Home Blog Page 995

Falana Writes FG, Demands Release Of Some Correctional Centre’s Inmates Who Were Pardoned By Thailand Government

0

When Henry Azukaeme Titus, George Chibuike Onyeama, Kennedy Tanya, Yakubu Yahuza Mohammed and Mrs Gloria Ogbonna (Chola Mulenga for style) and Wasiu Amusan also called John Smith were jailed for drug related offences in Thailand, they thought it was their end! However, that country granted them amnesty and, through the treaty that exists between Thailand and Nigeria, the prisoners were sent to Nigeria.

However, the Nigerian authorities have since kept them in Kirikiri Maximum Security correctional centre.

According to Falana: “Our clients were convicted in Thailand for drug-related offences at various times between 1998 and 2006. They were however transferred from Thailand to the Kirikiri Maximum Correctional Centre to complete their prison terms following the Prison Exchange Treaty of 2012 between the Kingdom of Thailand and the Federal Government of Nigeria. Section 5 of the said Prison Exchange Treaty stipulates that the transferring State i.e. Thailand “shall retain exclusive jurisdiction regarding the judgments of its court, the sentences imposed by them and any procedures for revision, modification or cancellation of those judgments and sentences.”

“Pursuant to the said Treaty our client were granted general amnesty under the Thai Royal Amnesty Decree in 2016 and 2019. But due to undisclosed reasons the authorities of the Nigerian Correctional Services have refused to release our clients from unlawful incarceration notwithstanding that they have been pardoned under the Thai Royal Amnesty Decree. However, having obtained copies of the Royal Amnesty documents from the Government of Thailand through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we are pained to know our clients ought to have been released from prison custody at various times between 2010 and 2019.”

Below is Falana’s letter Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Minister of Interior, Ministry of Interior:

August 25, 2020

Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola,
Honourable Minister of Interior,
Ministry of Interior,
Old Federal Secretariat Complex,
Garki,
Abuja, FCT.

Dear Ogbeni Aregbesola,

REQUEST FOR THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF (1) HENRY AZUKAEME TITUS (2) GEORGE CHIBUIKE ONYEAMA (3) KENNEDY TANYA (4) YAKUBU YAHUZA MOHAMMED AND (5) MRS GLORIA OGBONNA a.k.a CHOLA MULENGA AND (6) WASIU AMUSAN a.k.a JOHN SMITH FROM PRISON CUSTODY

We are Solicitors to the above named convicted prison inmates who are currently held in custody at the Kirikiri Maximum Correctional Centre, Apapa, Lagos State on whose behalf we write this letter.

Our clients were convicted in Thailand for drug related offences at various times between 1998 and 2006. They were however transferred from Thailand to the Kirikiri Maximum Correctional Centre to complete their prison terms following the Prison Exchange Treaty of 2012 between the Kingdom of Thailand and the Federal Government of Nigeria. Section 5 of the said Prison Exchange Treaty stipulates that the transferring State i.e. Thailand “shall retain exclusive jurisdiction regarding the judgments of its court, the sentences imposed by them and any procedures for revision, modification or cancellation of those judgments and sentences.”

Pursuant to the said Treaty our client were granted general amnesty under the Thai Royal Amnesty Decree in 2016 and 2019. But due to undisclosed reasons the authorities of the Nigerian Correctional Services have refused to release our clients from unlawful incarceration notwithstanding that they have been pardoned under the Thai Royal Amnesty Decree. However, having obtained copies of the Royal Amnesty documents from the Government of Thailand through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we are pained to know our clients ought to have been released from prison custody at various times between 2010 and 2019.

It is evident that the Federal Government which facilitated the transfer of our clients from Thailand to Nigeria has abandoned them in the Kirikiri Maximum Correctional Centre. Thus, due to unpardonable negligence of certain public officers the Federal Government has been wasting public fund on maintaining our clients when they ought to have regained their freedom. We are therefore compelled to draw your attention to the facts and circumstances of the conviction, sentences and the royal pardon granted to our clients which are briefly set out below:

1. MR AZUKAEME HENRY EJIKEME was convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in 2006. He served 10 years and 5 months of the jail term in Thailand and has served additional 11 years in Nigeria. Pursuant to the Royal Decree of Amnesty to Detainees his sentence commuted he ought to have been released from prison custody on March 6, 2018.

2. MRS. OGBONNA Nee JIGBALE GLORIA LIEOMA (a.k.a CHOLA MULENGA) was convicted and sentenced to 33 years imprisonment in 2005. She served 10 years of the prison term in Thailand and additional 12 years in Nigeria. She was granted Royal pardon pursuant to the Royal Decree of Amnesty to Detainees on August 3, 2005 and her jail term commuted to one sixth of the original sentence. She ought to have been released from prison custody on February 19, 2019.

3. MR. OKPALA KINGSLEY CHIBUIKE (a.k.a OTENG SAMUEL) was convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in 2007 for drug related offences. He served 8 years and 5 months in Thailand and additional 11 years in Nigeria. He was granted Royal Pardon pursuant to the Thailand’s Royal Decree of Amnesty to Detainees and his sentence commuted to one- sixth of the original sentence. He ought to have been released from prison custody since April 4, 2017.

4. MR. YAKUBU YAHUZA MOHAMMED was convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in 2006. He served 10 years of the jail term in Thailand and an additional 11 years custodial term in Nigeria. He was granted royal pardon pursuant to Thailand’s Royal Decree of Amnesty to Detainees and his sentence commuted to one-sixth of the original sentence. He ought to have been released from prison custody on May 3, 2019.

5. MR. KENNEDY TANYA (a.k.a TANYA VICTOR KENNEDY) was convicted and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment in 2006. He was granted royal pardon pursuant to the Royal Decree of Amnesty to Detainees and his sentence commuted to one-sixth of the original sentence. He ought to have been released from prison custody on May 14, 2017.

6. MR JOHN SMITH was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in Thailand in 1998. He served 10 years’ imprisonment in Thailand and an additional term of 13 years in Nigeria. By the Royal Amnesty granted him he ought to have been released from prison custody on July 29, 2010.

In view of the foregoing, we respectfully urge you to use your good offices to terminate the unlawful detention of our clients forthwith and authorize their immediate release from the Kirikiri Maximum Correctional Center, Lagos. Copies of the Amnesty documents and necessary annexures are hereby attached for your perusal and necessary action.

Whilst undertaking to provide further information which may be required in respect of this request, please accept as usual, the assurances of our highest esteem and professional regards.

Yours Sincerely,

MR FEMI FALANA, SAN, FCI Arb.

66 Soldiers File N1.3bn Suit Against FG For Violation Of Human Rights

0

Sixty-six convicted soldiers have filed a suit at a Federal High Court, Lagos challenging their continued detention in the custody of the Ikoyi and Kirikiri Maximum Correctional Centres, Lagos.

They are asking the court for an order directing the respondents, the Minister of Internal Affairs and Comptroller, Nigeria Correctional Services, Lagos to pay them a cumulative sum of N1.320 billion for violation of their fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom from discrimination of their persons.

In the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by their counsel, Mrs. Funmi Falana, the applicants are asking the court for a declaration that their continued detention at the correctional centres, despite the amnesty granted them by President Muhammadu Buhari since April 9, 2020 is illegal and unconstitutional and violates their rights to personal liberty guaranteed by section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (CAP A10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

They are therefore seeking a declaration that their continued detention at the custody the correctional centre, in Ikoyi and Apapa also violates their right to freedom from discrimination guaranteed by Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) and Articles 2 and 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (CAP A10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

Other reliefs sought by the applicants are for an order directing the respondents to release them from the custody of Ikoyi and Kirikiri Correctional Centres, forthwith in compliance with the Presidential Amnesty granted on April 9, 2020, by President Muhammadu Buhari of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pursuant to Prerogative of Mercy under Section 175 of the Constitution.

They also asked the court for an order directing the respondents to pay to the applicants a total sum of N20 million each being compensation for the violation of their Fundamental Rights to Personal Liberty and Freedom from Discrimination of their persons.

The applicants based their request for reliefs on nine grounds.

They contended that the refusal of the respondents to permit the immediate release the applicants based on the Presidential Amnesty granted recently by President Buhari pursuant to Prerogative of Mercy under Section 175 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) and the continued detention of the Applicants is illegal and unconstitutional as they violate the Applicants’ right to their Personal Liberty guaranteed by section 35 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights Act.

They also contended that the refusal of the respondents to release the applicants along with the 2,600 who met the terms of the Presidential Amnesty granted recently by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pursuant to Prerogative of Mercy under Section 175 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended) along is discriminatory, illegal and unconstitutional as it violates the Applicants’ right to Freedom from Discrimination and Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights Act.

They argued that the respondents ought to release the applicants from prison custody forthwith in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid Presidential amnesty.

They further argued that having been in custody for 67 months out of the prison term of 80 months, they have spent more than 75% of their 10-year imprisonment.

Alternatively, they said since they are due to be released next year, they have less than three years to complete their 10-year term of imprisonment.

They are therefore qualified for the Presidential amnesty having served a substantial term of their sentence.

They said one of the convicted soldiers; Cpl. Stephen Clement was released from prison custody on April 28, 2020 on the ground that he had spent more than 75 percent of his 10-year prison term in line with the terms of the Presidential Amnesty of April 9, 2020.

In the affidavit in support of their application, they averred that they were charged and tried alongside other eleven soldiers before a General Court-Martial on a six-count charge of committing mutiny, criminal conspiracy to commit mutiny, attempted murder, disobedience to particular orders, insubordinate behaviour and false accusation contrary to and punishable under the Armed Force Act (Cap A20) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

They said at the end of the trial, they were convicted and sentenced to death in a judgment delivered sometime in September 2014.

They averred that following a review of their case, the confirming authority upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to 10 years imprisonment. Since the Applicants are entitled to remission of the 10-year jail term, they are required to spend a total of 80 months in prison custody. From September 2014 to June 2020, they have spent over 67 months in custody.

They averred that in exercise of the powers of Prerogative of Mercy under Section 175 of the Constitution, President Buhari granted amnesty to certain categories of convicted inmates including those who have spent 75 percent of their sentence after remission as well as inmates who have less than three years term left to serve having served a substantial term of their service for offences that attract five years and above.

They claimed that having been in custody for 67 months out of the prison term of 80 months, they have spent more than 75 per cent of their 10-year imprisonment and that they have less than three years to complete their 10-year term of imprisonment as they are due to be released from custody next year.

They averred that the respondents have refused or failed to permit the immediate release of the applicants in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid presidential amnesty.

They claimed that the respondents have released one Cpl. Stephen Clement whose prison term was also commuted to 10 years imprisonment on the grounds that he met the terms of the presidential amnesty.

They further claimed that the respondents have released 2,600 convicts who met the conditions set out in the presidential amnesty but have refused to release the applicants from custody without adducing any reason.

COVID-19: African Free Trade Zone And The ECOWAS Trade And Commerce

By O. M. Atoyebi, SAN

The world has never been more ignited in recent times for survival than at the end of 2019 and the launch of 2020 through to the mid-year and still counting. For many, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic projected a rather unannounced arrival of end-time. While the world is still adjusting to the disease and fighting to curb it, unfortunately, COVID-19 has triumphed in disrupting the entire chain of human affairs across the globe with its rippling effect.

The African Free Trade Zone and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Trade and Commerce, being one of those economic engagements violently hit and halted by this crisis, along with the repercussions birthed by various emergency measures adopted by member countries and regions in curbing its overarching population sapping effects, would have otherwise been the take-off of a tremendous economic transposition for the African continent and indeed, the rest of the world.

The effect of the pandemic and with the gradual easing of imposed lockdowns in member countries (which until recently resulted in an indirect placing of unintended embargo on these kinetic commercial interactions, all in a bid to prevent the multiplicity of the contagion) spells for the growth of the African market, is the focal point of this work.

THE AFRICAN CONTINENTAL FREE TRADE AREA

The African Continental Free Trade Area (hereinafter referred to as “AfCFTA”) is a trade deal designed to drop barriers in intra-African trade[1]. According to Brookings Institution, intra-African exports made up only 19% of total trade in 2018, compared to 59% and 69% for intra-Asia and intra-Europe trade respectively[2], this sharp variance defines the rationale for the need to put such a long overdue deal in place. Simply put, the AfCFTA aims at rewriting this unproductive narrative by means of increasing in-house African trade through the removal of barriers.

The 55-nation continental Free-trade Zone which has been referred to as the world’s largest Free-trade Zone, is being expected to create $3.4Trillion combined gross domestic product of economic bloc with 1.3 Billion people across Africa and constitute the largest new trading bloc in the world, since the inception of the World Trade Organization in 1994[3]. Interestingly, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) remarked that the AfCFTA is a “potential economic game changer and eliminating tariffs (in Africa) could boost trade in Africa by 15-25% in the medium term”.

COVID-19 AND THE KICK-OFF OF THE LONG-AWAITED AFRICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

The landmark African Free Trade Agreement is the instrument intended to initiate the laid out liberal trans-border commercial activities across the coastal regions of the continent once implemented on the 1st day of July, 2020, having been ratified by all member countries, with Nigeria following suit in July, 2019 (after series of delays and protracted consultations with relevant stakeholders). This decision of the largest economy in Africa to sign the agreement was a massive amplifier to the deal. The AfCFTA entered into force on 30th May, 2019[4].

A Free Trade Agreement simply means where a country has a lower cost of production in her home Nation, such Nation will gain market share by offering products cheaper than the competition[5]. Also, by the Agreement, Nations can no longer artificially increase prices of imported goods by imposing import duties[6]. Free Trade Agreements are designed to cut trade tariffs among member countries, help make a country’s exports cheaper and get easier access to other markets. It removes border taxes or trade barriers, get rid of quotas in such a way that there will be no limit to the amount of trades indigenous businessmen can conduct. These tariffs are usually in the form of taxes.[7]

Beyond dispute is the fact that though the Agreement is already legally in force, a number of details are still unsolved as part of the first phase of the process which would have brought the July zero hour for the take-off of trade in goods and services under the new tariff into fruition. This was as a result of the direct fallout of the African Union’s inability to hold its earlier scheduled Conference in Johannesburg, South Africa in May, 2020, to place the lid over the Agreement, owing to the cross-border travel restrictions and in-country imposition of lockdowns to arrest the rapid spread of the coronavirus pandemic[8]. As it stands, only a rescheduling of both the meeting and take-off dates by the Assembly as soon as practicable, would see to the successful unveiling of trading inter-relations in the zone as initially earmarked, especially with the gradual easing of the somewhat stiff control measures placed in concerned territories.

ECOWAS TRADE AND COMMERCE

Trade in the Community is evolutionary. There was a time when old trading links were still being relied on to sustain business exchanges in the area. What is being awakened now however is trade with development dimension. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), since its inception has had a trade policy designed to increase intra-regional commerce, raise trade volume and generally galvanize the economic activities within the region in such a way as to positively impact on the economic wellbeing of ECOWAS citizens[9].

The ECOWAS trade policy is also meant to foster the smooth integration of the region into the world economy with due regard for the political choices and development priorities of states in the desire to engender sustainable development and reduction of poverty[10].

The total trade of the region has averaged $208.1 Billion. Exports are projected at approximately $137.3 Billion while imports total about $80.4 Billion. The main active Countries in trade are Nigeria; which alone accounts for approximately 76 percent of total trade, followed by Ghana; (9.2 percent) and Cote d’Ivoire; (8.64 percent). The trade surplus of the region, estimated at about $47.3 Billion is attributable to Nigeria ($58.4 Billion) and Cote d’Ivoire ($3.4 Billion) when all other Countries have a deficit in the trade balance[11].

Today, the total ECOWAS trade has increased by an average of 18 percent per year between 2005 and 2020. It is dominated by Mining Commodities (oil resources, iron, bauxite, manganese, gold, etc..) and Agriculture (coffee, cocoa, cotton, rubber, fruits and vegetables and other products rather marketed within the region such as dry cereals, roots and tubers, livestock products) etc. Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Senegal concentrate 87 percent of this trade, with 79 percent of regional imports ($55,520 Million per year) and 94 percent of exports and re-exports ($77,792 Million per year)[12].

THE ECOWAS TRADE LIBERALIZATION PROGRAMME: CATALYST FOR ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATION IN THE COMMUNITY

A main feature of the Community’s trading and commercial policy is ECOWAS Trade Liberalization Programme (ETLP). The objective of the programme is to progressively establish a Customs Union among the Member States of the Community over a period of fifteen years, starting from 1st January, 1990, the date of entry into force of the Scheme. The Customs Union will among others involve the total elimination of customs duties and taxes of equivalent effect.

The ECOWAS Trade Liberalization Programme, involves three groups of products; unprocessed goods, traditional handicraft products and industrial products. The programme is meant to give several advantages to member States and their citizens as they trade among themselves. An example of this is, the advantages accruing to unprocessed goods imported from a member state as contained in Decision C/DEC.8/11/79 of the Council of Ministers is, total exemption from import duties and taxes, free movement without any quantitative restriction as well as non-payment of compensation for loss of revenue as a result of their importation, provided that unprocessed products among other conditions, originate from member states of the Community and must appear on the list of products annexed to the decisions liberalizing trade in these products.

COVID-19 CLOG ON ECOWAS TRADE AND COMMERCE

The unpremeditated advent of COVID-19 and the measures placed to curb its dispersion across ECOWAS member states, with the commonest of such steps being the ban on cross-border movement, resulted in a huge dip in the progress of the ETLP in particular, and all forms of commercial interrelations in the region in general. This could otherwise be channeled along a more productive and economically transforming axis for the concerned States and in fact, even the rest of the Continent.

Continuous Trade in both goods and services would have played a key role in overcoming the pandemic and limiting its health and economic impact, especially on the poor through adopting coordinated measures on trade in response to the COVID-19 epidemic. Trading and Commerce would have contributed immensely by providing countries access to essential medical goods (including material inputs for their production) and services to help contain the pandemic and treat those affected; ensuring access to food, maintaining and enhancing nutritional intake of the poor which will boost immune systems and contribute to the ability to resist the virus; providing farmers with necessary inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, equipment, veterinary products) for the next harvest; and supporting jobs and maintaining economic activity in the face of a global recession, disruption to regional and global value chains, and reduced employment and increased poverty.

Conversely, measures to contain the pandemic in West-Africa and the whole of Africa is reducing trade. African countries are highly dependent on global trade, and measures put in place that limit trade are rapidly having negative impacts on most countries hitherto operating in the ETLP. Thirty-two countries in Africa have put in place flight restrictions[13]. Some have suspended all commercial passenger flights, others have blocked international flights, while a few have limited the restrictions to countries with high infection rates.

Experience from previous crises, such as the 2008-2011 food price crisis of 2009, clearly shows that imposing export restrictions on medical and food products will increase the international prices of these products which will impact most negatively on the poorest people. Export bans on food also lowers domestic prices which reduces the incentive to grow food crops in the next season. If the pandemic spreads in Africa the same way as in Europe and the USA, it will result in critical hotspots that could overwhelm local health capacities and food security, the two most vital survival necessities for everything alive.

URGENT NEED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AfCFTA

The last World Economic Outlook from IMF forecasts a -3% contraction in world GDP in 2020 and a -1.6% contraction for sub-Saharan Africa for the same period[14]. The fall in the world GDP will no doubt lead to a severe fall in the exports demand for African products due to the fall in the global demand as COVID-19 persists. Given the specificities of African economies, the negative impact would be more than proportional, hence more trade among African nations and between Africa and the rest of the world is of essence. The AfCFTA will thus have the advantage of boosting intra-African trade contributing to mitigate the rapid decline in African GDP[15].

COVID-19 is both a supply and demand shock. Given this magnitude, the crisis may lead to a significant upending of global value chains, perhaps leading to a higher reliance on regional value chains. Given the potential for the AfCFTA to serve as a real economic engine at the continental level, policymakers must maintain the momentum towards its implementation so as to empower the region to more successfully navigate the hit its economies will take and have already taken. Trade liberalization under the AfCFTA is among many policies that could help pull countries out of recession after the pandemic is over.

CONCLUSION

Indubitably, the very soul of every nation is the income that accrues to it. From the provision of basic amenities (with food, shelter and even clothing being the constant variables), to the more political cum economically motivated projects, policies and programmes aimed at maintaining the stronghold of a nation among its other dominating contemporaries. African countries have managed to devise tactical progressive models designed to rescue the continent from sinking into the abyss of hunger, war and poverty, by evolving a medium via which trade and commercial activities will flourish among the inhabitants of the black-nation with little or no need of reliance on external channels.

The bid to introduce the AfCFTA and the push to advance the long existing ECOWAS Trade and Commerce (for the benefit of member-countries and by extension, the whole of Africa), have been the forces at the forefront of achieving this mandate. Unfortunately, just when plans were set to go on motion, the COVID-19 pandemic trotted its way from other parts of the Globe into the shores of the Continent and is threatening to cancel the anticipated success of these plans.

With the stiff measures to fight the pandemic now being tenderly relaxed coupled with the positive available windows it has helped to expose, the time is ripe for African leaders to intensify their strength to see to the quickened implementation and diversification of the masterplan for the economic development and transformation of our dear continent.

Paper by Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN.

Mr. Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN is one of the most notable professional Nigerian youth, who has distinguished himself in his professional sphere within the country and internationally. He is the youngest in the history of Nigeria to be elevated to the rank of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. At age 34, he was conferred with the prestigious rank in September, 2019. Mr. O.M. Atoyebi, SAN can be characterized as a diligent, persistent, resourceful, reliable and humble individual who presents a charismatic and structured approach to solving problems and also an unwavering commitment to achieving client’s goals. His hard work and dedication to his client’s objectives sets him apart from his peers. 

As the Managing Partner of O.M. Atoyebi, SAN and Partners, also known as OMAPLEX Law Firm, he is the team leader of the Emerging Areas of Practice of the Firm and one of the leading Senior Advocates of Nigeria in Information Technology, Cyber Security, Fintech and Artificial Intelligence (AI). He has a track record of being diligent and he ensures that the same drive and zeal is put into all matters handled by the firm. He is also an avid golfer.

Email: [email protected]

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/atoyebi-oyetola-muyiwa-san-804226122/

[1] https://nairametrics.com/2019/07/30/acfta-a-potential-game-changer-for-africa/

[2] ibid

[3] https://www.theafricareport.com/27678/coronavirus-delay-of-afcfta/

[4] https://www.tralac.org/resources/6730-continental-free-trade-area-cfta.html

[5] https://nairametrics.com/2019/07/30/acfta-a-potential-game-changer-for-africa/

[6] ibid

[7] ibid

[8] https://nairametrics.com/2020/04/30/take-off-of-africa-free-trade-zone-suffers-set-back/

[9] https://www.ecowas.int/ecowas-sectors/trade/

[10] ibid

[11] ibid

[12] ibid

[13] https://africacdc.org/covid-19/covid-19-resources

[14] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2020/05/22/the-afcfta-and-measures-to-facilitate-trade-could-significantly-mitigate-covid-19s-economic-impact-in-africa/

[15] ibid

Nullity Of Marriage

By Chioma Angela Okeke

Nullity of marriage is a declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction that a supposedly existing marriage is null and void, and that no valid marriage exists between a man and a woman. There are two heads of nullity of marriage recognized under the Matrimonial Causes Act Cap M7 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (MCA); nullity of voidable marriage and nullity of void marriage.

Nullity of voidable marriage

A voidable marriage is one that can be voided at the instance of either of the parties. This means that the marriage remains valid until it is set aside. The grounds upon which a marriage will be voided are provided under section 5 of the MCA. They are as follows:

That at the time of marriage-

  1. That either party to the marriage is incapable of consummating the marriage. This means that the party in question is impotent and therefore incapable of having normal sexual relations. However, the court will not void such a marriage if the petitioner was aware of the incapacity at the time of contracting the marriage, or if the court is not satisfied that the incapacity to consummate the marriage also existed at the time of filing the petition for nullity. Sections Section 5 (1) (a); 35(a); 36(1) MCA.

In addition, the court shall not order for decree of nullity unless, it is satisfied that the incapacity is not curable; that the respondent has refused to submit to such medical examination as the court considers necessary for the purpose of determining whether the incapacity is curable; or that the respondent refused to submit to proper treatment for the purpose of curing the incapacity; and that in the particular circumstances of the case, it will be harsh and oppressive to the respondent, or contrary to the public interest, to make such a decree. Section 36(1) & (2)

  1. That either party to the marriage is of unsound mind, or mentally defective, or is subject to recurrent attacks of insanity or epilepsy. The court shall not order for decree of nullity in this instance, unless the petitioner was at the time of the marriage, ignorant of the facts constituting the ground; the petition was filed not later than twelve months after the date of the marriage; and marital intercourse has not taken place with the consent of the petitioner since the petitioner discovered the existence of the facts constituting the ground. Sections 5(1) (b) & 37 MCA.
    3. That either party to the marriage is suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form. Section 5(1) (c) MCA. A venereal disease is a sexually transmitted disease. Example, HIV/AIDS, Gonorrhea, Syphilis etc.
  2. The wife is pregnant by a person other than the husband. Section 5(1) (c) MCA. The wife cannot file for nullity under this ground since she is the guilty party.

The Effect of a Decree of nullity of a voidable marriage

A decree of nullity of a voidable marriage shall annul the marriage from and including the date on which the decree becomes absolute. However, such a decree shall not render illegitimate a child of the parties born since, or legitimated during, the marriage.

Nullity of void marriage

A void marriage is unlawful and invalid ab initio. It does not require any formalities to terminate it. The grounds upon which a marriage will be voided are provided under section 3 of the MCA. They are as follows:

  1. That either of the parties is, at the time of the marriage, lawfully married to some other person. This means that a party should not marry another person during the subsisting of his/her marriage either under the Marriage Act or any customary law. This is because the marriage to another when the marriage is subsisting will constitute bigamy, which attracts 5years imprisonment. Section 39 Matrimonial Causes Act Cap M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (MA).
  2. That the parties are within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or, subject to section 4 of MCA, of affinity. Consanguinity relates to relationships by reason of blood relations (ancestors/ descendants). For example- sister or brother, father’s sister or brother, mother’s sister or brother, brother’s daughter or son, sister’s daughter or son. Affinity relates to relationships by reason of marriage. For example- wife’s mother or husband’s father, wife’s grandmother or husband’s grandfather, wife’s daughter or husband’s son etc.
    However, where two persons who are within the prohibited degrees of affinity wish to marry, they may apply, in writing, to a judge for permission, and if the judge is satisfied that the circumstances of the particular case are so exceptional as to justify the granting of the permission sought, the court may, by order, permit the applicants to marry one another.

3. The marriage is not a valid marriage under the law of the place where the marriage takes place, by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of the law of that place with respect to the form of solemnisation of marriages. Section 3(1)(c) MCA. There are generally, two places recognised for solemnisation
of marriages under the MA- The marriage registry and a licensed place of worship.

A marriage shall be null and void if both parties knowingly and willfully celebrate a marriage in any place other than in any of the two places recognised under the MA, except where authorised by the licence issued by the Minister; or solemnizes the marriage under a false name or names or without a registrar’s certificate of notice or licence issued under section 13MA; or by a person not being a recognised minister of some religious denomination or body or a registrar of marriages. Section 33 MA.

4. The consent of either of the parties is not a real consent because, it was obtained by duress or fraud; or  that party is mistaken as to identity of the other party, or as to the nature of the ceremony performed; or that party is mentally incapable of understanding the nature of the marriage contract.
5. That either of the parties is not of marriageable age. The Child’s Right Act 2003 provides that a child means ‘a person under the age of eighteen years’. Section 277. However, the implication of sections 11(1) (b), 18 and 48 MA, seem to show that the marriageable age in Nigeria is twenty-one years. Thus, if either of the parties is under twenty- one years, the consent of the father or (if dead, of unsound mind or absent from Nigeria), of  the mother or (if both are dead, of unsound mind or absent from Nigeria), of the guardian must be produced. In the absence of parent or guardian of such party residing in Nigeria and capable of consenting to the marriage, then, a governor, a judge of the High Court of the State or of the FCT, or any officer of or above the grade of assistant secretary. Section 20 MA.

Chioma Angela Okeke, LLM(UK), MBA(Nig).

Frustration Of Tenancy: A Possible Impact Of The Covid-19 Pandemic In Nigeria

By Christian N. Oti, Esq.

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of the COVID- 19 in Nigeria has brought about an enormous impact on the people; ranging from business transactions, employments, contracts, security, transportation, law and justice system delivery, e.t.c. However, one case that must not be neglected is the possible impact of the pandemic on the Nigerian populace who in not a small cases, depend on the arrangement of a Landlord and tenant relationship to find shelter and by extension stability for themselves, close family members and other dependants. This is evident in the many styles of periodic tenancy; like the monthly, quarterly, half-yearly and yearly durations that is prevalent in the country.

It is therefore the purpose of this paper to appraise the doctrine of frustration to tenancy agreements vide the circumstances where same may apply, while sieving through the cases on the arguments for the applicability or otherwise of the doctrine of frustration to tenancy. The work will also canvass for the marriage of the doctrine to periodic tenancy in compelling circumstances of the facts of each case.

INTRODUCTION

It can really be a difficult task to clearly distinguish between a license and a tenancy, but one character that has been fairly settled by the authorities, statutes and by learned authors is that of exclusive possession.  A tenant has full possession of a demised property but a licensee is limited; it is at best a permission to occupy a premises. It is subject always to the proprietary interest of the landlord to the reversion.

In the case of African Petroleum Ltd. V. Owodunni[1], the word ‘tenant’ was defined by the Supreme Court as below: “The definition of the tenancy is very wide and includes all persons who occupy premises lawfully. Whether a person pays regular rent, subsidized rent or indeed no rent is immaterial. The qualification for becoming a tenant under the law is lawful occupation. Hence, when the initial occupation of premises is lawful, the occupier, even if holding over becomes a protected tenant qua the landlord.

The thin line in identifying a tenancy is further expressed in the many statutes of each states of the country covering both residential and commercial premises, as the subject of tenancy is a residual matter. As stated earlier, the primary feature of a tenancy is exclusive possession. It may be apropos to state that a tenancy may be periodic or a fixed (term certain) and different principle of law applies to them. For instance, a fixed term tenancy, say for five years is determined automatically by effluxion of time or arrears of rent for a certain period depending on the law of the state with respect to tenancy; while, a periodic tenancy can only be determined by an appropriate notice to quit[2].

The author has had cause to interact with some legal practitioners on this score, but one thing is apparent: the many agreements prepared in terms of a fixed term, usually for a year, is what many refer to as periodic tenancy, when in essence it’s a fixed term, and posits erroneously that periodic tenancy can be determined by effluxion of time. The choice of words used in drafting the habendum of tenancy or lease (tenancy of above three years) is important as parties are bound by their agreement[3].

THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION IN CONTRACTS

It is safe to state that property transactions are in two phases; these are the contractual and conveyance stages. Tenancy agreements must meet the ingredients of contract for there to be a valid lease or tenancy. Consequently, the discussion on frustration is vital as it applies to leases although there are arguments contrary to its applicability. It is the author’s view that there is really no reason why the doctrine of frustration should not apply to leases, and to all forms of tenancies for that matter.

Frustration occurs whenever the law recognizes that, without default of either party, a contractual obligation has become incapable of being performed because the circumstances in which performance is called for would render it a thing radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract. Non haec in foedera veni: it was not this that I promised to do.[4]

The Supreme Court has stated that the doctrine of frustration applies to all categories of contracts. It is defined as the premature determination of an agreement between parties, lawfully entered into and which is in the course of operation at the time of its premature determination, owing to the occurrence of an intervening event or change of circumstances so fundamental as to be regarded by law both as striking at the root of the agreement and entirely beyond what was contemplated by the parties when they entered into the agreement.[5]

The courts have recognized certain situations or events as listed below that constitute frustration- a. subsequent legal changes. b. outbreak of war. c. destruction of the subject matter of the contract. e. cancellation of an expected event. In other words, a court would recognize that a contract is frustrated where after the contract was concluded, events occurs which make performance of the contract impossible, illegal or something radically different from that which was in the contemplation of the parties at the time they entered into the contract. A contract which is discharged on the ground of frustration is brought to an end automatically by the operation of law, irrespective of the wishes of the parties.[6]

APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION TO LEASES

In the famous case of Cricklewood property v. Leighton’s investment,[7] the House of Lords was even divided on the question as to whether or not the doctrine of frustration can apply to a demised of Real property. In that case, a parcel of land was demised to leases for a term of 99 years of which they covenanted to erect a number of shops and to pay annual rent. In an action by the lessors to recover rent, the lessees repudiated liability on the ground that the obligation to pay rent had been excused or discharged by frustration since the wartime restriction placed by the government had made it impossible to erect the shops. The Court of Appeal rejected the contention of the lesses and held that the doctrine of frustration has never been applied to a demise of real property. On appeal to the House of Lords, Viscount Simon L.C. and Lord Wright held the view that the doctrine may in certain cases apply to leases. They observed that on rare occasions, a lease may be frustrated as, for instance, if some convulsion of nature swallowed up the property altogether or buried it up in the depth of the sea or in the case of a building lease, if by subsequent legislation a building on the land was permanently prohibited.

However, Lord Russel and Goddard were of the view that the doctrine of frustration can never apply to put an end to a lease. The rationale of their view is that a lease creates an estate in the land vested in the lessee and that that estate can never be frustrated even though some contractual obligation under the lease such as the convenant to build the shops, may be suspended or impossible of performance. Lord Porter, who was the fifth member expressed no opinion on the issue.

The above case shows us the difficulty in applying the doctrine of frustration to leases. It is urged that the contractual basis of transactions as this should play a fundamental role in the marriage of the doctrine to leases. In the Araka’s case[8] the plaintiff let out his property to the defendant at an annual rent. It was agreed that the expatriate of the defendant company will reside there. As a result of the Nigeria-Biafra war, the expatriates were asked to leave that region of the country (portharcourt). After the war, the plaintiff sued for the rent during the wartime. The defence of frustration was upheld.

It is instructive to note that the demised property in the above case was on a periodic tenancy. Although, it seems that what impressed the mind of court was the fact that the agreement was premised on the occupation of same by the expatriates and the non-return of the expatriates to the premises after the war.

In National Carriers Ltd v. Panalpina(Northern)Ltd[9], National carriers Ltd granted Panalpina a 10 year lease of a warehouse. The only road wherein the warehouse could be accessed was closed five years after by the government for 20 months. Panalpina refused to pay for the period and pleaded upon this suit that the lease was frustrated as a result of the closure, and as such was not liable for the rent. It was held that the lease has not been frustrated as the 20 months period was not a significant interruption to the lease.

The following decisions stress the fact that the doctrine of frustration can be applied in leases where the very foundation of the contract cannot be performed, and can be applied even to periodic tenancy. The eminent professor Emeka Chianu opines doubt on the application of the doctrine to periodic tenancy.[10] He further avers that, in the case of a periodic tenancy, however, once an event occurs which either party considers as frustrating the tenancy, all one of them has to do is to give notice terminating the relationship.[11]

The author is of the view that there is nothing that ought to hinder the application of the doctrine to periodic tenancy where the fundamentals of the contract cannot be performed. For instance, many premises used for theatres or cinema have been locked right from the outbreak of the COVID-19 in Nigeria up to the time of this writing; assuming the tenancy is periodic (say yearly), it would definitely be unjust to require rent for the months gone without use. Consider also a building gutted by fire, thus depriving the purpose of residence or commerce. I do not see how the doctrine shouldn’t be applied just because it’s a periodic tenancy. Even where the premises is occupied constructively, the court should look at the essence of the contract and hold that the tenancy is frustrated if the foundation of the contract cannot hold.

CONCLUSION

The relationship of landlord and tenant is one that may present difficulties to the parties, such as the intricate nature of vesting an estate in another, and linking up same with the contractual obligations attached thereto; and which in certain cases may result to frustrating incidences. It is imperative that the stand of protecting the tenant who in law is presumed to be the weaker party is upheld in cases of frustration no matter the type of tenancy it is, so far as there are compelling circumstances inhibiting the performance of the essence of the contract. Although, the doctrine of frustration is an all or nothing principle, it may also be proposed that in certain cases the impact of the frustrating events be shared among the parties.

Law is not cast in iron. It must in all times evolve when necessary to meet the demand of society. It is therefore urged that depending on the facts of each case, the impact of the Covid-19 on leases should be regarded as a frustrating element, and also applied to periodic tenancy.

[1] (1991) 8 NWLR (pt. 210) 391

[2] Hilda Josef v. A. S. Adole (2010) LPELR- CA

[3] Alhaji Sadi Abdulaziz & Anor v. Alahji Bello Garba (2019) LPELR-48086-CA

[4] Lord Radcliffe in, Davis Contractors Ltd v.Fareham UDC(1956)2 All ER 145, 160, quoted in Emeka Chianu, Law of Landlord and Tenant, 2nd edition, Lawlords Publications, Abuja, 2010, pg.340

[5] Per Adekeye, J.S.C. in AG Cross River state v. AG Federation & Anor (2012) LPELR- 9335(SC) (Pp. 49-50, paras. E-A)

[6] Ibid, at Pp. 50-51, paras. B-A

[7] (1945) A.C. 221 quoted in Araka v. Monier Construction Co.(NIG)Ltd(1978) LPELR-531(SC) Per Mohammed Bello, J.S.C.

[8] Ibid

[9] (1981) AC 675

[10] Ibid, n.4 pg 342

[11] Ibid

Female Police Officers Not To Wear Lipsticks And…

0

#Obscurelegalfacts by Arome Abu

Female Police Officers Not To Wear Lipsticks And…

In Nigeria, female police officers shall not, while on duty, wear face powders, lipsticks, nail varnish(except those of neutral colours), jewellery except wedding or engagement rings.

See Reg 128 of the Nigerian Police Regulations

Arome Abu is the Principal 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.
Plot 108 Idris Gidado Way, Wuye, Abuja.
[email protected]
+234 803 262 2359
+234 708 1156 539.
Twitter: @abu_olaniyanLP

2020 NBA AGC: Withdraw Tony Blair’s Invitation For Alleged War Crimes — African Network For International Criminal Justice Writes TCCP

0

A group that identifies itself as African Network For International Criminal Justice has written the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Technical Committee on Conference Planning (TCCP) to withdraw the invitation extended to the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

The Group, in a letter, addressed to the TCCP Chairman, Prof. Konyin Ajayi, SAN, said Blair has accusations of committing war crimes on his neck because the former Prime Minister allegedly invaded Iraq leading to dead of hundreds of thousands of Iraq citizens

The Group added that there have been campaigns around the world seeking the prosecution of Blair and several requests have been submitted to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to that effect. It, therefore, called on TCCP to disinvite Blair since the mission of NBA is to promote Rule of Law.

Read the full letter below:

AFRICAN NETWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ANICJ)

August 25, 2020

Prof Koyinsola Ajayi, SAN

Chairman, Technical Committee on Conference Planning (TCCP)
Nigerian Bar Association, NBA
Central Business District, Abuja

*REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE INVITATION OF TONY BLAIR TO 2020 NBA 60TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE*

We are a network of advocates and non-profit organizations, committed to promoting international criminal justice across Africa.

We hereby request that the Nigerian Bar Association withdraws the invitation it extended to Mr. Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, to speak at its 60th Annual Conference taking place between August 26 and 28, 2020, because Mr. Blair has been widely accused to have committed war crimes and crimes of aggression in Iraq along with former US President, George W Bush. Both crimes are international crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Mr. Blair has been confirmed by UK government inquiry into the US/UK – led invasion of Iraq to have lied that Saddam Hussein in Iraq stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, when he had intelligence reports to the contrary. It was on basis of those lies that Iraq was invaded in 2003, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

There have been legal proceedings in the UK as well as widespread legal campaigns around the world including in Africa, to bring Mr. Blair to justice for committing war crimes and crime of aggression by invading Iraq in 2003 to overthrow its leader. The *Chilcot report* , a UK government’s inquiry into Britain’s role in the war, concluded that Mr. Blair clearly knew at the time that Iraq had no weapon of mass destruction

Furthermore, according to notable British media, *The Independent* , a third of British People want to see Mr. Tony Blair tried as a war criminal over Iraq, and several requests for indictment have been submitted to the Office of the Trial Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It has been established beyond doubt that Mr. Blair knowingly misled the UK parliament and the public in the invasion of Iraq, and should be tried as a suspected war criminal.

We hereby protest the invitation of Mr. Blair to the NBA AGC 2020, despite Nigeria’s leading position in the International Criminal Court. Nigeria is a state party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, and the current President of the Court is a Nigerian, Judge Chile eboe –Osuji.

We therefore request the NBA conference technical committee to withdraw its invitation to Mr. Tony Blair. The mission of the NBA is to promote the rule of law and the association cannot justifiably provide platform for such persons alleged to have committed war crimes.

Yours faithfully

Signed

*Chino Obiagwu, SAN*
Coordinator, African Network for the International Criminal Justice

For:

· African Network for the International Criminal Justice (ANICJ)

· Nigerian Coalition for the International Criminal Court (NCICC)

· Moyo Pan Afrikan Solidarity Centre

· Centre for Labour studies

· Legal Defence and Assistance project (LEDAP)

· People’s Alternative Font

· Civil Society Network against Corruption

Hushpuppi’s Trial Set to Begin in US

Ramon Abbas, the Nigerian Instagram celebrity with the name “Hushpuppi,’ has been arraigned in an American court in California as his trial begins on October 13.

Abbas pleaded not guilty to the four-count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering conspiracies, international money laundering and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity.

In June, the 37-year-old known for flaunting an opulent lifestyle on social media, was arrested in Dubai by special operatives of the Emerati Police and American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The FBI’s investigation, according to the affidavit obtained by Premium Times alleged that Abbas financed this extravagant lifestyle through crime.

He is alleged to be the leader of a group that facilitates computer intrusion, business email compromise (BEC) fraud and money laundering.

His targeted victims, majorly in the US, had been duped of hundreds of millions of dollars, the FBI says.

In July, Abbas alongside Olalekan Ponle, popularly known as Woodberry, was extradited to Chicago in the United States where he was first arraigned.

However, because the U.S. Court in Illinois does not have jurisdiction over the case, he was transferred to Los Angeles, a city in California.

Since his transfer to California late July, he has been held in the custody of the U.S. Marshal in a federal prison.

Arraignment

Meanwhile, the prosecutor has kickstarted the process of arraignment by filling necessary documents and forms after his first appearance on August 17.

After the pre-trial services, Abbas entered a plea, insisting that he is not guilty of the charges.

Banks To Take Over Electricity Bill Collections

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has directed deposit money banks (DMBs) providing bank guarantees to Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading (NBET) Plc and the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN) on behalf of the Electricity Distribution Companies (Discos) to take full responsibility for collections of the Discos’ bills.

In addition, the banks are also to charge of the remittances of the Discos to both NBET and TCN.

This is coming as some financial market analysts yesterday commended the decision by the CBN to end the age-long practice of forex exchange (FX) over-invoicing.

The directive on electricity bill collections, whose implementation is with immediate effect, was contained in a letter addressed to all banks, dated August 21, 2020, that was signed by the Director of Banking Supervision, CBN, Mr. Bello Hassan.

In the circular titled, ‘DMB-led Electricity Market Collections,’ a copy of which THISDAY saw yesterday, the CBN said the move was in line with a directive of the Power Sector Coordination Working Group to improve payment discipline in the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry (NESI) and to boost the overall quality of electricity generation, transmission and distribution.

The CBN stated that no bank should open or continue to maintain a collection account for a Disco without the express no-objection of the bank that guaranteed the power company’s exposure to NBET or TCN.
Also, the payment or settlement of all NESI-related goods or services shall be made through the banking system.

“Consequently, all collections for the payments of NESI regulated goods and services provided by a Disco shall be paid into a designated account such that: collections arising from services rendered by the Disco shall be paid into an account in the sole name of the Disco and collections arising from services rendered by a third party/parties on behalf of the Disco shall be paid into an account in the joint name of the Disco and the third- party vendor(s).”

The CBN directed that all energy and non-energy collections of Discos, whether cash or cashless, should only be performed by the banks.

“No entity shall be permitted to collect revenues for Discos except if that entity is so authorised by a DMB in line with the relevant CBN guidelines for agent banking and agent banking relationships, therefore: the DMB shall be permitted to authorise its agents to collect energy and non- energy payments on its behalf for any Disco; the actions or inactions of the agent shall be the responsibility of the authorising DMB and any DMB found to be maintaining any account(s) for any entity collecting payments on behalf of any Disco without appropriate authorisation shall have regulatory sanctions imposed on it,” it added.

The CBN directed the banks to work with relevant stakeholders to ensure that all electricity customer payment channels/endpoints identify electricity market payments in such a way as to provide the identification of these payments and information relating to the Disco as well as the Disco account information such as account ID, customer ID, meter ID, among others.

“All Disco collections (cash and cashless) shall be regarded as an energy collection and, unless identified otherwise, shall be swept automatically into a Feeder Collections Account (FCA) in the sole name of the Disco. The proper classification of accounts (into energy and non-energy) shall be the responsibility of the Disco and DMB that guaranteed the Disco or its designate bank.

“AII Disco non-energy collections shall be paid into a designated account in the name of the Disco provided that: non-energy collections arising from services rendered by the Disco shall be paid into an account in the sole name of a Disco and non-energy collections arising from services rendered by a third-party vendor on behalf of a Disco shall be paid into an account in the joint name of the Disco and the third-party vendor,” it said.

The CBN ordered banks to ensure that bulk purchasers/resellers of energy maintain a dedicated and segregated account per Disco for customer energy collections for that distribution company.

The financial institutions are also to ensure that bulk resellers maintain records of energy sales and make such records available monthly and on demand to the CBN, the Nigeria Electricity Supply Industry Stabilisation Strategy Limited or any other CBN-designated entity, It directed bulk resellers not to open or close any account for energy collections without authorisation by NESI SS Ltd or any other CBN-designated entity.

The financial institutions are also required to provide on a monthly basis and on demand, details of all accounts maintained by their agents and all third parties involved in energy collections or resale (i.e. bulk resellers, Agents, etc.) for inspection by the CBN, NESI SS Ltd or any other CBN designate.

“Supervised entities acting as financing agents for the purchase of energy, or similar, shall only charge fees in line with CBN regulations,” it stated.

Senate To SEC: Remit N300m To Fed Govt

The Senate yesterday urged the Director-General, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Lamido Yuguda to remit N300million into the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) account of the Federal Government on before Thursday next week.

The upper chamber also directed the Auditor-General of the Federation to conduct a status enquiry on the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC).

The Chairman of the Senate Joint Committee on Finance and National Planning, Senator Solomon Adeola, gave these directives when the two agencies appeared before the panel during its ongoing stakeholders’ interactive session on the 2021-2023 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) and Fiscal Strategy Paper (FSP), in Abuja.

Adeola said: “I will implore the DG of SEC to between today and Thursday next week remit at least N300million to the coffers of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

“The DG said SEC generated a total revenue of N8.358billion in 2019 while it is expecting only N5.478billion and projecting N8.3billion in 2021.

“SEC should not pay less than N1billion to the CRF account in 2021. SEC, you have a staff strength of 600 and a wage bill of N10.3billion annually, amounting to N15.7million per person annually. You are indeed, top heavy. You have to work on this.”

Senator Gabriel Suswam noted said SEC is projecting a total revenue of N8.3billion in 2021.

He said: “Your expenditure is N14.4billion which means you have a deficit of N6.1billion. You said you are top heavy.

“Now there are lots of young men who are on the street who are qualified and ready to work.

“The salary of just one person from the top heavy management staff that you have can pay five young people who have the qualification and capacity to do the job.

“When you do that instead of generating N8billion and incurring deficit of N6.1billion, it is as good as your organisation does not exist.”

In his response, Yuguda noted that reducing the top heavy workforce in SEC would mean that the severance package of those to be laid off has to be paid.

On the NSCDC, Senator Ayo Akinyelure noted that every agency of government must make contributions to the CRF especially at this period that the Federal Government needs money to fund its budget.

He called on the NSCDC to review its fees and levies being paid by private guard 100 per cent upward because the nation needs money to fund its budget.

“As far as we are concerned, the Accountant General has confirmed that the NSCDC does not have access to what they are collecting but that it goes straight to the TSA (Treasury Single Account),” he said.

The co-Chairman of the Committee, Senator Olubunmi Adetunmbi, asked the Commandant General of the NSCDC, Abdullahi Gana Mohammadu, to account for revenue it often realize from executive guard services rendered by its operatives.

He also wanted to know what happened to items confiscated by the paramilitary outfit during its operations.

In his response, the CG said only allowances were paid to operatives where thesuch services are being rendered.

He also said confiscated items were usually auctioned after being valued by the Ministry of Works.

Adeola however called on the Auditor-General of the Federation to conduct a status enquiry on the NSCDC “because we need to know the true position of things.”

He added: “You (CG of NSCDC) will need to appear again before the panel next week and we would mandate the Auditor General of the Federation to carry out a status enquiry on the activities of the NSCDC as far as revenue is concered.”

On his part, the Accountant General of the Federation, Ahmed Idris, noted that there are differences between money which acrued to an agency and an incidental money that will come to it from time to time.

“We need to find out into which account the NCDC remit revenues for confiscated items to; revenue from confiscated items were not given to the NSCDC as a target,” Idris said.