Home Blog Page 998

Retooling Port Harcourt Refinery, Another Avoidable Waste

By Muiz Banire, SAN

This plea is now compelling and timely in view of the latest development around the refurbishment of the Port Harcourt refinery. In the recent past, several issues have been bedevilling the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), these include lack of accountability in terms of the crude produced and the sums accruable from the sale. This is a recurring decimal in the life of the NNPC. Till date, nobody can assertively inform us of the volume of crude produced nor the accurate volume sold. Again, not until of recent were we treated to a celebrated audit report in the life of the NNPC. It is the same NNPC that appears confused about its policy direction on the deregulation of the industry, as multiple policy summersaults are released from time to time.

I can continue to multiply these aberrations but for the fact that this is not meant to be our pre-occupation in this column. In my last intervention on Twitter, I had hinted that I would be interrogating the wisdom or otherwise in the decision of NNPC to rehabilitate the Port Harcourt refinery for the sum of $1.5 billion. Prior to this, I had in my last column berated the same NNPC for being the exclusive importer of the refined product in Nigeria. In the said write-up, I remember insinuating the high probability of multiple compromises in the supply and distribution chain of the refined product to the independent marketers.

The news this time is on the award of the rehabilitation of the Port Harcourt refinery for a whopping $1.5 billion. It is a news item that is of interest to a larger percentage of Nigerians, including my humble self. As rightly suggested by Mr. Atedo Peterside in his tweet, it is one decision that requires national debate.

Besides his counsel, I have followed some public discussions on the subject. In all, it will seem that the preponderance of opinion gravitates towards the inappropriateness of the decision. I share in this conclusion also. The bases of my opposition to the decision are multiple. To start with, the said refinery is about 32 years old with outdated technology. The implication of this is that some of the parts would have to be recalibrated or newly manufactured to fit into the overhaul. Due to the age, there is no way it can be as efficient as any modern refinery. On this score, therefore, it might not be reasonable to embark on such rehabilitation.

Recently, a higher capacity refinery, including inventory, by name Martinez Refinery in California was sold by Royal Dutch Shell Plc to PBF Energy for $1,2 billion.

Although there is insinuation that the sold refinery is equally challenged, the fact is that it is still functioning. This diaspora refinery could have been acquired by Nigeria and managed, not only for our consumption but for the international market. The argument against this suggestion might be that we will be generating employment for another country. As seemingly attractive as this reasoning is, it is certainly arguable if that contention is sustainable.

With the existing refineries, over time, how many jobs have we created? The story around those refineries has always been that of redundancy and consequential laying off of workers. My suspicion and the likely reality is that if such refinery abroad is acquired, some Nigerians will end up gaining employment there, either by way of local recruitment or international absorption of Nigerians in diaspora. The probability of collapse of such investment is less outside than if within the country itself. This view cannot be faulted in the face of the moribund state of the existing facilities. The combined capacity of all the corporation’s refineries is in the region of 450,000 barrel per day but, from 2019 till date, not a single litre has been produced.

The further contention is that even if it must be refurbished, why doesn’t the NNPC invite the private sector to take it over and carry out the rehabilitation and manage same? A concession can address the challenge. The ready answer of the protagonists of the retooling will be lack of funding by the private sector. Let me assume, without conceding, that it is an arguable point, but why can’t the government give a guarantee with the said sum in favour of the private entities rather than moving in directly?

The NNPC, in this instance, ought to limit its intervention to supervision rather than being the operator of the refineries. No country progresses where government abdicates governance for businesses. NNPC ought to confine itself to its regulatory role. Furthermore, what stops the refineries, including the one under consideration, from being offered for sale to private entities? It could be disposed of in that state with private entities acquiring and engaging in the turnaround.

The point being made is that, by the deregulation policy, the NNPC should not be seen as an operator of a refinery, a role that should be reserved for the private sector. Again, I know the goons of the NNPC might react that the cost of the refined product might be unaffordable to an average Nigerian, if there is total deregulation. That argument will not fly in the face of the fluctuating prices of the refined products currently existing under the import monopoly of the NNPC. If nothing, all the logistics cost, including that of the crude, will instantly be eliminated, thereby reducing the output cost.

In addition, from experience, it is usually lack of transparency in the processes leading to the concession that breeds inefficiency and, by extension, the astronomical cost of the product. Should we use power as a narrative, it was lack of transparency that led to non-foreign investors participating, thereby depriving the successful bidders of foreign inflow. This is responsible for both the inefficiency and the prohibitive cost of sustenance of their operations. This could be compared with the telecommunications sector where some degree of transparency applied.

I have read the reaction of the group managing director of the NNPC that it will basically cost the country a sum ranging between $7 billion and $10 billion to build a new refinery, an amount the country cannot afford currently. I suspect that there is a misconception here. Nigerians are not advocating for the construction of a new refinery but only by comparative cost analysis, suggesting that, if the cost of replacement of an outdated facility is that huge, why can’t we directly acquire a new one?

The further suggestion of the public is that it is an investment that the private sector can undertake, where the NNPC provides a conducive atmosphere for its operation. I have equally noted the porous reasoning that the present cost of importation vis-à-vis the consumption of the country’s foreign exchange is frightening. To this, I plead that the management of the NNPC should stop insulting our collective intelligence. Currently, is the crude we are exchanging not presently in substitution for foreign exchange? When we eventually produce locally, is it not the same accrued foreign exchange from the present swap we will be stopping? It is a situation of a bottle that is half full and half empty; a Catch-22 situation.

Strangely, the group managing director of the NNPC has indicted past regimes in the corporation for poor maintenance and truncation of the operations of the refineries. My worry, however, is that he failed to mention names of culprits so that we can make them scapegoats that will send signals to the potential operators of the refurbished facility, if ultimately executed.

Also, I am aware of the signing of co-location agreements in respect of some new refineries by the corporation within the existing facilities. The Port Harcourt refinery, in this respect, by virtue of the private co-location investment, is expected to add about 100,000 barrels per day to the country’s refined product. I am also aware of the Dangote refinery that the country can equally leverage on. Should it, however, be compulsory, which I know it is not, that the NNPC must operate a refinery, let the corporation acquire shares in the private entities that will be players in the field.

Besides the above, if the pronouncement of the Vice-President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, is something to go by, it seems the policy direction is in favour of modular refineries; two are already running and several, hopefully, are in the pipeline.

I am also aware, while being the chairman of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), that one of such modular refineries belongs to the Federal Government abroad, courtesy of AMCON.

This has continued to incur cost in Texas, where it is lying without the NNPC indicating interest in the acquisition. This is just characteristic of the NNPC as I am equally aware of the resistance to take over several tank farms in possession of AMCON but will rather prefer rentals for whatever reason. Little drops of water make an ocean: the more modular refineries we have, the less the nation’s headache and increase in convenience.

Now, my take on all the above is simply that the route being taken by the NNPC and, by extension, the country, is a perilous one. I say this because, beyond all the arguments canvassed above against the government spending the said sum on the refurbishment of the Port Harcourt refinery, I am of the strong view that, in the light of global warming and the challenge of climate change, Nigeria must be tagging along other nations in the curtailment of the use of fossil fuels. Is it not an absurdity to spend such a sum on a facility meant to be generating fossil fuel when the entire world is drifting towards clean energy, largely by the year 2030? Britain already placed ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030. By 2035, California will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered passenger cars. In Canada, the Quebec province equally announced the ban by the year 2035.

The European Union Environment Ministers struck a deal recently to make a bloc 2050 net-zero emissions target legally binding, but left a decision on a 2030 emissions-cutting target for leaders to discuss in December. My thought, therefore, would have been that, rather than spending such a huge sum on repairing a facility whose relevance would soon be challenged, would it not be wise to start investing in the clean energy by way of gas production technology and electricity? Most vehicle and equipment producers are now focusing on the use of clean energy, where will Nigeria be then? Can’t we be proactive for once?

Recall that even the President of Nigeria made a pronouncement on the movement to gas utilization in vehicles and equipment. The reality is that, by the year 2030, the prices of refined products globally will drop as the use declines. The production cost in Nigeria will become unsustainable. Hence, the country might have to resort to importation again. This will be the country’s irony.

On this note, I am in tandem with the proponents of the government shelving the idea of investing the said sum in the rehabilitation of the Port Harcourt refinery. Rather, such should be left to the private sector, while diverting the funds into production of clean energy.

(thenigerialawyer)

NBC to contest Rite Foods trademark infringement case

Nigerian Bottling Company (NBC) in a press release exclusively sent to Nairametrics has disclosed that the company is set to contest the court case filed by Rite foods Limited against the promotion of its Predator energy drink.

This move by NBC is a reaction to the recent media coverage relating to the legal case between Rite Foods Limited and the company, on the grounds of trademark infringement, as Rite believes NBC’s Predator energy drink bears a close resemblance to its Fearless energy drink.

In line with these claims, Rite filed for an interim injunction against NBC, restraining it from promoting or using any sales promotion material for its Predator energy drink in a manner that is capable of infringing or passing off Fearless energy drink until the interlocutory application for an injunction is determined.

The management of the leading beverage drink maker, in reaction to the court case, disclosed that NBC is well within its rights to continue to sell the Predator products, adding that neither the company nor its Managing Director, is in breach of any court order.

NBC noted that the court case will be vigorously contested and the management is confident that after due consideration of the merits of the case, the Court will confirm its rights based on Predator energy drink’s established use of the Predator brand and logo in many other markets around the world and the fact that the bottles and logos of both drinks are not confusingly similar. (midpointmall)

Petition against Supreme Court justices: I didn’t do it, says Yobe Governor… so, who did?

Governor Mai Bala Buni of Yobe State

The Acting Chairman of All Progressives Congress (APC), and Governor of Yobe State, Alhaji Mai-Mala Bun, has vehemently denied allegations by the Supreme Court that he wrote a petition against three justices over an alleged meeting with Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) officials regarding the contentious Imo North Senatorial District seat won by the APC. The seat is being contested by two of the party’s members – Ifeanyi Ararume and Francis Ibezim.

Hearing on the case at the apex court was postponed indefinitely on Tuesday over the alleged petition.

In a statement on Tuesday by his spokesperson, Mallam Mamman Mohammed, Buni said: “It has come to my knowledge that an allegation was made against some Supreme court judges, claiming that there was a meeting between their Lordships with the PDP to subvert the cause of Justice in the case of the Imo North Senatorial election.

“I want to make my position abundantly clear and in unambiguous terms that, l Hon. Mai Mala Buni, the Executive Governor of Yobe state and Chairman APC Caretaker Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee had, at no time personally, said, written or directed anyone to write on my behalf or the party to allege or claim that their Lordships met with members of the PDP or any political party on any matter.

“I must say l am conscious of the positions their Lordships occupy, and would not be a party or associated to such reckless statements against their Lordships.”

“As Leader of APC, l am saddened by such weighty allegation said to be emanating from our party obviously without my consent. On behalf of every member of the party, we distance ourselves from this allegation and sincerely regret the injury and hard feelings this might have caused their Lordships.”

But if Governor Buni did not pen the petition, who did and who delivered it to the court?

The acting national chairman has said the party would do everything to uncover those behind the accusation and petition.

Everyday.ng reports that an angry Supreme Court Justice, Musa Dattijo, on Tuesday lashed out at Buni, describing his action in writing the petition as reckless and irresponsible.

He said, “let me confirm to all counsels in this matter that the Interim National Chairman of the All Progressive Congress (APC) had written a petition against me and two other Justices. of this court, namely Helen Ogunwumiju and Abdu Aboki accusing us of having a meeting with members of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to subvert justice in the case

He said the APC alleged, that “my humble self had led my two brothers to attend a meeting with members of the PDP to strategise on how to subvert the outcome of this case.”

“I must say that this is most unfortunate and my heart bleeds for this country.

“If people as highly placed as the interim chairperson of the APC would open his mouth and make this weighty statement against innocent Justices of this court, then I say my heart bleeds.

“We are not interested in any matter and I challenge him and the party to substantiate his allegation that my humble self attended a meeting with members of the PDP with a view to subverting the interest of their party.

“This is a reckless and irresponsible statement. That is how these useless statements were made in the past and that is why we are not taking it likely.

“If they have honour, let them substantiate their allegations and I will not live a day longer in this court.

“So, this matter is adjourned sine die, and parties should approach the Chief Justice of Nigeria

The party in the petition signed by its acting national chairman and governor of Yobe State, Mai Mala Buni pointedly accused Justices Mohammed Musa Dattijo, Abdu Aboki and Helen Morenikeji Ogunwumiju of holding nocturnal meetings with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to scheme out the party from the Senate seat.

Yobe governor in the petition claimed that information at the disposal of APC indicated that the three apex Justices held meeting with PDP leadership and allegedly perfected the means of giving the Senatorial seat to the PDP candidate in the bye election.

Justice Dattijo who led a 5-man panel of the apex court said that the APC had by the petition called the integrity, reputation and honour of the three Justices to question and must be resolved first.

Responding, Malam Ahmed Raji SAN, counsel to Senator Ifeanyi Ararume, a senatorial aspirant dissociated himself from the petition adding that he was shocked to hear about the allegations made against the Justices.

“This is very, very shocking. I swear with my last day in this court that I Ahmed Raji knows nothing about this issue and I condemn it with all the strength in me,” he said.

“I sympathise with your lordships and whatever measure your lordships deems appropriate, we are fully in support.”

In his own reaction Mr Umeh Kalu, counsel to the APC said he was just hearing of the petition for the first time.

“I am taken aback by this. I have never in my life met with the interim chairman of the APC,” Kalu said.

“In matters of this nature, we normally deal with the legal adviser.

“In the first place, PDP is not a party in this matter.” (Everyday)

Interview: Buhari and I, by Ortom

Governor Samuel Ortom gave insights into President Buhari’s reaction to the attack on him, and other issues.

Below are excerpts of his comments when he briefed journalists after the meeting with the President in Abuja on Tuesday

“You know, the task of governance today in our country and in Benue state is very challenging. Security issues, economic issues where you have to be on the ground to handle things yourself, and that is what I’ve been doing. That is why you don’t see me frequenting Abuja again. And, most times, as a result of COVID-19, sometimes even Mr president we’re able to communicate on phone, except when it becomes very necessary, like now, I have to come. I have to see Mr President, first of all, to commend him for the statement he issued when I was attacked.

“It was quite consoling, and his directive that a thorough investigation be done and the criminal elements fished out. I think it was important. And I received that as quite consoling. I’m aware that the security challenges in our country today is not about President, is not about we governors, is about every citizen of this country. So, we must work together to surmount these. We cannot continue in this manner. Democracy is anchored on rule of law. That is why for some of us, you will see that I have not done anything illegal, including the prohibition of Open grazing law which my people told me to present to the House of Assembly, and eventually we signed it into law. That law is not targeted against any ethnic group, is not targeted against any individual or group of people. But (it) is meant to regulate the activities of herdsmen and farmers. And I think we have very good stories to talk about.

“Today, in Benue state, those who trespass against this law, who are herders are arrested, their cattle impounded, they are prosecuted and they pay fines for those cattle. And those who rustle cattle from herdsmen, we go (after) them, so nobody is spared. And it’s not about ethnicity. So, even the people in Benue state, the Idoma, Tiv and other ethnic groups are also being prosecuted when they contravene the provisions of the law.

“So, I am here today to also brief Mr President about my internal security problems. You all know that when Gana was killed, we envisaged that some other groups will spring up. That is what we are witnessing today.

“As I talk to you today, those who took over from Gana are busy terrorising the state. This is the internal problems we have apart from the communal clashes and minor crisis amongst the people themselves. Because of land matters, most especially all the communal issues that are happening today is as a result of land. But our security council in Benue state is very strong, we have extended it to local government and wards, and I think that by the grace of God we will be able to overcome that aspect too.

“I have recommendations to me, and also to let Nigerians know, especially those who are responsible for making inflammatory statements. We’re sitting on a keg of gunpowder, everybody’s not in doubt in Nigeria today about the security situation. And without security, there can be no meaningful progress going on. And so, it is important to put heads together, do the things that are lawful, let us protect the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria so that everybody will be secure. Let there be equity, fairness and justice. That is what I stand for. That is what I’m fighting. I believe that as my president, I do not want to talk about the recommendations. I’ve been able to recommend in some measures, and most of them, they agreed that nobody should be a sacred cow. If people are found wanting, they should be prosecuted, the police should prosecute them. And I think this is what is good. And the other time, he also gave an order for all those carrying AK-47, irrespective of where you come from, you should be shot on sight. And I think that is welcoming and is the best thing to do in a situation like this. And in order for the immigration and other security agencies to protect our border. I think all these are commendable. So, it’s not just enough to say that one criticises the policies of the federal government or the President, but when he does a thing that is good it is our responsibility to team up with him to ensure that that is done. Because it is when we are peaceful, when we have security, that we can talk about even tomorrow.

“I want to also appeal to Nigerians. 2023 Yes, to a politician is not far, but is still a long way. If we secure our country, and everything is working fine, then we can talk about 2023. But the way things are going if we don’t secure the country, there is no way we can be talking about 2023. That is why I’ve always dismissed people who come to me to say that you’ll contest this you’ll contest that. For me, I want us as leaders of this country, we have taken oath on Office, let us abide by those things we have said, and work together as a team, leave politics aside. Leave ethnicity aside, but secure the country, Nigeria. We have no other country other than Nigeria, we leave.

“So, my appeal to everyone is to ensure that we work together, security matters are not just for the security agencies alone. We, as people who are being led, we who are leaders we have a responsibility. It is only when we team up together, that we’ll be able to surmount this challenge. But I think that there shouldn’t be room for people who are creating problems for us.

“We have a constitution, we have laws of the land. If people are found wanting they should be cautioned, they should be arrested, they should be prosecuted and let the right thing be done….

“You see I prefer to keep my suggestion with Mr President between me and him. He has accepted and he has advised me on what to do. The rest is to follow up with security agencies, that I’m going to do. But impunity should not be allowed to continue to thrive in this country.

The second question is, I want to advise, like I said earlier, Mr. President did advise when he was condemning the attack on me, and pleaded with Nigerians that they should not politicise this matter. I want to appeal, I want to beg everyone that we should not politicise the issue of attempted assassination on myself. If a governor is attacked, then it is an attack on all. And I appreciate my colleagues the governors, irrespective of party affiliation… they have communicated to me condemning this attack. That is how it should be. We should know when to play politics and we should know when to team up together to work as a team to salvage the country. That is what I’m saying. Those who are saying that, what benefit do I have to come up and say that I was attacked?

“My security agents, not all of them are from Benue state. You have Fulani people there, you have Hausa, you have Yoruba, you have Ibos who are among my security personnel with me on that day. So, what benefits do I have to gain by stage-managing an attack on me. And so on leave those people, I see it as mockery. They are trying to mock me, but I pray that what happened to me should not happen to anybody else.

“Because the truth of the matter is that we know what is going on round our country. We know that there are AK47 everywhere from not east, south and west. And So people are there. But it is amazing, even when FUNAM came out and even took responsibility that they were responsible for the attempted murder on me and some people are there to trying to doubt that. I find it difficult to explain that.

“When Miyetti Allah went to Yola and said that im their problem, they had planned whatever thay want against me, because it was just last week they held a press conference and came out to say that im their problem. And that the law prohibiting open grazing should be repealed . how can I repeal? It is beyond me. It is not about Ortom, it is about benue state and Banue people. I didn’t just sit down and wrote and signed the law. It went through due processand everybody was invited when we presented the Executive bill to the House of Assembly, to also ensure that there is fairplay there was also public hearing in three designated places and we insisted that let there be a fourth one in Makurdi . so we dis public hearing in the four places.and it was unanimous that that law is meant to regulate the activities of herdsmen and farmers so that there is no conflict. And so far, we have done very well. The law have arrested more than 500 people. More than 200 people were prosecuted and convicted more than 13,000 herds of cattle were arrested. And the fines were paid, and they were released. And we have no problem with killing anybody anyhow in Benue state. We have told our people to ensure that they maintain rule of law and that is what is going on.

Question on a group claiming responsibility and insisting on having the governors head

Yes. I have reported him to the police and security agencies. Currently they are going after them. Once they get them, they will have to explain why they are asking for my head. I have not done anything illegal. As far as I’m concerned. As governor, I represent the people. The people have encouraged me to send an executive bill to the House of Assembly to enact a law which we did I signed it into law and we are implementing it. And So anybody who trespasses on this has committed offence, so this is the whole thing. So for me, I am law abiding. And that is one of the things that I am saying that those people will think that they owe this country should be apprehended and prosecuted or otherwise will begin to think that they are sacred cows. Miyetti Allah, FUNAM and all those ones, they are responsible, creating problems all over the place by what they say.

“And that is what I’m advising, that look, we are sitting on a keg of gunpowder in this country. Instead of creating adding petrol to an existing fire, it is not good enough. It is not a good thing, to begin to plan against people who are legitimately doing the right thing. What offence have I committed committed by ensuring that rule of law, democracy is anchored on the rule of law. So when people come out, and are insisting that they will not respect the rule of law, and you want me to keep quiet, I will not. But I won’t take laws into my hands. That is one thing. Because I love this country. I’ve been privileged to serve in various capacities. And for whatever reason, I should do the things that will coordinate and unite this country together. And what I’m doing is to ensure justice, equity, and fairness. And I challenge anyone in this country to come out, and point out to me that what I have done in Benue state is wrong and Prove to me. if your argument is superior, I’m ready to join you to find ways of changing whatever we have put in place, because I know that I’m a human, I’m subject to mistakes. But as long as I remain as governor, I will continue to prosecute the agenda of the rule of law, the oath of office I have taken I have to abide by it and there is no going back. Thank you. (Everyday)

And the lawyer went to jail

Man in prison

The spectacle which unfurled at an Abuja Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday leading to the remand of a legal practitioner, Eburu Ekwe Barth, at Suleja Correctional Centre in Nasarawa State has thrown up a lot of questions.

Though the drama is finally wrapping up with His Worship Hon. Ibrahim Mohammed granting an application to have the Contempt Order set aside, the incidence has raised a lot of posers particularly on conduct of the lawyer and the legality of the Magistrate’s action.

Was the Magistrate right to have cited the lawyer for contempt? Was the lawyer’s action contemptuous of the court? Did His Worship the Magistrate display the candour befitting of an arbiter according to law? Was sending Eburu Barth off to Suleja Prison and in handcuffs the right action to have been taken in the circumstance?

What Lord Denning did

Femi Falana, Senior Adviocate of Nigeria gave an interesting insight.

“In a case of contempt in facie curiae the judex is the complaint, the prosecutor and the judge. No doubt, it is trite that the disruption of the proceedings of a court is classified as contempt in facie curiae. But the Magistrate could have sent the lawyer out of the court room. That was what Lord Denning and his learned brethren did in the story published by the New York Times of June 16, 1964. According to the newspaper:

‘Tempers may have been slightly ruffled, but decorum prevailed nonetheless in the Court of Appeal today as a protesting woman litigant flung law books at the judges. Vera Beth Stone was conducting her own case. She was refused leave to appeal a judgment on the levying of costs in an unsuccessful action she had brought against the Association of Official Shorthand Writers in which she had charged falsification of transcripts. So she picked up a book in front of her and said:  “This is not a personal matter, but I have to bring this before the court.”

‘The book flew past the ear of Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, and struck the panelling behind him. Neither he nor either of the two other judges on the dais, Lord Justices Harman and Diplock, showed agitation. “It does not have to be tomatoes,” Miss Stone continued, and let fly a second book, a bit wider of the mark.

“Will you please leave the court!” Lord Denning said politely but firmly.

“I shall only come back and throw more books,” Miss Stone replied.

“Will you leave?” Lord Denning persisted.

Miss Stone surveyed her dwindling library.

“I am running out of ammunition,” she said.

‘As she was led from the courtroom, she said to Lord Denning: “May I congratulate your lordship upon your coolness under fire.’ ”

Can every court deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily?  

Beginning with the attitude of the lawyer on that day, Emmanuel Madujibe Chukwu Esq in his contribution said: “In contributing my little quota to this heavy issue at hand, I must first deal unkindly with the rude and discourteous character of the defense counsel before the Honorable Court. Now, let me point out that it is only a Superior Court of record that has inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily. See INEC & Anor V Oguebego & Ors (2017) JELR 37955 ( SC).

“It should be noted that the Court of Appeal had the opportunity to entertain this confusing situation in Adeyemi Candid-Johnson V. Mrs Esther Edigi (2018) LPELR-45148(CA) where the court held that the Acting Chief Magistrate went beyond its powers and cited a counsel for contempt because the counsel insisted that his submissions before the Court should be placed on record and also refused to answer a question which was put to him by the Court. The Magistrate considered the counsel’s conduct to be rude and contemptuous and ordered that he should be detained.

“The Court of Appeal, while condemning the act of the Magistrate held: ‘Apparently, when tempers rose rather meteorically, the respondent, exacerbated by the situation, unleashed this incisive question: “When did you leave the law school? The response, going by the record, was equally unrelenting: “I will refuse to answer that question in the rudest manner.” It was the refusal to answer this question, according to the record, that broke the camel’s back, and led to the detention of the appellant for contempt of court. It was unfortunate, to say the least, for the respondent, according to the records, to have taken leave of her exalted bench, invited counsel to extra-judicial dialogue, and thereafter descended into the arena of vituperative conflict with him.’

“Achike JCA (as he then was) corroborated his reasoning with my fears and held; ‘It is clearly improper and will expose the Administration of Justice to ridicule if a Magistrate or presiding officer of an inferior Court were invested with such extraordinary powers to provoke extrajudicial verbal exchange with counsel and yet invoke against him the lethal and drastic power to punish for contempt.’

“Here, it will be said that the law of contempt only exists to uphold and ensure effective Administration of Justice and not for personal glory as we have seen in the case cited above. The power of the Court to punish for contempt must always be exercised to secure and protect the authority of the Court. In fact, the powers should be sparingly exercised and only in serious cases.

“The point I am struggling to make has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of INEC & Anor V. Oguebego & Ors (2017) JELR 37955 ( SC), that such arrant words or actions of the contemnor must be capable of interfering with the administration of justice by the court. Let me also quickly agree with the Justices of the Apex Court in the above cases that it is only a Superior Court of record that has the inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt in facie curiae and punish for the offence summarily.

“Could it be safely said that the court did not abuse her powers to order that defense counsel be tried summarily, convicted and handcuffed to a gory place of safety to secure the ego and personal aggrandizement of the presiding officer?”

What happened that day in Court?

Sekpe Benjamin Benabraham who witnessed it all wrote about the experience.

“I was in court and therefore had first-hand knowledge of what transpired. For the records am not holding brief for the Magistrate, but as a minister in the temple of Justice, you perhaps need to have a balanced view of the situation. I pleaded on his behalf too in open court and even after the court rose.

“It is true that Counsel interjected when the ruling was going on but that was not the main issue.

“By the way, the application for which the Magistrate was delivering the ruling on was in respect of an Application made by the Plaintiff Counsel that the matter be referred to the multi-door for arbitration, the Defendant Counsel came late into the Court room while the Plaintiff’s Counsel was moving the Application (the matter was coming up for the first time) so the plaintiff counsel May not have known if the defendant had a legal representation, the Counsel started confronting the Plaintiff Counsel on the issue of appearance but the Court asked them to be calm and later allowed the Defendant’s Counsel to announce his appearance.

“Upon announcing his appearance, the Court now asked him to respond to the application that the matter be sent for arbitration he responded that he was not in court so he doesn’t know what has happened, the Magistrate read the application from his record and requested him to respond, he started by saying that the Plaintiff’s Counsel deceived his client as he had claimed he is going to withdraw the matter. Another round of altercation arose between the Plaintiff’s Counsel and the Defendant counsel. The court at that point proceeded to deliver its ruling.

 “While delivering the ruling, the court was now giving a summary of submission of both counsel, he mentioned the issue of withdrawal of the suit that the Defendant counsel made mentioned of, that was when the Defendant counsel rose up and started interjecting the Magistrate that he never said the matter should be withdrawn. I tried to calm him down at this point but he ignored me and proceeded to say: ‘It appears there’s a conspiracy against my client.’

“The Court asked him to sit but didn’t and the court told him that he would be cited for contempt and he responded that the court should go ahead. The court asked him to enter the dock and purge himself of the contempt. I stood up to appeal to the court but at that point the Magistrate was already furious. He asked me to sit down otherwise he will ask me to enter the dock too, I sat down.

“While in the dock, the Magistrate asked him, ‘you said there’s conspiracy between me and the Plaintiff’s Counsel against your client, can you expatiate on that?’ But at point he now told the court that he was not referring to the Magistrate but the Plaintiff’s Counsel and that the Magistrate should “Calm Down.”

“The Magistrate gave a ruling he is not satisfied that the counsel have purged himself of the contempt and sentence him to 2 Months imprisonment. That was actually what happened. I am not writing this because I want to justify the conduct of any one, I know we all have different ways of responding to issues but let’s be properly guided.  

“Thanks.”

Barr. Dave Idoko of Lex Loci Chambers gave a similar report. He too was in court. Here are excerpts of his written account.

“Re: Calm Down Your Worship- Eye Witness Account by Dave Idoko

“I and my senior colleague, Barr. Mike attended at the Magistrate Court in Wuse Zone 6 on 23rd March, 2021 to observe proceedings before filing a process for recovery of premises. The matter involving Barr. Barth came up for the first time before the court today. After the Plaintiff’s lawyer announced appearance, he sought to move an application for the case to be referred to ADR at the Multi-door courthouse based on the arbitration clause in the tenancy agreement.

“It seems that Barr. Barth came into the court after the case had been called so he sat behind. After the plaintiff’s lawyer made the application, Barr. Barth rose up and verbally accused the Plaintiff’s lawyer for not allowing him to announce his appearance.

“After a few minutes, the Magistrate intervened and asked Barr. Barth to simply address the court and announce his appearance. Instead, Barr. Barth also accused the Magistrate of colluding with the Plaintiff’s counsel. After which the Magistrate then asked Barr. Barth to step out and cool off for about two minutes.

“After about 1 minute, Barr. Barth was called back to respond to the application for settlement earlier made by his colleague.

“Barr. Barth then responded by saying that the matter was meant to be withdrawn by the Plaintiff following a previous conversation with the Plaintiff’s lawyer, a claim the Plaintiff’s counsel refuted. This led to another round of altercation between the two lawyers. After which the Court asked the lawyers to sit down for the court to make a ruling.

“While reading the court’s ruling, Barr. Barth jumped up and interjected, accusing the court of conspiracy against his client. Barth repeated the allegation that the Court conspired against his client. The court cautioned him and other lawyers at the bar begged him to withdraw his claim but he was insistent.

“After the Court cited him for contempt, the magistrate gave him many opportunities to purge himself but he refused, instead Barr. Barth angrily told the court to ‘calm down’ after which the court gave its ruling.

“Some of us in the court, including Police Prosecutors approached the Magistrate to plead with him and he asked us to bring a formal application for variation of the order made that he will vary the order.

“Unfortunately, after about 10 minutes the whole of social media was buzzing with a viral allegation by the unity bar secretary, Adetosoye which carried a different account from what happened because barr. Adetosoye was not in court when this happened. The magistrate did not even rule that barr. barth should be handcuffed.

“When Barr. Mike reached out to the Court, it was like the viral news had already reached the registry, after which Barr. Barth was taken to Suleja by the correctional services.

“As lawyers, we should always try to verify things before posting them on social media.”

Other views

Lecturer and legal practitioner, Sylvester Udemezue in an article titled: In Re “Magistrate Orders Lawyer To Be Handcuffed, Jailed For Contempt Of Court”: How Both The Magistrate And The Lawyer Erred shared his thoughts.

“MY OPINION:

“Because of public belief and confidence in the disposition and ability of the courts to dispense justice with utmost impartiality, notwithstanding whose ox is gored and ensure that in all cases, justice is not only done, but is seen clearly to be done. Judicial and other officers involved in the administration of justice must therefore engage and be seen to engage only in conducts and pronouncements that inspire, promote and sustain, rather retard, public confidence and respect.

“On the other hand, litigants and their lawyers alike involved in proceedings before the courts must imbibe the appropriate manner of dealing with the courts and the judiciary, bearing in mind what negative impact their contemptuous and disdainful stance towards judicial officers may have on administration of justice and rule of law, without which democracy cannot survive.

In a November 29, 2010 article under the title, “Delimiting The Powers Of Presiding Judicial Officers To Punish For Contempt Of Court”, (see: <https://allafrica.com/stories/201011300335.html> accessed March 23, 2021), I had described contempt of court thus:

“Contempt of court is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the functionality of the court. In Atake v. AG, Federation (1982) 11 S.C 175, Idigbe JSC described contempt as “any conduct which tend to bring into disrespect, scorn or disrepute the authority and administration of the law or which tends to interfere with and or prejudice litigants and/or their witnesses in the course of litigation.”.

“Also, contempt is defined in Agbachom v. The State (1970) 1 All NLR 69 at page 77 (per Lewis J.S.C. citing with approval what Lord Russel laid down) as “any act done or writing published calculated to bring a court or Judge of the court into contempt or to lower his authority. This is one class of contempt. Further any act done or writing published calculated to obstruct or interfere with due course of justice or the lawful process of the Courts is a contempt of court. The former class belong to the category which Lord Hardwick L.C. characterised as range scandalising a court or a Judge: In Re Read & Huggonson (1742) 2 ARK 291, 469.”

“Contempt therefore means any wilful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court; any action that interferes with a judge’s ability to administer justice or that insults the dignity of the court. Granted that it is not necessarily every act of discourtesy to the court by counsel or litigant that amounts to contempt (see Izuora v. Queen 13 WACA Page 313; Okoduwa v. State (1988) 3 SCNJ 110), yet it has been held that to call a judge a liar or to allege he is partial is contemptuous — see Vidyasagara v. The Queen (1963) AC 589.”

“With due respect, on no account should a lawyer stand in court or elsewhere in the open and accuse a Magistrate or judge of colluding or of conspiring with counsel on the other side. Even if the only statement he made in the open court was that “the opposing counsel colluded, conspired or was colluding with the presiding Magistrate”, such could still be reasonably considered to be a gross breach of the RPC and a high-class act of unethical conduct and unprofessionalism.

“Rule 31 (1) RPC, 2007: “A lawyer shall always treat the Court with respect, dignity and honour”. RULE 31(2): “Where the lawyer has a proper ground for complaint against a judicial officer, he shall make his complaint to the appropriate authorities”. To this end, where a lawyer feels dissatisfied with the conduct of a presiding judicial officer in a case, the lawyer has only FIVE OPTIONS, and the list is exhaustive:

  •  Take no steps at all, although this is a form of dereliction of his professional responsibility because Rule 55(2) RPC requires that “It is the duty of every lawyer to report any breach of any of these rules that comes to his knowledge to the appropriate authorities for necessary disciplinary action”.
  • Bring a formal application (Motion on Notice, Affidavit and Written Address) before the same court asking that the presiding officer should recuse himself from further participation in the proceedings — ie., withdraw from the case.
  • Write a formal petition/complain to the Chief Judge or other relevant controlling authority asking that the case file be recalled and reassigned to another judicial officer.
  • Make such Judicial misconduct a ground of appeal. Or
  • Send a formal petition/complaint to the NJC (in the case of judicial Officers) or to other relavant disciplinary authority (in the case of non-judicial officers, such as a Magistrate).

“Regarding courtroom decorum, Rule 36 RPC, 2007 (note that RPC has not been amended) provides that “when in the courtroom, a lawyer shall – (b) conduct himself with decency and decorum, and observe the customs, conduct and code of behaviour of the court and custom of practice at the bar with respect to…manners and courtesy; … (d) …shall not engage in the exchange of banter, personality display, arguments or controversy with the opposing lawyer; (e) not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading to a court or tribunal…”

“Further, a learned friend alleging in the open court that the opposing Counsel is colluding or conspiring with the presiding Magistrate or judge is a conduct unbecoming of a legal Practitioner, a breach of Rule 1, RPC 2007.

“The crux of my opinion is that before or after the lawyer has chosen or adopted any of the five options suggested above, he is still not entitled under any circumstances to resort to publicly insulting the Magistrate by accusing him of bias or of conspiring with the opposing counsel, or to desecrating the temple of justice.

“However, the matter does not end there; with due respect, I hold also the opinion that the presiding Magistrate also misbehaved in this instance. A second, and more serious, question that begs for answer is whether the same Magistrate (allegedly publicly insulted and complained against) is entitled to himself or herself try and determine the charge of contempt against the offending lawyer in view of the requirements of the twin pillars of natural justice, especially the rule of nemo judex in causa sua (one cannot be a judge in one`s own case).

“The query may further be raised whether a presiding magistrate who chooses to punish summarily under such a case, has not thereby turned himself into a judge in his own case, he being now the complainant, the prosecutor and arbiter all at the same time? Answer to this question may not be as straightforward as one may assume. Contempt is punishable with fine or imprisonment or both. There are both civil and criminal contempt; the distinction is however often unclear. Direct contempt or contempt in facie curiae (that is, contempt committed in the face of the court or took place within the court`s precincts or which relates to a case that is currently pending before that court) may be punished by the presiding judicial officer himself.

“There is no doubt therefore that in most cases where contempt is committed in the face of the court (in facie curiae), the presiding judge or magistrate can summarily try and punish the contemnor (the person alleged to have committed the act amounting to contempt).

“The difficult question, however, is whether the presiding judicial officer can try and punish where, as was the case in present case, the contempt is against the person of the presiding magistrate? The 1998 Court of Appeal decision in Chief Dibia v. Chief Ezigwe (1998)9 NWLR (Pt.564) 78 appears to have provided useful answers to these questions. According to the Court of Appeal in that case, “Where a man’s liberty is at stake, every requirement of the law must be strictly complied with. The Supreme Court has said over and over again that the court should use its summary powers to punish for contempt very sparingly.

“It has also emphasised the fact that Judges should not display undue degree of sensitiveness about this matter of contempt and that they should act with restraint on these occasions: See Boyo v. A. G. Mid-Western State (1971)1 All NLR 342 at 35….” Further, In Deduwa v. The State (1975) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1), the Supreme Court held that “The power to commit is not retained for the personal aggrandisement of a Judge or whoever mans the court. The powers are created, maintained and retained for the purposes of preserving the honour and dignity of the court and so the Judge holds the power on behalf of the court and by the tradition of his office, he should eschew any type of temperamental outburst as would let him lose his own control of the situation and his own appreciation of the correct method or procedure.”

“Finally, in Danladi Kachia v. Zaria L A 1969 N.N.L.R. 82, the Kaduna State High Court, sitting on appeal over a judgment of an Area Court, had this to say, that “The evidence proved by the prosecution showed that the appellant had alleged that a party to the proceedings before the Area Court had visited the house of the judge before the hearing of the case and on that account the judge would rig the case.

“This allegation, in our view, goes beyond contempt of court but constitutes an imputation that may harm the reputation of the judge. …. It is personal to the judge. In our view the judge was therefore personally interested in the case and was therefore debarred from hearing the case….The case of Olokoba Agbegende v. Ilorin Native Authority (unreported) Z/8CA/1967 very exhaustively considered the circumstances in which a judge may be personally interested in a case before him and which may give rise to real bias and a reasonable apprehension on the part of the accused of such bias. We cannot envisage a case that would give rise to a higher reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the accused than the present one. He was accused of defaming the judge who tried him and convicted him virtually of that offence. We must allow the appeal on this ground. The appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentences are set aside”

“In summary, even in cases of contempt in facie curiae, which could be tried summarily, where the conduct that constitutes the alleged contempt is a personality or personal attack or allegation against the trial Magistrate himself, greater caution on the side of the Magistrate ought to be deployed in dealing with the matter, so as to not violate the core principles of a fair trial.

“The decision of the Court of Appeal in Abiegbe v. Registered Trustees of the African Church [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt. 241) 366 helps to brings out clearly the proper procedure to be adopted. Hear the Honourable court: “This leads to the procedure adopted by the learned Judge. The appellant was put into the dock. He (the judge) took over the conduct of the proceedings. He cross examined the appellant at length. It was he who tendered the exhibits. Counsel for the appellant was not asked to say anything. He heard no addresses. At the end of the proceedings, he committed the appellant to prison for contempt.

“There is no doubt that the learned Judge felt that this was a contempt in the face of the court and hence he adopted the summary procedure i.e. not to say that the court can nevertheless deal with a contempt summarily even though not in the face of the court – see Boyo v. A.G., M.W. (1971) 1 All NLR 342. Summary proceedings may be also desirable in regard to an article in the press calculated to bring a Judge or court into contempt or to lower his authority or to affect an un-concluded case. See Boyo v. The State (1970) 1 All NLR 318 at 320 and it must be strictly followed.”

“Let me conclude by humbly restating the Supreme Court`s position on the need to use the summary powers to punish for contempt sparingly. In Boyo v. A.G., Mid-West. (1971) I All NLR at 342, reference is made to R v. Gray (1900) 2 Q.B. 36 at page 41 where Lord Russell/Killowen stressed that “jurisdiction to deal with contempt summarily should be exercised with scrupulous care and only when the case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Also, in Shamdasani v. King Emperor (1945) A.C. 264 at 270, Goddard LCJ stated that the summary power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly and only in serious cases. It is a power which the court must necessarily possess; but its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised.

“There may be cases of contempt being dealt with summarily, but such hearing must be conducted in accordance with cardinal principles of fair process, and the case must be one in which the facts surrounding the alleged contempt are so notorious as to be virtually incontestable.” See Abiegbe v. Registered Trustees of the African Church (supra); Atake v. A.G. Federation (1982) 11 S.C. 153 at P. 205.”

Is It Contempt of Court or Abuse of Judicial Power?

By Hon. Justice M. I. Edokpayi

Introduction

I feel honoured to be invited to present a brief paper in honour of a distinguished jurist and titan, Hon. Justice S.M.A. Belgore, G.C.O.N., Chief Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I am overwhelmed by the invitation taking into consideration the status of the celebrant. I must confess that this paper is not foolproof and I take full responsibility for the gaps or omission you may observe.

No subject for now would be more important than the aforementioned. All worshippers in the temple of justice must drink voraciously from the fountain of civility. Balancing the excesses of the Bar with the high handedness of the Bench is by no means an easy task, but we must strike a balance and achieve some acceptable level of decorum and civility in and out of Court. My task is to attempt to strike that balance and proffer solutions to a problem. It is a problem, of the gravest emergency.

Definition

Before a definition suffices, it is imperative to take a closer look at the pronouncements of Lord Tucker in Izuora v. The Queen.1

“It is not every act of discourtesy to the Court by Counsel that amounts to contempt, nor any conduct which involves a breach by Counsel of his duty to his client. In the present case the appellant’s conduct was clearly discourteous, it may have been a breach of the rules and it may perhaps have been a dereliction of his duty to his client but in their Lordship’s opinion it cannot properly be placed over the line that divides mere discourtesy from contempt.”

The aforementioned dictum by Lord Tucker drew the necessary distinction that must be drawn by all judges between acts of discourtesy and acts that have gone over and beyond that thin line that divides discourtesy and contempt of Court. Acts of discourtesy are acts of incivility, uncouth behaviour and acts of rudeness. These are not necessarily acts of contempt of Court. Contempt must not be equated with conduct which will inevitably obstruct or disrupt the proceedings of court. The question that must be asked is, does the act diminish the dignity of the court? A distinction must be drawn between what may annoy a Judge and what amounts to contempt. It must also be noted that the power to punish for contempt is not a power to be recklessly used to assuage the injured feelings of the presiding judge. It is not contempt of court when a judge does not agree with Learned Counsel’s method of advocacy. Counsel has a constitutional right of audience. How he chooses to present his case is his own style. It would be unconstitutional and an abuse of office for a Judge to abridge Counsel’s right of audience by dangling or invoking his powers of contempt. Counsel owes to the Court the duty of assistance and duty of utmost respect, but he owes his command and with all the skill he possesses.

It is not contempt and it will never be where counsel refuses to be directed by the court as to how he should present or argue his case. Judicial interruption can be irritating to counsel. And his natural reaction to such interruption cannot be equated with contempt. It is at this juncture, I will delve into a fuller and exhaustive definition of contempt.

According to The Dictionary of English Law2

Contempt of Court is where a person who is a party to a proceeding in a Superior Court of record fails to comply with an order made against him or an undertaking given by him or where a person whether a party to a proceeding or not does any act which may tend to hinder the course of justice or show disrespect to the Court’s authority. Contempts are direct, which only insult or resist the powers of the Court or the persons of the judges who preside there; or consequential, which without such gross insolence, or direct opposition plainly tend to create a universal disregard of their authority. Contempt may be divided into acts of contempt committed in the court itself (IN FA CIE CURIAE) and out of court. Among the former, are all acts, as talking boisterously, applauding any part of the proceedings, refusing to be sworn or to answer a question as a witness, interfering with the business of the Court… and refusing to acquiesce in the ruling of the Court or speaking disrespectfully of or to the judge … Among the latter is the attempt by intimidation to cause any suitor to discontinue his action, kidnapping or corrupting or attempting to do so … obstructing or attempting to obstruct the officers of the Court on their way to their duties, speaking or writing disrespectfully of the authorities of the Court, etc.

This definition is exhaustive. I shall attempt to consider the key ingredients of the definition. The key ingredients are:

  1. Failure by a party to an action to comply with the order of Court.
  2. Hinder the course of justice
  3. Show disrespect to the authority of the Court
  4. Insult the person of the judges who preside

Difficulties could arise when the contempt consists of insult to the person of the presiding Judge. One of such difficulties is the fact that the Judge insulted is the complainant and the Judge. Where a Judge insulted, summarily tries and summarily convicts and imprisons, he may be legally within his rights but such summary proceedings do create an embarrassing situation and a cause for concern.

The solution has been well encapsulated by Oputa (JSC) as he then was. His Lordship said3 inter alia as follows:-

The test whether or not a judge takes himself, too seriously or thinks too much of himself is in his attitude towards contempt of his court. Undoubtedly, one of the most important power of a Judge is his power to make orders. If these orders are disobeyed, the Judge has one weapon in his armor, which he can always use. He can punish the defaulting and disobedient party for contempt of court either by fine or imprisonment. All contempts of court have one thing in common- they obstruct one or other of the streams of justice. If the contempt is in the face of the court (in facie curiae) it is tried summarily by the Judge who may be the very Judge who had been injured by the contempt. How he deals with the contempt shows and proves his maturity.

I must stress that the commonest scenes in court are usually situations where a Judicial Officer provokes a Counsel and the same Judicial Officer will take cover under the canopy of contempt. On no account should a Judicial Officer loose his temper, never. He should not provoke an attack, his utterances, must be devoid of sarcasm and vituperations. Respect must be earned, you don’t demand for it. A classical case where an Acting Chief Magistrate acted beyond the boundaries of civil language is the case of Adeyemi Candide – Johnson v Mrs. Esther Edigin.4 The facts of this case are simple and straight forward: therespondent was an Acting Chief Magistrate Grade 2, in Kano, the appellant here

in appeared in the court as counsel. Consequent upon what transpired at the court, the respondent ordered the detention of the appellant for a couple of minutes at the cell. She (the respondent cited the appellant for contempt). Decrying in the strongest of terms per ACHIKE J.C.A. Held in5

“Apparently, when tempers rose rather meteorically, the respondent, exacerbated by the situation, unleashed this incisive question: When did you leave the Law School? The response was equally unrelenting: I will refuse to – answer that question in the rudest manner. It was the refusal to answer his question, according to the record, that broke the camel’s back, and led to the detention of the appellant for contempt of court. It was unfortunately, to say the least, for the respondent, to have taken leave of her exalted bench, invited counsel to extra-judicial dialogue and thereafter descended into the area of vituperative conflict with him.”

It is glaring that learned Acting Chief Magistrate abandoned the dignity of her court to pursue personal glory. Questions bordering on the age of counsel was glaringly and patently meant to injure Counsel’s ego. In Ratio (supra) his Lordship was unsparing:

“I think that the invocation of the power of contempt in the instant case bordered on abuse of Judicial authority: It is clearly improper and will expose the administration of Justice to ridicule if a Magistrate or a presiding Officer of an inferior court were invested with such extraordinary powers to provoke unnecessary extra-judicial verbal exchange with Counsel or member of the public and yet invoke against him the lethal and drastic power to punish for contempt.”

Also in Ikonne v. C.O.P. & Justice Nnana Nwachukwu6 Aniagolu, J.S.C., described it as “untrammeled abuse of judicial authority.”

In Sunday Okoduwa & 6 Others v The State, Nnamani, J.S.C., of blessed memory stated as follows:

“It is not a contempt of court to criticize the conduct of a Judge or the conduct of a court even if such criticism is strongly worded provided that the criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith.”

“From what appears later in this judgment as to the undue intervention of the learned trial Judge in the proceedings, it cannot be said that the request for transfer was not a fair one, nor can it be said that whatever implied ‘criticism of the court was contained in the request for transfer, was not fair and was not conveyed in civil and temperate language. The bludgeoning of counsel had its desired effect as I shall show hereunder. The conduct of the learned trial Judge was not only unfair but it was exceedingly high handed. It is hereby deprecated. Ratio 3: The rationale for punishment for contempt is the need to vindicate the dignity of the court and thereby protect due administration of justice rather than to bolster the power and dignity of the Judge as an individual.

The Supreme Court in ratio8 (supra) went to condemn this unwarranted abuse of power.

The Court held:

“The learned trial Judge’s invocation of his power to punish for contempt of his court is an unwarranted exhibition of naked judicial power which put counsel and their clients in fear of the court and eroded an important trammel of fair trial.”

The key here is maturity. Learned Counsel may say things irritating to the Judge. In such a situation experience and maturity will inform the Judge that it is best to maintain a dignified silence. Maturity will dictate sober and level-headed self-control. The way forward could be classified in this order.

  1. Be more lenient
  2. Take little notice
  3. Coolness under fire

1.Be more lenient

Courts are advised to mellow down even in the face of extreme provocation.

2. Take Little Notice

A judge must be endowed with patience that is coupled with judicial dignity and tolerance to face extremely irritating situations. A Judge must display dignity, maturity and kindness. An impatient Judge is no judge. He can never be in control of his court. Impatience can lead to precipitate action. It is always better and safer to ignore little details, discourtesies, in the words of Hon. Justice S. O. Uwaifo JSC: “Small matters”

3. Coolness Under Fire

There are times when the tension in the courtroom becomes palpably high and heavily charged. In such a situation coolness becomes an amiable judicial attribute. The Judge should not be provoked even “under fire” A Judge should keep his head when all about him, are losing theirs. If the Judge keeps cool, tempers will also cool down, and the proceedings will continue as though nothing happened. According to Hon. Justice Kayode Eso, JSC, as he then was.

A Judge should never be rude, as a result of, or over-sensitive to remarks made even against him in court.

In Re O.C. Majorho v. Professor M. A. Fassassi9

“The issue was whether the Supreme Court Panel hearing the appeal can be properly accused of bias or partially and thus disqualified from further hearing of the appeal, in view of the earlier Order made by it ordering the personal attendance in court of all parties to the appeal.”

In that case, Learned Counsel for the appellant, Chief Rotimi Williams, O.C. SAN openly accused the Court of partiality and demanded a clear undertaking of the Court’s impartiality. Eso JSC observed inter alia as follows:

“I am not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the Supreme Court when the Court has been requested to give an assurance of impartiality. I do hope that that day will never come when this court will be inhibited from asking any question which it considers necessary in pursuance of the interest of justice. The honesty and integrity of a Judge cannot be questioned, but his decision may be impugned for error, either of law or of fact…”

The Supreme Court did not invoke its power of contempt. Lord Denning, M.R. puts this point more succinctly in Metropolis Exparte, Blackburn,10

“This is the first case, so far as I know, where this court has been called on to consider an allegation of contempt against itself. It is a jurisdiction which undoubtedly belongs to us but which we will most sparingly exercise, more particularly as we ourselves have an interest in the matter. Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. We will never use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism nor do we resent it. Counsel has criticized the court but in so doing he is exercising his undoubted right. That article contains an error, no doubt, but errors do not make it contempt of court. We must uphold his right to the uttermost. The court should not be impatient, immature and super-sensitive.”

Ideal Cases

It must be noted that, patience, maturity, and keeping “cool under fire” should not be equated to mean that under no circumstance may the Court invoke its power to commit for contempt. Courts are enjoined not to commit for discourtesy but it must act with dispatch in proper cases of contempt. Proper cases include gross scandalous and insulting language calculated to detract from the dignity of the court, acts of violence, talking boisterously, interfering with court proceedings.

The court can only conduct its business in an atmosphere of peace, calm and tranquility. Any act that disrupts the peace, calm and tranquility of the court constitutes a proper case of contempt.

Secondly, contempt could be classified under the class called constructive contempt. This class includes failure or refusal to obey court orders including subpoenas, tampering, interfering with or intimidating witnesses, obstructing officers of the court in their way to their duties, writing disrespectfully of the authorities of the court, commenting on pending proceedings, threats to judicial officers to make them abandon or relinquish their duties etc. Let us at the juncture have a closer look at a few judicial pronouncements.

Lord Denning M.R. in Attorney-General v. Butter,11 has this to say:

There can be no greater contempt than to intimidate a witness before he gives evidence or to victimize him afterwards for having given it.

“How can we expect a witness to give his evidence freely and frankly, as he ought to do if he is liable, as soon as the case is over, to be punished for it by those who dislike the evidence he has given? If this sort of thing could be done in a single case with impunity, the news of it would soon get round. Witnesses in other cases would be unwilling to come forward to give evidence, or if they do come forward, they would hesitate to speak the truth for fear of the consequence.”

The above pronouncements adequately summarizes one of the worst forms of contempt.

Conclusion

I will not conclude this paper without observing that there are no fixed guidelines or uniform yardsticks for measuring appropriate cases of contempt. The key is moderation. Let it be noted that as contempt of court tends to hinder, inhibit the attempt to arrive at justice.

Justice can only thrive in a relaxed atmosphere. Both the Bench and the Bar should exhibit mutual respect. And respect begets respect and tolerance begets tolerance. The dignity of the trial Judge should rest on finger foundations – honesty, intellectual fertility, hard work, temperance, courage, patience and impeccable integrity.

A rude Lawyer is a lawyer that suffers from inferiority complex, abuses and uncouth behaviour will never be part of advocacy. Straying from material issues, disorderly presentation, injudicious and vexatious cross-examination; lack of earnestness in court; irresponsible behaviour is a hallmark of a frustrated lawyer and a failed practice. The watchword and key is moderation and mutual respect from both sides.

________________

Footnotes

  1. (1953)13 WACA 313 at page 34  
  2. 4th Edition at page 217
  3. Ten Commandments for the Judge; Hon. Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa: Paper delivered at the Faculty of Law UNN 21st of March 1981
  4. (1990) 1 NWLR (part 129) at p. 660
  5. Ratio 5 p. 662
  6. (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 36) page 473 at 496.
  7. (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 76) 333 at 335 ratio 1. At page 345 his Lordship held,
  8. See keynote Address of 19 SS Law Week page 7.
  9. (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 117) Page 81
  10. (196S) 2 QB – 150 at page 154
  11. (1963) 1 QB Pages  676

The late Hon. Justice Edokpayi, a former Chief Judge of Edo State passed away in 2009.

First published by the Loyal Nigerian Lawyer

The arbitrary use of judicial power by Magistrate Ibrahim Mohammed of Zone 6 Magistrate Court Abuja

The Attention of the Nigerian Bar Association Abuja (Unity Bar) has been drawn to a bizarre event that ensued between one of our member MR EBURU EKWE BARTH and a Magistrate wherein it was alleged that Mr EBURU EKWE BARTH interjected the Magisterate while delivering his ruling on an application before the court and the court in turn cited Mr Barth for contempt who was thereafter on the order of the Magisterate handcuffed and summarily sentenced to jail for 2 months and has since remanded at the correctional custody.

While the Nigerian Bar Association Abuja, (Unity Bar) condemns every unruly act or disrespect to the court, we however, find it extremely offensive and the highest level of abuse of judicial power to summarily sentence a lawyer to jail without giving him a fair hearing in a manner that is best described as a sentimental show of anger.

We also find it rather unfortunate that all attempts made by the NBA Abuja Branch to appeal to the Magisterate while the issue was still on-going to tender justice with mercy proved abortive.

The NBA has immediately filled an application to review the Court Order sentencing Mr. Barth to jail without fair and so far has assembled a team of over 20 eager lawyers offering to take on the matter pro bono.

The Bar has also reached out to the necessary judicial hierarchy to ensure that this arbitrary Order of court is reversed immediately.

We are at the moment articulating a petition against the Magisterate to be submitted to the FCT Judicial Service Commission to ensure that this trend is permanently put to a final stop.

We are currently battling with police brutality against lawyers and cannot allow our own institutions who should naturally be our ally’s in this fight and the last hope of the common man to turn itself into a tool for brutalization of lawyers.

The Nigeria Bar Association, Abuja (Unity Bar) hereby uses this opportunity to Appeal to all the Lawyers in the FCT to remain calm as we are on top of the matter and shall ensure that this arbitrary use of power by Magisterate Ibrahim Mohammed is curtailed. We shall keep you posted on the update.

Signed
Prince Adebiyi Adetosoye
Secretary NBA Abuja

Ortom: Remember Generals Badeh, Shuwa? The joke is on us!

Benue's Governor, Samuel Ortom

BY Andrew Agbese

The trending news over the weekend was the attack on the Governor of Benue State, Dr. Samuel Ortom.

While many have condemned the attempt on the Governor’s life and had tried to use the incident to point out what it portends, few others have chosen to use the incident to mock the Governor.

Governor Ortom on Saturday, was attacked on his farm at Tyo-mu on the Makurdi-Gboko Road.

Recounting the ordeal at the farm, the obviously exasperated Governor said he escaped by running for more than one kilometer on foot as the militia stepped out to kill him.

“I thank God for my fitness to have run for more than one and a half kilometres without stopping. It means that God has given me strength and I am grateful to God,” he said.

The Governor said the six security aides who were with him took on the 15 armed herders who came for his life and that while the security agents with him engaged and repelled the assailants,  he seized the opportunity to take to his heels, running a distance of over one and a half kilometres.

His words: “I appreciate the security men attached to me. They were able to repel them and they could not have access to me.”

For this, the Governor has all of a sudden become a subject of ridicule with caricatures of him in Usain Bolt’s outfit being circulated to drive home the point that his story is not worthy of belief.

The few who try to ridicule the Governor said the story is not plausible because at the age of 59, Ortom cannot do a 1.5 kilometer sprint.

Secondly, they ask how the Governor was able to count the number of his assailants.

Three, they wonder how the governor did not sustain any injury while running in the bush and four, how his security were able to repel the assailants with none on either side harmed.

And lastly, how was the Governor able to establish the identity of the assailants.

It is not surprising however that these questions could come up.

Any time certain groups of people attack communities and kill at will and a mention is made of their identities, the general reflex is to rush in defence of such persons without verifying the claims.

For years, while the people of Zamfara, Katsina and Kaduna were constantly under attack, many were prepared to live in denial because they felt that in the course of narrating the incident, the identities of the gunmen would be revealed.

Hence thousands were killed and buried quietly until of recent when the situation became unbearable and we began to see images of the assailants being circulated in public.

Recently, when abduction of students became rampant in the North and a certain cleric decided to go and negotiate with the bandits in their hideouts, the images confirmed all what have been said in the past about the identities of the suspects.

The Ortom claim about the identity of his assailants, naturally, has to be questioned because it may add credence to his claims that there are deliberate plans to dispossess his people of their ancestral lands.

Another thing is that, some consider the manner the Governor speaks as politically incorrect because it does not sit well with those who will rather that certain things be left unsaid for Benue to belong to the mainstream of politics.

Though there are gaps in the Ortom story, what people should understand is that no victim of a crime comes out entirely with the true picture of what transpired until investigations are concluded.

In fact, with some crimes, the onus of proof is usually too heavy on the victim due to the trauma involved.

That was why when the Chibok abduction happened, those that wrote it off as not likely on the basis of their intelligent analysis found out to their regret later that they were wrong.

Ortom has narrated what he saw, it is left for competent authorities to do the plus and minus, but not to dismiss the ordeal as unlikely.

The second issue is about the age of the Governor and whether he can still run the distance he claimed.

If we condemn generalizations, then why do we suppose that because most people in their late 50s cannot run more than 200 meters at a stretch, then the Benue Governor must succumb to that challenge and be feeble.

Have we not seen videos of septuagenarians lifting weights and giving good account of themselves at the gym by doing what 30 year olds cannot do?. So why do we assume that because it does not suit our purpose then Ortom must fall in line with that narrative?

On the identity of the assailants, while some have tried to suggest it could have been anybody including the remnants of the Gana gang, it does not take away the fact that the Governor has made an observation that should guide in investigations.

From what I know about Nigerians, if the Governor had for instance said that by the features of the people he identified at the farm that day, they were his fellow Tivs or something close to that, those asking how he came about that would have been too pleased to say ‘ you see, we told you so.’

On how the Governor was able to count the number of people that attacked him, I dare say it is possible since he was not the only one at the farm at the time. What this simply means is that it is easy for others who were not directly in the way of the assailants to take such mental notes.

On why nobody was hurt, I cannot conclude because there are conflicting reports on that.

But the one that probably needs explanation is why the Governor had no bruises or at least had his shirt torn from the sprint in the bushes. But again, we fail to agree this is possible probably due to what we imagine.

It is possible the Governor made the first dash on seeing the men in black at top speed, then after observing he was out of danger decided to take the remaining steps surely but steadily until he was assured the coast is clear.

I imagine this possibility because he did not at any point say the assailants were few metres behind him after he took to his heels.

The attempt to ridicule the Governor based on his ordeal, is unfortunate because it underplays the magnitude of the security threat in this country.

Whether we like it or not, we have a  big problem in our hands.

I would have thought that with what we suffer in this country, if someone at any point feels threatened and reports the matter,  that the best we could have done is to show concern no matter how doubtful the possibility.

We have too many high profile unsolved murder cases in our hands that we cannot afford to laugh a anything that has to do with life and death.

Had Senator Gyang Dantong and then Majority Leader of the Plateau State House of Assembly, Mr. Gyang Fulani who died while attending the mass burial of victims of attacks escaped unhurt, we would have said they were lying as no gunman would have the nerve to show up at a mass burial.

Who would have believed that a former Chief of Defence Staff would have been killed so easily without a single shot fired in response if Alex Badeh had survived?

Who would have believed that urchins could take a stroll into the house of a retired General, kill him and walk away without trace if Mamman Shuwa had escaped?

We play too much in this country but we should take issues concerning human lives more seriously.

▪︎Agbese, an Abuja-based journalist, is a SeniorLegislative aide to federal lawmaker. He sent this via WhatsApp

Legal Profession: On Plight Of Women In Law Practice

By Abdulrasheed Ibrahim, LL.M, Notary Public

I was disheartened and sorrowful when reading the news that two female lawyers were arraigned before a court in Lagos for engaging in a physical combat within the court premises over a client. They are now standing trial for committing an offence punishable under Section 54 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria 2015. There is no better way to describe the incident than calling it a big shame. Reacting to this ugly scenario, Mr. Torbari, a lawyer said : “ Tomorrow ,they will be appointed to the bench and we shall go and bow and say as the court pleases. Then think of the type of judgments to expect from them .Lawyers without office let alone a library and we are saying all is well. At times, I weep secretly for our profession .Mediocrity is glorified and rewarded while diligence, hard work and excellence is abased and damnified. The basic question; How do we get here and where do we go from here?”

In my own comment, I said : “This is what our noble profession has been turned to. The fight was between what people called ‘charge and bail lawyers’, in America they are called ‘Ambulance chasers’. Those in that system seem to be clamouring for a change of name to ‘Resident lawyers’. What disturbed me most was that the fighters are women who ought to be the first school of children .I hope the NBA and FIDA leaderships are reading this. God save legal profession in Nigeria!”

With the celebration of Women Day still in the air, serious attention must be focused on the plight of women in the practicing of law to avoid the reoccurrence of this kind of shameless act. Lawyers, women in particular are not left out in the reality of economic hardship being faced by the generality of Nigerians courtesy of those “one chance” politicians piloting the affairs of this country. We live in a nation that sits on abundantly endowed natural resources but lack those visionary leaders that are ready to transform that to the advantages of her citizens the way leaders like Lee Kuan Yew transformed his country, Singapore “from third world to first”. One of the major problems being faced by many of our female colleagues was aptly captured by Vivian Uzoma, a female lawyer and virtual storyteller on one of the lawyer social media platforms known as “LAWYERS IN NIGERIA”. According to her:

“Sometime last year, a colleague who just started his law firm told me that he needed a young lawyer as a full time employee. The news gladdened my heart because I had a younger friend who had been looking for a firm to attach herself. I called her on the spot and asked her to meet the principal first thing in the morning. Some days down the line, I realised that I had not heard from my colleague or the young lawyer I sent to him. I called her to find out how her meeting went and she gave me a depressing feedback: the man said he didn’t want a married women. My heart sank on her behalf because this would be the 3rd time she was getting such feedback…One complaint that we get from young colleagues is the inability to find law offices for pupilage after law school and youth service .However ,it is worse for our younger female colleagues who are married and raising families. Many principals are unwilling to give them chance because they see them as unproductive… Stop treating them like second class citizens and give them opportunities to prove themselves. You will never know the strength of a woman until you employ one…”

As if Vivian Uzoma opened a floodgate of lamentation for our female colleagues, the reactions on their part narrating their experiences in the hands one principal or the other were overwhelming. Peace Ugwu, a female lawyer said: “Counsel , you have spoken well, female lawyers particularly married ones are exposed to so many abuses too numerous to mention” . To Miriam Nkiruka, another female lawyer : “Perfectly said! For example , I have worked with males in a law firm and even with my first pregnancy, I was more productive. Unfortunately ,the second pregnancy wasn’t easy on me and my performance at work was affected. In all of this , if the males as employers are more competent ,they won’t be playing the marital sentiment .They want to over labour an employee and pay a sum that can’t foot the accruing bills and expect a 100% loyalty, it’s well o!”. Egwu Zommy Nwankwo Uba relating her own experience said: “I experienced this too…And in the words of the senior lawyer … ‘I don’t want anyone always asking for maternity leave’ Cause I told him then I was still trusting God for the fruit of the worm. Thank God I am doing extra-ordinarily well.”

In the words of Dejo-Ojomo Esther, another female : “Sis, you spoke my mind .In fact some of these principals would also start looking for any slightest opportunity to push you out once you tell them you are getting married despite the fact that you spent your ‘productive’ single life serving the firm .I just wonder if they were not born and raised by women ,some of whom also worked in office”. It is not possible here to quote all the respondents relating all they had been through in the cause of their efforts to practise the profession they had fallen in love with, but let me add that of Olaide Haminat Adebisi-Adetunji, another female lawyer who eventually took the bull by the horns to establish her own law firm:

“I had my share of it as well, so I decided to just be on my own and take briefs as it comes after my Principal passed away and the firm got shut down. Many of the firms especially those owned by the males were, :Do you have a child ?Yes, I do sir. Am sorry I could have even managed to consider you as a female but you have a child ,I do not like excuses: Sir, it’s my child’s vaccination day or my child is not well or I need to go for antenatal or it’s my child’s open day, etc. Before I got one after Call to Bar, I walked a lot and they all said I do not accept females that will come up with too many feminine excuses. There was one senior counsel that even said if only I wouldn’t be getting married in the next 5 years.”

After reading through the lamentations, I sympathized with some of them for what they had been through in cause of their struggle for survival. Although some of our colleagues have also expressed the view that some female lawyers are the architects of their plight because “when they are in office most times is internet (FB, tweeting on latest fashion, trending blogs etc) but honestly some female lawyers are more committed and loyal to the principal than their male counterpart.”, Uzoma seems to concur with this view in her story when she said : “ I will not pretend that I do not know that some married women are the cause of this ‘wahala’.” My take on this is that when lawyers whether male or female are being employed there must be standing order premised on commitment and hard work in the law firm. Contributing to the story of Vivian Uzoma, I said :

“While am not disputing your assertion, it is not only married women that suffer similar fate. We live in a country where many senior lawyers are not ready to assist or encourage the upcoming lawyers particularly those that were not born with silver spoons in their mouths. Those so-called big law firms hardly employ lawyers from the humble backgrounds no matter how brilliant they are if they do not come from those that the firms can benefit from. I stand to be challenged on this my assertion.”

The rate at which lawyers are being churned out year in year out has honestly made the law market to be saturated. Most time you hear some people saying lawyers cannot be jobless, but in reality the situation on the ground today has deflated that argument or assertion. A lawyer whether male or female that is just called to the bar will surely need a particular place to start with. But if that is not forthcoming what do you expect? Employing new wigs is one of the best ways to mentoring young lawyers in the profession, but in reality how many senior lawyers are ready to employ those new wigs? Most lawyers that send out notice of vacancies for employment always ask for a number of post-call years to be eligible to apply. I have never seen a notice wherein it is stated that there is a vacancy for a new wig. If new wigs whether male or female are not given the opportunity to be employed in law firms, where will they acquire those necessary experience from?

As unethical as the “Charge and Bail” or “Ambulance Chasing” practice may be, I am still of the view that some lawyers in that system are there as a result of frustration. I had written many years back in an article titled: ARE LAWYERS GODS? That:

“…Despite all the advice at the law school that new wigs should opt for private practice with big or old wigs (senior lawyers) rather than corporate practice or juicy employment ,many new wigs have avoided working in law firms like a plague. To them going to chambers to work is like going into slavery. The major reason for this attitude of the new wigs is that they are not encouraged by the big wigs .There is a story a lawyer called to the Nigerian Bar in 1999 and rather than immediately taken up employment in one of the Chambers as a salary counsel ,he pitched his tent at a magistrate court to practice what is called ‘charge and bail’ the equivalent of America’s ‘Ambulance chasing’ .When asked why the tent, he said that the chambers he had been to ,offered him peanuts as salary which was not enough to feed him for a month (read the details in Thisday’s Law, Tuesday , August 29, 2001)…”

When you have a country where people claiming to be lawyers could not find jobs to justify that status and are also finding it difficult to discharge their families’ responsibilities as well as settling their bills, what do you expect? I believe the two female lawyers that engaged in physical combat must have found themselves in that category, but they plied their trade beyond the limit by fighting on a suspect brought to court for arraignment but they themselves ended up being arraigned in court for fighting in public. Lawyers supposed to be the conscience of the nation. Another irony of the country we live is that we have too many people including lawyers who are willing to work but the jobs are not just there.

For instance, if a serious minded lawyer is employed in a law firm or any other place of work where the atmosphere is conducive with reasonable take home at the end of the month, will such lawyer have time for “Charge and Bail” or “Ambulance Chasing” practice? But the scenario in most of our Magistrate courts today is very unfortunate when you see the way some lawyers run after suspects that are brought to courts by police for arraignment. I find it difficult to differentiate this from those young men you see in areas like Ojuelegba, Mushin and Oshodi bus stops in Lagos, running after commercial buses carrying loads with the hope of fetching and carrying them for the owners in return for payment to keep their bodies and souls together. This is the level to which our country, the so-called giant of Africa has been dragged to. Must lawyers be chasing clients or be chased by clients?

This happening is another wake up call to the NBA and FIDA Leaderships. The burden is on them to find solutions to the plight of lawyers particularly the female ones. We need to be asking our senior lawyers who have made it in this profession, what are they doing to assist the upcoming lawyers? With all the wealth and fortune they have made, how many lawyers have they also made? Some great lawyers will go into the positive side of history of legal profession for being great and have also made other lawyers great. The words of advice and encouragement to our female lawyers are that they should not relent, lose or give up the hope. The struggle must continue and victory is ascertained. The history of legal profession in this country has chronicled the great achievements of many of our female lawyers that should be seen as their role models and source of inspirations.

IF I WERE JUSTICE ONNOGHEN

I read in the press for the second time, the reactions of Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Kanu Onnoghen, former CJN that he was not given fair hearing before he was removed from office as the Chief Justice of Nigeria. During his lordship ‘s 70th Birthday celebration organised in his honour by friends and associates, the learned jurist stated it in clear term that he was denied fair hearing. He has again raised the issue for the second time at the launching of a book titled: “Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, Practice, Procedure, Forms ,and Precedent” by Chief Ogwu James Onoja (SAN). According to the latest report: “Onoghen said the rumour was thick and spread fast ,but he decided not to react to it because he never travelled to Dubai or held any meeting with anybody ,including Atiku.”. The former Chief Justice was quoted to have said:

“Prior to my suspension, I was confronted with no allegation .There were rumours that I met with Atiku in Dubai .As I am talking here today, I have never met Atiku one on one in my life .As if that was not enough I was also accused of setting free, high –profile criminal, whereas I ceased to be a High Court Judge as far back as 1978…”

I was shocked by this revelations coming from our former Chief Justice, but I keep wondering , why did he keep quite when such thick rumours were spreading? Was remaining silent at that time the best opt for him in the age of social media? If I were him at that time, I wouldn’t have kept quite as keeping quite would amount to admission of fact. If I were him then, I would have issued or instructed my Personal Assistant or Press Secretary to issue a press statement debunking the thick rumours. Keeping silent was like shooting oneself in the legs. Recently when the news went round the list of new Court of Appeal Justices prepared by the President of the Court had been compromised ,didn’t the PCA came out with a circular debunking that news? While the dust raised by the first reaction of Justice Onnoghen was still yet to settle as Dr. Alex Chukwuemeka Obiechina , a former PDP gubernatorial aspirant in Enugu State took up the former CJN on the issue that it was the acceptance of his prayer that resulted into the removal of Justice Onnoghen, having refused to grant his application before the Supreme court crying for justice. The lesson here is that when people are spreading false rumours about you,do not ignore or keep silent but react appropriately.

NOTE: Anyone is at liberty to disagree with my above submissions as I will surely appreciate a balanced, fair and objective rebuttal.

08055476823, 08164683735: [email protected]

Rapist to face life imprisonment, as Kogi Assembly passes VAPP bill into law,

The Kogi State House of Assembly has passed into the law the Violence Against Persons Prohibition (VAPP) bill.

The bill which proffer life imprisonment for rapist in the state also said any one who aide rape will also face the same jail term as the offender.

The passage of the bill was sequel to the report of the House Joint Committee on Women Affairs and Poverty Alleviation and Judiciary in which the lawmaker formed a committee of whole to look into the bill clause by clause.

It was gathered that the bill was sponsored by an NGO Challenged Parenthood Initiative, CPI.

Speaking on the passage of the bill, the speaker of the house Prince Mathew Kolawole described rape as a grievous offence that should be condemned in its entity.

” The passage of this bill and its assent by his excellency will send a strong warning to any one who intend to perpetuate this ungodly act” he stated.

Reacting to the passage of the bill, the Executive Director Challenged Parenthood Initiative, (CPI), Eunice Abimbola Agbogun, in a statement on Monday evening said, “When we challenge status co and stereotypes we achieve results.

“There couldn’t be a more appropriate theme for 2021 international women’s day ” I Choose To challenge”. We have chosen to challenge the Kogi State Government and Members of the Kogi State House of Assembly on the VAPP BILL. And we are happy that they’ve listened and have done the needful.

“Kogi State is our Dear State hence we must put in place all necessary policies and laws to protect it’s citizen. We are concerned about all persons safety in Kogi State as well as Sexual Gender Based Violence Against our Women and our Girls.

“With this new development of the passage of the Bill, I believe perpetrators will think twice before committing any crime. We await His Excellency, our Gender Sensitive Governor to assent the VAPP BILL into Law. Today the narrative has been changed. Kogi State will no longer be on Red on the map of states that have not passed their bill”.

It could be recalled that the bill scale through the first reading on 3rd December 2019, and second reading on 19th February 2020.

It is on record that states like Kaduna, Anambra, Ekiti, Rivers, including the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja have since signed into law the VAPP act and are currently implementing it.

Meanwhile, the State House of Assembly has confirmed Hon. Justice Sunday Omeiza Otu as the substantive Chief Judge of Kogi State.

His confirmation was done at the floor of the house on Monday were the lawmakers asked him to take a bow and go.

However, Justice Otu is expected to retire from service later this week.

End

thenigerianpost

1...997998999...1,464Page 998 of 1,464

TIPS

Load more