: Note that this information is provided for general enlightenment purposes and is not intended to be any form of legal advice.

Obscure Legal Facts is an exclusive daily publication of THE COUNSEL L-P.
H.3 16A POW MAFEMI CRESCENT, Utako, Abuja, Fct
abuarome@[email protected]
+234 803 262 2359
+234 708 1156 539.
Twitter: @TheCounselLP

The Judge As A Street Fighter

By Reuben Abati

I would never have believed that a day would come when a Nigerian judge would engage in street fighting no matter the level of provocation. It was for this reason that I initially thought the video showing a suit-wearing fellow, referred to as a certain powerful judge kicking and slapping a security guard at the Banex Plaza, Abuja last week, was a Nollywood video. But when it was later confirmed that the kick-boxer was actually a serving judge, identified as Justice Danladi Umar, Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, I was shocked.

When the Head of Press and Public Relations of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Ibraheem al-Hassan later issued a statement in defence of the learned Judge, my shock turned to petrification. Nothing could be more shocking than seeing the man in charge of the country’s Code of Conduct Tribunal in such disgraceful misconduct in public. Justice Umar may have been watching a lot of UFC shows and may have learnt one or two things about how to punch, kick and overwhelm the opponent, but not even Israel Adesanya or Kamaru Usman would behave in such manner as seen in that video. Judges occupy a position of great value in society. They are guided by a code of conduct that requires them to be on their best behaviour at all times, either on the Bench or away from it. They are required like Caesar’s wife to be above board.

Justice Danladi Umar has stayed long enough on the Bench. He certainly does not need to be lectured on this fine point. He became a Chief Magistrate before the age of 36, and was appointed Acting Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal at 36. He was appointed Chairman of the Tribunal at the age of 40, the youngest Nigerian to assume that office. He is now 50, and has been in charge of the Code of Conduct Bureau either as Acting Chairman or as Chairman for more than 14 years. What got into him? At a point, I was afraid that his Lordship, if not restrained by security men, was going to remove his jacket and charge ferociously like a kickboxer in the ring! He should be advised to stop watching kick-boxing matches just in case he does so.

There may well be persons out there who will insist that Justice Umar is after all, a human being and no man is infallible. And to show just how human he is, we are told that he goes to the Banex Plaza regularly to shop and repair his phones if he has to. He doesn’t send aides to do the rounds for him. He goes there himself. But I don’t see how this justifies his misconduct. Nobody expects judges to be invalids. A judge going to a shopping mall is not an achievement. Other professionals live a normal life and engage in routine activities, but they do not go about engaging in physical altercations or punch-ups. They respect rules of communal conduct. And a judge should know about rules.

The security guard at the Banex Plaza was said to have told His Lordship’s driver that he could not park at a particular spot. He was doing his job, as a guard and parking attendant. He obviously was not in a position to know the status of the occupant of the vehicle he was re-directing. Justice Umar was said to have insisted that his driver would occupy a chosen space. This was at the Banex Plaza, a shopping centre, not at the premises of the Code of Conduct Tribunal where he is the Boss. There is also no indication in Justice Umar’s resume that he once worked as a parking attendant and hence, had a better understanding of how vehicles should be parked. Naturally, the Banex Plaza staff insisted on doing his job, and that led to an altercation and the Judge rushing out of the car.

In the recorded video of the incident that has since gone viral, someone could be heard in the background saying: “Hey! Hey! Hey! This man is mad. Your power will not save you. Respect yourself. Oga go inside your car. You are not the most powerful herdsman… Respect yourself, dem go beat you comot for here.. Hey! Hey! Who are you? Who you be?…Dem don lock the gate. Dem go show you pepper here today…Who are you? Who are you?.. Close the gate.. Close the gate. One Fulani man think say he get all the power in the world. Who are you? We make the rules here. If Buhari come here dem go show am pepper. See. Dem don break him glass… Hei! Heeei!” It was a very ugly situation in which the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal found himself.

The CCT Head of Press and Public Relations, Ibraheem Al-Hassan later issued a statement on the incident in which he says “the boy was rude in his approach and threatened to deal with the Chairman if he refused to leave the scene”. The statement claims that the CCT Chairman was assaulted by “Biafran Boys”. Danladi Umar himself has commented directly on what transpired. He said he was assaulted by persons who chanted “secessionist and sectional slogans” and that the video in circulation does not show the part where he was “molested.” He says he “regrets being drawn into responding to the situation.” It is surprising that days after the incident, Justice Umar is more or less still arguing that he was provoked into resorting to physical assault. He also does not see anything wrong in the reference to “Biafran Boys.” He repeats the offence in that regard by referring to “secessionists” and conveniently, he concludes that his action “has been misconstrued in the narrative floating across the social media”. He still doesn’t get it, does he? He is a jurist, an officer in the temple of justice, and even if he is “drawn into responding to the situation”, he really believes that “kick-boxing” is the best response? If he was molested, and that can be proven, why would he then take the law into his own hands? A man whose job is to enforce the law should not be seen breaking the law. If Justice Umar has an anger management problem, he should be encouraged to seek help.

Ugoji Egbujo has written an opinion piece titled “Nigeria’s CCT Chairman as a Senior Agbero” (Premium Times, April 5, 2021). I respect the judex so much I wouldn’t dare translate the Yoruba word, “agbero” into English or quote Egbujo’s expletives-ridden commentary. But I think Justice Umar needs to learn some very quick lessons or lend himself some wisdom. No 1: We are in the age of social media, citizen journalism and the democratization of news. Whatever anyone does in public, can be easily recorded by persons wielding even the cheapest smart phone in the market. Private conversations on phone can be recorded and edited. Whatever is recorded can be published almost immediately.

Twenty years ago, the drama at Banex Plaza involving the CCT Chairman could have occurred and nobody will know about it. If it gets noticed by the media, Umar’s Press Team would have appealed to editors to please kill the story. These days, it is difficult to kill a story. The citizen journalist who operates on Instagram and WhatsApp may not even have a by-line. The standard phrase is that bad news sells. It not only sells; it now travels at the speed of light. No. 2: Nigeria is no longer a place where anybody wearing some fancy clothes, driving a big car, going about with uniformed security can expect that his class and stature will intimidate less privileged members of society. You can no longer go about telling people: “Do you know who I am?” No matter who you are, you will most likely be told: “Who are you? Or Who do you think you are? Do you feed me? Okay, do you know who I am too? And what makes you think I should know who you are?” Nigerians are angry. It is better not to provoke them any further. No. 3: Justice Umar talks about “secessionists and sectional slogans”. Ibraheem Al-Hasan in his first press statement said Umar has been going to the Banex Plaza for about 18 years. Apparently, most people there did not know his identity. But now with the video that has gone viral, his cover has been blown. Common sense should tell the CCT Chairman that it is in his best interest to stay away from that plaza for a while.

And No 4: did Justice Umar directly ask Ibraheem al-Hassan to refer to the persons at the Banex Plaza as “Biafran Boys”? Is he aware that this contravenes Section 26 of the Cybercrimes Act 2015 as has been correctly pointed out by Femi Falana, SAN? Al-Hasan also insists that he acted on the directive of the CCT Chairman. Can someone please help explain to Mallam Al-Hassan that no public officer is excused under the law with such an explanation that he or she was carrying out an unlawful order just because a superior official gave a directive to that effect? The penalty for the use or suggestion of xenophobic words is five years imprisonment and/or a minimum fine of N10 million. Al-Hassan is the Head of Press and Public Relations at the CCT. He was deployed to that agency by the Federal Ministry of Information. I was furious reading the first press statement that he issued on the Danladi Umar incident. It was riddled with grammatical infelicities, howlers, spelling errors, wrong word use and the abuse of syntax. As Nigerians are wont to say, the guy “murdered the English language”: “video cliff” instead of “video clip”; “Packing lot” instead of “parking lot”; “fixe” instead of “fix”; “had went” instead of “had gone”, “rode instead of rude”, “refuse” instead of “refused”. I had to take analgesics after reading his press statement.

Al-Hassan’s excuse in a public apology is that he wrote “under intense pressure and instruction” and was unable to proof-read the statement! What does this tell us about standards, competence and quality control? Al-Hassan should be sent on a refresher course in public communication without any further delay.

Public outrage on all the issues raised above is in order. Many groups have asked that Justice Umar should resign for conduct unbecoming of his status. Others want him reported to the Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Presidency and the National Assembly for sanction. The Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) has condemned his conduct, described as a “display of naked power” and has ordered an investigation with a view to taking “appropriate action”. Others have dredged up old allegations against him including how he was the one who issued a controversial ex parte order for the suspension of former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen. Umar has stirred the hornet’s nest. But nobody should count on anything happening to the CCT Chairman by way of sanction. He will not resign. That is certain. And he is not willing to apologise properly either. The man he assaulted, Clement Sargwak, 22, can only be advised to seek an enforcement of his fundamental human rights and thereby institute legal action against him.

A Tale of Two Airports

A tailpiece in this column: “Much Ado About Ogun Cargo Airport” (Tuesday, March 23, 2021) turned out to be my own version of stirring the hornet’s nest, given the controversy, the animus and the attention that it has generated. I had raised specific questions about an emerging Egba vs. Remo war of attrition that had developed around the idea of a Cargo Airport in Ilishan Remo, Ogun State an inherited project which happens to fall under the Senatorial District of the current Governor of Ogun State, and another airport at Wasinmi within the Egba territory. Ilishan and Wasinmi are within shouting distance from each other.

I argued that the former having come first in order of time, should not become controversial if the present Governor is trying to develop it. I added that I did not see the wisdom in having two airports any way for reasons of ethnic ego. What! Hell broke loose in Egbaland. I was woken up the following morning by strident attacks on my phone. My identity was questioned. A senior friend sent me all the WhatsApp messages that had been circulated about me: I was called a bastard for daring to question the siting of an airport in Wasinmi. One man wrote: What kind of Egba man will support Remo/Ijebu people against Egbaland? Are you sure this Abati is one of us? “Omo ale!” Is he aware that Egba is his political base and not Ijebu? Does he even know the facts?

A friend took the trouble to send the Egba side of the story: “(1) that the Wasinmi Airport Project is being funded by the Federal Government and has been part of the budget for the last couple of years. The financial arrangement was designed to be effected through the instrumentality of a Bond programme that failed to get the approval of the state legislature. (2) I was told the Wasinmi airport is a passenger airport while the Remo airport is a cargo airport. (3) The Dapo Abiodun administration is asking the Federal Government to stop the Wasinmi Airport, that Ogun state doesn’t need it and that the money meant for the project should be diverted to the Cargo Airport at Remo. That is wrong, my friend said. (4) Even if Egbas are the most intelligent people in the world, they will rise against that nonsense Dapo Abiodun is doing and (5) I was accused of attacking former Ogun State Governor, Senator Ibikunle Amosun and here is what I was told: Governor Abiodun is the culprit here, not Amosun. Every Senator has a right to defend projects allocated to his state…”

My point is proven: ethnic politics and conflict, that is the “my-own-isation” of everything, is the bane of Nigeria’s development process at both national and sub-national levels. Tragic.

BUHARI ABANDONS HIS ARGUMENTS IN COURT AS HE APPOINTS A NEW IGP: REASONS THE COURT SHOULD PROCEED

By Stephen Azubuike

According to Vanguard, President Muhammadu Buhari has approved the appointment of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police (DIG) Usman Alkali Baba as the Acting Inspector-General of Police (IGP). The appointment is to take immediate effect.

Recall that Adamu’s tenure expired on 1 February 2021 when he clocked 35 years in service. But on 4 February 2021, the President decided to extend his tenure by another 3 months, to terminate in May 2021.

The appointment of Alkali Baba came while the 3 months extension grace given to Adamu was yet to expire.

It was reported that sometime in February 2021, Maxwell Opara, an Abuja-based lawyer, commenced an action against the President, the former IGP, Mr. Adamu, the Attorney General of the Federation, and the Nigeria Police Council (NPC) regarding the tenure elongation of Adamu.

In that suit, President Buhari contends that the law permits Adamu to remain in office till 2023 or 2024, thereby justifying the extention of tenure.

It has been submitted elsewhere that contrary to the position of the President, it appears he had flung the Constitution and the Police Act into the bin by extending the tenure of Mr. Adamu. Read details here.

Implication of the appointment of Alkali Baba

The appointment of Usman Alkali Baba as the Acting IGP means that Adamu ceases to hold office as the IGP with immediate effect. This also prematurely puts an end to the extension of his tenure.

Furthermore, it seems Buhari has abandoned his arguments in Court. The appointment of Alkali Baba seems to be a further admission or confirmation that the tenure of Adamu had indeed expired. The initial confirmation came by the extention itself. This is because, if the law permits Adamu to remain in Office as argued by the President, there would be no need for the extension in the first place. 

Nevertheless, it is doubtful if the pending suit against the tenure elongation of Adamu would continue till final determination. The Court may prefer to take the position that since Adamu is no longer the IGP, the suit has become academic. The law forbids the courts from treating academic issues or issues which appear to be based on hypothesis. Only live issues are to be heard and determined.

However, it is submitted that it would be in the best interest of the nation for the Court to finally hear and determine the case. It is a fact that the President extended the tenure of the former IGP after his tenure had expired. Was he legally permitted to do that? We may never know until the Court tells us. It is reasonably believed that the action was unconstitutional. The President believes otherwise. 

The Court needs to make a pronouncement so as to guide future cases and ensure some level of certainty. An interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Police Act will help to improve our understanding of the provisions and eliminate needless arguments and conjecturing. Also, any loophole will stand closed by such decision. 

This article titled BUHARI ABANDONS HIS ARGUMENTS IN COURT AS HE APPOINTS A NEW IGP: REASONS THE COURT SHOULD PROCEED was first published on April 6, 2021 by stephenlegal.

Credit: https://stephenlegal.ng/buhari-abandons-his-arguments-in-court-as-he-appoints-a-new-igp-reasons-the-court-should-proceed/

About the Author 

Stephen is a Legal Practitioner, Consultant and Social Entrepreneur. He is a key member of the Dispute Resolution and Commercial Law Practice Group at Abiodun Layonu & Co. Stephen has successfully argued cases from the High Courts of various jurisdictions to the Appellate Courts. Desirous of implementing new legal solutions, he founded Stephen Legal, a firm in the business of providing innovative legal insights and easy solution in this information age. He obtained his Bachelor of Laws Degree (as an Elf/Total Scholar) from the University of Benin, graduating as one of the best students in his class. He further obtained a Master of Laws Degree from University of Lagos shortly after being called to the Nigerian Bar as a Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In addition to his academic degrees, Stephen has certificate trainings in Mediation, Mediation Advocacy and Insolvency Practice amongst others. He is also a published scholar; and is a member of the Continuing Legal Education and Mentorship Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association, Lagos Branch. He can be reached vide @siazubuike and @stephen_legal

1...989990991...1,465Page 990 of 1,465

TIPS

Load more