By Sylvester Udemezue
I start by admitting that Douglas Ogbankwa, Esq had displayed gross negligence or ignorance when upon his completion of the process of changing his name from “Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom” to “Douglas Onyebuchi Ogbankwa”, he failed to send the necessary notification/documents to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. This notwithstanding, the fact that he is yet to notify the Supreme Court of his successful change of name, does not in any manner detract from the fact that having successfully undergone the process of change of name, he is entitled to practice law under his new name since he, Douglas Ogbankwa, does not fall within the expression “any person other than a legal practitioner” as envisaged by section 22 of the Legal Practitioners Act.
◾THE EXTANT LAW:
Section 22 of the Legal Practitioners Act,” Cap L11, LFN, 2004, dealing with impersonation of a lawyer, provides that “…if any person other than a legal practitioner ‐ (a) practises, or holds himself out to practise, as a legal practitioner; or (b)takes or uses the title of legal practitioner; or (c) wilfully takes or uses any name, title, addition or description falsely implying, or otherwise pretends, that he is a legal practitioner or is qualified or recognised by law to act as a legal practitioner; or (d) prepares for or in expectation of reward any instrument relating to immovable property, or relating to or with a view to the grant of probate or letters of administration, or relating to or with a view to proceedings in any court of record in Nigeria, he is guilty of an offence and liable, in the case of an offence under paragraph (a) of this subsection or a second or subsequent offence under paragraph (d) of this subsection, to a fine of an amount not exceeding N200 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both such fine and imprisonment, and in any other case to a fine of an amount not exceeding N100.”
◾THE FACT’S OF THE CASE:
A guy got called to the Nigerian Bar in 2007 under the name “Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom”. He theratfter began law practice in that name, but somewhere along the line, successfully underwent the process of change of his name to “Douglas Onyebuchi OGBANKWA”. Although by a newspaper publication he gave notice thereof to the whole world and specifically to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), he did not formally give notice to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Meanwhile, he continued his law practice but thenceforth in the new name, “Douglas OGBANKWA”
◾QUESTIONS ARISING:
1️⃣. Is the PERSON bearing the name “Douglas OGBANKWA” guilty of the offence of impersonating a legal Practitioner?
✔ Answer: Not at all! Section 22 talks about the PERSON and not the name. The names ‘Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom” and “Douglas Onyebuchi OGBANKWA” belong to and are borne by one and the same person. And the bearer, irrespective of the name he bears or calls himself, is a PERSON duly called to the Bar in Nigeria. It’s submitted that the person bearing
“Douglas OGBANKWA” has not violated the provisions of section 22 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11 LFN 2004 or of any other law in Nigeria, since he remains a PERSON duly called to the Bar irrespective of the name he answers. A crime of impersonation is said to be committed only when “any person other than a legal practitioner* holds himself as a legal practitioner or practices as a legal practitioner or exercises any of those rights that are exclusive to only legal practitioners. This is not the case in the present scenario. So, what is the noise about? Why the machination or plot to destroy or diminish Douglas Ogbankwa who is not only a lawyer but a well-known lawyer for that matter?
2️⃣. Does the fact that the person has failed or neglected to give notice of his otherwise successful name-change to the Supreme Court, render it illegal or unprofessional for him to practice law under his new name “Douglas OGBANKWA?” ◾ Answer: Not at all. Since he has successfully gone through the process of change of name, he is entitled to practice law in his new name. Practicing law in his new name is neither illegal nor unprofessional, although he’s negligent in having failed to give notice to the Supreme Court to enable the latter update its records. I repeat that giving such a notice to the Supreme Court of Nigeria is not a part/step in successful change of name in Nigeria; thus a change of name by a lawyer could be successfully concluded without recourse to the Supreme Court. This means, I submit, that a person who is duly called to the bar but who later validly changed his name, is not estopped from using his new name only on account of the fact he has not sent notice of the change to the supreme court. The change of name is complete, effective and valid whether Douglas OGBANKWA has notified the Supreme Court or not. The only reason for such a notice to the Supreme Court is for the supreme court to update its records about the person involved. Accordingly, the SUPREME COURT is not under any obligation to update Douglas Ogbankwa’s records on the Roll if Douglas Ogbankwa fails or neglects to give notice of the change to the Supreme Court. For example, Mr Douglas OGBANKWA has no right to blame the Supreme Court for the response the latter gave in this instance to the letters of enquiry from some lawyers. Recall that in its response to the letters from some petty, mischief-making Legal Practitioners and groups, the Supreme Court had stated that “We have checked our records and the name DOUGLAS OGBANKWA cannot be found on the Rolls of Legal Practitioners kept in the Supreme Court of Nigeria…. The said DOUGLAS OGBANKWA is at liberty to come forward with his call to Bar Certificate and Qualifying Certificate for enrolment. If he has changed his name, he is expected to come along with a duly stamped deed poll and all the requirements for change of name in the Supreme Court.”
See: “EXCLUSIVE: SUPREME COURT SAYS MAIKYAU’S NBA C’TE APPOINTEE IS NOT A LAWYER” (https://citylawyermag.com/exclusive-supreme-court-says-maikyaus-nba-cte-appointee-is-not-a-lawyer/).
◾IMPLICATIONS OF THE MANNER OF THE SUPREME COURT’S REPLY:
1️⃣. The Supreme Court did not say the person bearing the name Douglas OGBANKWA, is not a lawyer in Nigeria. Nooo! What the supreme court has said, as shown in its letter, is that the NAME “Douglas OGBANKWA” is not found in the Roll. The Supreme Court’s response could be described as or likened to a negative pregnant traverse/response to the question “Is Douglas Ogbankwa a lawyer in Nigeria?* This sort of response could mean, from the point of view of the Supreme Court, that “the person bearing the name may indeed be a legal Practitioner but operating under a new name about which we have not been notified”. This could be why the Supreme Court added in its response, that “If he has changed his name, he is expected to come along with a duly stamped deed poll and all the requirements for change of name in the Supreme Court”. His records at the supreme court wouldn’t be updated unless and until he gives such notice to the Supreme Court. Yet, the mere fact he is yet notify the Supreme Court, and that his records are yet to be so updated, is not a sensible or reasonable ground for anyone, especially one who is aware of such successful name-change, to go to town misrepresenting the bearer of the new name (whom one knows is one and the same person as the owner of the now changed name: “Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom) as a person impersonating a legal Practitioner or who has committed some offense, illegality or other unprofessional conduct. This is the basis of my submission/comment (and I reiterate) that those lawyers and non lawyers who know the truth (about the name-change) but are still going about spreading the lies and falsehood, that the guy bearing the name “Douglas OGBANKWA” is not a lawyer, are a bunch of petty, shameless, unscrupulous myopists whose actions in this respect are best described as hare-brained, cock-eyed, and airheaded.
Well, in my opinion, Mr Douglas OGBANKWA could be properly accused of having displayed gross negligence or even stack ignorance in not having notified the Supreme Court of the change of name, which has brought him this unexpected embarrassment from the malevolent actions of some scatterbrained lawyers. But, with due respect, Douglas Ogbankwa cannot be validly or effectively accused of having perpetrated any act of illegality or unprofessionalism. If one looked carefully at the newspaper publication that was done as part of the process of the name-change, one would see that Douglas OGBANKWA had given notice publicly to the NBA but not to the Supreme Court. This, in my opinion, could be interpreted to mean that Douglas OGBANKWA may have acted more out of IGNORANCE than of negligence; he may have thought that the notice to the NBA was sufficient or was all that was necessary for his records as a lawyer to get updated. With due respect to Douglas, the notice to the NBA was absolutely unnecessary. The only notification that was necessary was that to the Supreme Court which was UNFORTUNATELY never done.
Membership of the NBA is guided/governed solely by the Roll kept at the Supreme Court; you’re automatically an NBA member if your name is on the Roll, and NBA is under an obligation to take notice of any updates in the Roll of legal practitioners as kept at the supreme court. For example, if one’s name is struck off the Roll, NBA has an obligation to cease treating such a person as a lawyer in Nigeria. This thus places an obligation on the NBA to ensure it’s in constant contact with the Supreme Court for purposes of getting necessary updates as they come, on the Roll. On the other hand, there is a responsibility on the Supreme Court to constantly keep the NBA posted about any updates on the contents of the Roll. The implication of this is that NBA and the Supreme Court must work together for this purpose to ensure there are no mixups and no embarrassment caused the profession or to any lawyer who has done the needful by giving notice to the Supreme Court. But notifications about name change is properly and appropriately channeled to the Supreme Court and not to the NBA, since the Supreme Court, and not the NBA, is the keeper of the Roll and upon whom lies the responsibility to effect necessary changes thereon based on genuine information at its disposal as the case may be. After each round of changes, the Supreme Court should inform the NBA. But the Supreme Court may not be obliged to effect any such changes until it has got necessary information/notice. This tells us that the responsibility is on the LAWYER who has changed his name to give notice thereof to the Supreme Court, and not on the Supreme Court to go about scouting to know whether there are lawyers who have changed their names and in need of such updates. This is where Douglas Ogbankwa’s own default lies. But it is possible that, as of then, he didn’t think he should do this — he may have acted out of ignorance! The bad news is, ignorance of the law is not a good excuse while the good news is, there is no law broken in this instance, although one can’t doubt that he has been thoroughly embarrassed as a result of his “enemies” taking advantage of his ignorance or negligence — more like giving your foes the weapons with which to fight you. But what have they achieved? Nothing, in my opinion other a temporary distraction! Anyway, if upon the name change, Douglas Ogbankwa had notified the SUPREME Court and the name Douglas Ogbankwa was documented on the Roll, the NBA would have had no choice but to recognize the same, and all this embarassment would have been averted. This is why one may be right to argue that the foundation of of Douglas Ogbankwa ‘s current travails lies almost entirely in his failure or neglect to notify the Supreme Court immediately upon the name change. This notwithstanding, I keep repeating that it’s still improper to associate him with any form of illegality or professional misconduct on account only of his default as explained above.
In the meantime, as I hope shortly to, among others things, show, some useful lessons have been learnt on all sides:
1️⃣ First, and especially by Douglas Ogbankwa himself, who has, out of his negligence or ignorance, learnt by EXPERIENCE, and the hard and harsh way;
2️⃣ By some other lawyers contemplating name-change or who have already so done but are yet to do the needful — I expect they have learnt by *OBSERVATION;
3️⃣. By those fighting Douglas Ogbankwa — they have learnt how to not engage in pettiness and childish acts in the name of or as a part of politics or “bar fight” Although they have succeeded in causing Douglas Ogbankwa some embarassment, albeit temporary, they have not succeeded in destroying or diminishing Douglas Ogbankwa. So, in effect, they have achieved almost nothing or nothing at all; and
4️⃣. All observers of the current scenario have also learnt something, one way or another, however little or huge
Finally, and for the avoidance of doubts, please take note of the following:
🅰. My comment above has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever problems or misunderstanding Mr Douglas Ogbankwa may have currently with his NBA Branch, Benin. I am neither in support of Douglas Ogbankwa nor of his branch because I do not know the root of their current problems. It’s for Douglas Ogbankwa (AND I SO ADVISE HIM) to find a way of reconciling with his Branch regarding whatever problems or differences they may have with each other. But lawyers should not in name of Bar politics engage in petty, mischievious, unjust and malignant actions such as that of misrepresenting Douglas Ogbankwa as a fake lawyer when we all know he’s not a fake lawyer. I felt the need to write because Injustice anywhere is threat to justice everywhere; I am particularly appalled by the petty, mischievous, unscrupulous and childish attempts to falsely represent a respected learned as a fake lawyer.
🅱. I am not saying that Douglas Ogbankwa is a saint. On the contrary, my comment above is specifically on the unnecessary attempts to falsely represent Douglas Ogbankwa as a fake lawyer. Nothing more. Else, I have keenly watched his recent outing as well as read some of his public statements, regarding his current differences with the leadership of NBA Benin Branch. I must confess that if I were in his shoes, I would have approached their quarrel differently. My comment above should therefore not be interpreted as supporting Douglas Ogbankwa against his Branch or the Branch against Douglas Ogbankwa. No. My point is, even if Douglas Ogbankwa has offended NBA Benin Branch or its rules, let the Branch find a mature, saner and objective way to either resolve the matter or to punish him according to extant law; he is not above his branch and has no reason to think he is above correction or otherwise above his branch or above the operating rules. However, in my opinion, falsely REPRESENTING him as a fake lawyer or as someone who has committed any illegality or unprofessional conduct in not having notified the Supreme Court of the change of his name from Douglas Onyebuchi Aguguom to Douglas Onyebuchi Ogbankwa, is not a proper, reasonable or mature way to punish him.
I shall find time to say more on this in part 2 of my commentary titled,
‘Douglas Ogbankwa’ As A Qualified Lawyer In Nigeria: Matters Arising and Recommendations”
Respectfully submitted,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Coordinator,
The Realist Ministry (TRM)
(A Realist’s Approach to Advancing Justice, Promoting Rule of Law and Protecting Human Rights).
- [email protected].
(30 April 2023)
