Wednesday, 22 January 2014

THE CONTROVERSIAL JUDGE; JUSTICE ABDUL KAFARATI

220113F.Justice-Abdul-Kafar.jpg - 220113F.Justice-Abdul-Kafar.jpg
The ripples generated by the judgment delivered by Justice Abdul Kafarati of the Federal High Court in Abuja last week is yet to subside, both in the judicial and political circles.
Some of the judgments of the judge have in recent times, attracted the attention of the EFCC, which has begun his probe alongside six other judges, cutting across the various strata of the judiciary with the judge as their main target.

A source had hinted that the case file revealed that Justice Kafarati allegedly owns huge cash assets in several bank accounts including properties, shares and farmlands in Kwami area of Gombe State and except these allegations are unfounded; Kafarati may have had his cup full.

LATEST ON TWO ELEPHANTS FIGHTING: DANGOTE V. OTUDEKO

Oba Otudeko 1.jpg - Oba Otudeko 1.jpg
A Federal High Court in Lagos Tuesday fixed February 6 to hear a suit filed by Oba Otudeko against Alhaji Aliko Dangote and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) over a land dispute.

Justice Okon Abang had adjourned the case at the instance of the counsel to Dangote, Mrs. Fola Sowemimo, to enable her file a written statement on oath.

NBA PRESIDENCY; EGBE AMOFIN CALLS FOR RECONCILIATION

NBA election: Egbe Amofin calls for reconciliation
With less than six months to the election of new officers to run the affairs of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), the Southwest Lawyers Forum, known as Egbe Amofin, has set up a committee to reconcile warring factions in its fold.
The group has been mirred in a leadership crisis, culminating in some members, including about 15 NBA branch chairmen, “sacking” the group’s leadership and setting up a Central Working/Steering Committee.
Problems began at its meeting in Abeokuta on August 17, last year, when the forum set up a screening committee to vet its candidates for the NBA elections, as well as put up a committee to review its constitution to restructure the forum and reposition it.
The meeting adjourned to meet again in early October, last year in the Akure, Ondo State home of Chief Ifedayo Adedipe (SAN). The meeting, however, did not hold, prompting a group of 15 NBA branch chairmen to request for an extra-ordinary general meeting, which was held on December 7, last year at Chief Adedipe’s house.
During the meeting, the chairmen considered the reports of the Constitution Drafting Committee and the screening committee, among others. They subsequently elected interim officers to run Egbe Amofin’s affairs. Also at the meeting, they ratified the report of the Screening Committee and adopted former NBA General Secretary Deacon Dele Adesina (SAN) as its Presidential candidate.
However, the Chief Bandele Aiku (SAN)-led group fixed its meeting at the Chief Afe Babalola Bar Centre in Ibadan, Oyo State, which was held last Saturday.
On the same day in Lagos, the Central Working/Steering Committee, under the leadership of interim chairman Adebayo Ayodele, met in Lagos.
NBA branch chairmen at the Lagos meeting were Ayodele (Abeokuta), Olubunmi Olugbade (Ikere Ekiti), Kunle Adetowubo (Ondo), Gbenga Oguniran (Ogbomosho), Muyiwa Obamawa (Sagamu), Bode Oyeyemi (Badagry), S. K Owosile (Ikorodu), A. Adewunmi (Ado Ekiti), Monday Ubani (Ikeja) and A. Ahmed (Owo). Chairmen of Ile-Ife, Ota, Okitipupa, Ikole and Ikirin branches were said to have sent their apologies for being absent.
The Ibadan meeting started with the consideration of a resolution signed by 12 NBA branch chairmen calling for peace and reconciliation within the forum.
The resolution reads in part: “Following the break away of a splinter group of the Southwest Lawyers’ Forum (Egbe Amofin) by reason of a caucus meeting held by some members of Egbe Amofin in Akure on December 7, 2013, it has become necessary to save the unity of Egbe Amofin, our collective heritage, and our place within the Nigerian Bar Association.
“Whereas we recognise our common tie is in Egbe Amofin as the umbrella body representing the interest of Southwest lawyers; whereas there might be disagreements between some members of the Egbe Amofin, we the under listed NBA Southwest Branch Chairmen unanimously resolved as follows:
“That we unequivocally dissociate ourselves and our branches from the convening, the holding of the meeting of the breakaway caucus of the Southwest Lawyers Forum held in Akure on December 7, 2013.
“That we further dissociate ourselves from the resolution allegedly reached at the said caucus meeting on the adoption of Dele Adesina (SAN), or any other candidate as the nominee of the Southwest for the next NBA Presidential elections in 2014.
“That we identify only one Egbe Amofin under the leadership of Chief Bamidele Aiku (SAN) as Chairman, Ranti Ajeleti Esq as Secretary, and Mrs. Toyin Adegoke as Treasurer.
“That it is our decision that Egbe Amofin remains a united forum and all publications on the state of affairs within the Egbe by various caucuses, groups and persons within the Egbe Amofin should cease. That we call on all our respected leaders, patrons, chairmen, and members to stand together and close ranks quickly to resolve all lingering disagreements.”
After reading this resolution, the branch chairmen who were signatory to it were called one after the other and they confirmed the authenticity of the document.
Afterwards, the meeting adopted the document, discussed and eventually agreed to set up a reconciliation committee, headed by Chief Solomon Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN). The committee was given three weeks to reach out to all aggrieved members of the forum and reconcile everybody. Other members are Chief L. O. Oke (SAN) and Mrs. C.J. Aremu (SAN).
The meeting dissolved the screening committee, which it set up in the Abeokuta meeting and constituted a new screening committee with former NBA President Chief Priscila Kuye as Chairman. Members are Ahmed Raji (SAN), Dr. Babatunde Ajibade (SAN), Mobalaji Ojibare, Chief Adebiyi Odugbesan, Adekunle Babalola, Alex Muoka, Ola Orinmoloye and Oluwaseyi Ojoba.
The committee was given two weeks to send its report to the house. The chairman of reconciliation committee was authorised to bring in one or two branch chairmen from the other faction into the screening committee. The meeting adjourned till February 8 at the same venue to consider the committees’ report.
On how he intends to go after this reconciliation, Awomolo told The Nation: “I am praying that God will give me the grace to go about it. God is the God of peace and He will bring peace among Yoruba lawyers. The tongue and the teeth, close as they are they quarrel, but they reconcile, otherwise the owner of the tongue and the teeth will not live any more.
“So, we need to reconcile ourselves. What is the purpose of this quarrel in the first place? I want to be this and I want to be that, but it is only God that promotes, makes leaders and puts people into positions; it is not by power and by might. So, I will try my very best that God will help us to bring back the Egbe as it should be. You too, the press should help me, if you have suggestions, send to me so that we can move forward.”
Prof. Gabriel Olawuyin (SAN) said the group would gain nothing through wrangling; adding that he fully supports the peace moves. “We should reconcile the warring parties. I don’t believe that it is beyond us to do that. The moment we reconcile the various parties, then the war ahead will be much easier for us. I don’t believe that there is any need for us to continue to wrangle over trivialities because as far as I am concerned, they are trivialities and we shouldn’t because of offices create dissentions that will tear apart the entire organisation.
“We will reconcile everybody, those of us who have been walking on the sidelines, we will do everything possible to reconcile our people. We have an idea of where the problem lies and by the grace of God we shall be able to manage everything.”
Chairman of NBA Ibadan branch Seun Abimbola said: “Some of had insisted all along that the Egbe Amofin Forum remains one. We do not believe that the disagreement that exists should be allowed to fester and to break into camps. Yes, we might have needs, we might have desires, we might have aspirations, we might have expectations, we might have ambitions, but all of that will be achievable within the same umbrella of this forum, so I am happy about the move to reconcile and I hope all the parties and the players will give back the reconciliation move so that we can have one house.”
Chairman, NBA Lagos branch, Alex Muoka said: “I agree with the decision to reconcile the breakaway faction; it shows maturity and good judgment. It is obvious to everyone that there is strength in unity and it is in the interest of the Southwest to have a strong and united forum rather than splinter groups.”
On his advice to the committee, Muoka said: “It is difficult to presume to advise a senior lawyer, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and an elder like Chief Awomolo. I can only suggest that in speaking with the breakaway group, he should caution that history would judge them harshly if the consequences of their actions impacts negatively on the success of the Egbe’s candidates in the 2014 Bar elections.”
Secretary of Ikere branch, Dr. Adeniyi Adedoyin praised the group for “towing the path of the bigger brother in allowing the reconciliation committee to be constituted.”
“Elections will come and go, Egbe will remain united and that is what we all stand for. Secondly, Chief Awomolo is a consummate Bar man. It is highly commendable that somebody of his status is the chairman of that committee. It is my belief that he will do a thorough and a very good job and at the end of the day, Egbe will be united, strong and we will all be happy,” Adedoyin said.
Former Ikorodu branch chairman Nurudeen Ogbara said: “This is a right step in the right direction, but there is need to do more than setting up a reconciliation committee. There is a need to set up a committee to find out both the remote and immediate causes of what has happened and then proffer solution.”
At the Lagos meeting, the Egbe Amofin “Central Working Committee” said they were sticking with their adoption of Deacon Dele Adesina (SAN) as their Presidential candidate.
According to them, an agreement was reached in 2008 that Adesina should run when it is the Southwest’s turn again after he stepped down for former NBA President Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN).
Addressing journalists after the meeting, Ayodele said 17 out of the 23 branches that make up the Southwest bar were in support of Adesina’s candidacy. He said: “We had directed Adesina in 2008 to step down for Chief Olarotimi Akeredolu (SAN). That meeting was chaired by Chief Aiku. If, in 2008, Adesina obeyed us, why must we not keep to our words since he listened to us the last time?
“We re-affirm our support for the aspiration of Mr Adesina, the endorsed candidate, and charge him to continue to exploit all legitimate and realistic ways to sell his candidature.
“We resolve to jointly and individually work hard to achieve a successful election of Adesina as the President of NBA come July 2014,” he added.
The factional group described the Ibadan meeting as “unfortunate”, but indicated that their door remains open for reconciliation
“We consider this state of affairs as unfortunate. We believe the outcome of the Ibadan meeting today will convince the Chief Aiku group that majority drives democracy and that there is the need to allow equity, fairness and justice to prevail in this matter. We resolve that the obvious destabilisation effort of some of the members using the respected Chief Aiku should not be allowed to succeed. It must continue to be resisted. The strength of the forum must be preserved.
“The House resolved to extend its hands of fellowship to all and sundry with a view to unify the forum under the principle of equity, fairness and justice which are essential elements of democracy and rule of law.”
The group’s draft constitution was exhaustively debated at the Lagos meeting and it was resolved that it would be sent to a five-member committee to harmonise decisions.
The meeting reviewed Egbe Amofin’s activities in the recent past, noting that it appears to have been limited to NBA election issues. It was resolved that the group would take “definite and dynamic” interest in the affairs of legal practitioners of Yoruba extraction.
It plans to organise an Egbe Amofin law week to be held at the source of Yoruba-land, Ile-Ife in May this year. “The House” also considered the need for a bar news for the group. The Lagos meeting adjourned till February 1.

PHOTO: 10TH GANI FAWEHINMI ANNUAL LECTURE/SYMPOSIUM

How to build a just society, by Salami

Funsho Williams: Confusion as defendant slumps in court

Funsho Williams: Confusion as defendant slumps in court
There was confusion at a Lagos High Court, Igbosere, as a defendant in the ongoing trial of alleged killers of Funsho Williams slumped in court.
Musa Maina (second defendant), slumped in the dock at the peak of an argument on whether or not the prosecution should be allowed to collect fresh blood samples from the defendants for forensic investigation.
Maina, who is said to be Asthmatic, has been in prison custody since 2006, along with the first defendant, Bulama Kolo.
Barely 45 minutes after the defendants, Kolo, Maina, David Cassidy, Tunani Sonani, Mustapha Kayode and Okponwasa Imariabie were put in the dock, an obviously discomfort Maina slumped.
His co-defendants had assisted him to stand but his discomfort drew the attention of the trial judge, Justice Adeniyi Adebajo, who said he should be allowed to sit down.
As the trial proceeded, a seated Maina slumped for the second time, which created a feeling of unease in the court.
Worried at the recurrence, Justice Adebajo ordered his support staff as well as prison authorities to call for an ambulance from the clinic.
Maina, who was seen struggling with an inhaler, with tears and catarrh running down his eyes and nostrils, was supported by security operatives who made him lie down.
The court was rowdy for about 10 minutes with lawyers and litigants running round to assist the defendant. While some asthmatic patients brought their inhalers, others were fanning Maina to regain consciousness.
At this point, Justice Adebajo rose and ordered that the defendant should be immediately taken to the clinic for medical attention.
About 25 minutes after the incident, a nurse came into the court and was assisted by two prison officials to carry the defendant into a Lagos State Ambulance with the registration number, JJJ704AP, parked at the court’s entrance.

Monday, 20 January 2014

Bombings in River's Court: Desecration of the Temple of Justice

Home » Law » Not the courts’ finest hour
Not the courts’ finest hour
For the courts in Rivers State, these are not the best of times. The courts seem to have been caught in the cross fire of the political crisis in the state. On two occasions in the past two months, some courts were bombed or burnt. The first occurred on December 18, last year and the last one was on January 6. Many believe that they have political undertones.
The last incident occurred a day before the court was to hear an application by the self-styled Speaker of the House of Assembly, Evans Bipi. Two courts were bombed. One is in Ahoada in Ahoada East Local Government Area and the other is in Okehi in Etche Local Government Area of the state.
Last December 18, Justice C.N. Wali’s office and car park were bombed after he restrained Bipi, who represents Ogu/Bolo constituency, from parading himself as speaker. Dynamites were reportedly thrown into the court about 3am.
Observers believe that the incidents reflect the decadence in the society, where politicians and those in power treat judicial pronouncements with disdain.
The incidents highlight the general insecurity in the land, brought about by those who promote illegalities and have no respect for life.
The solution, they argued, lies in the resolve of the ruling class to enthrone the rule of law, and their willingness to play by the rules.
There is also the need for the government to make Section 14 (2b) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government – actionable.
Some lawyers, including Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President Okey Wali (SAN), Chief Adeniyi Akintola (SAN), Malam Yusuf Ali (SAN), Deacon Dele Adesina (SAN), Wahab Shittu, Festus Keyamo, Nojim Tairu and Ikechukwu Ikeji, say the incidents portend danger.
They said the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
The lawyers did not only condemn the development, they urged the security agencies to step up efforts to secure the nation.
Wali said: “The NBA condemns these acts of brigandage and views them not only as sacrilegious, but also as a desecration of the temple of justice.
“We have always called on politicians to play by the rules, whatever grievances anybody has he should go to court.”
He said NBA would work with security agencies to ensure that the sanctity of the courts is protected.
“On no account will it (NBA) ever idly stand by and watch these acts of violence and impunity to our courts, which are tantamount to an affront to the rule of law and threat to our democracy.
“This underscores the need for government to take the security of lives and property more seriously. The lackadaisical attitude accorded to the security of our courts nationwide, is now brought to the fore.”
Wali, who gave the National Security Adviser (NSA) and the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) 30 days within which the made public their findings in relation to the Rivers bombing, urged the government to pay more attention to security in the nation’s courts.
Akintola urged members of the political class to avoid over-heating the polity. He cautioned that nothing should be done to jeorpardise the nation’s democracy and inhibit judicial activities and quick dispensation of justice.
“The burning of the court is highly despicable and condemnable. I condemn it in all its entirety. I want to appeal to the political class to be very careful. Some of us fought and put our lives on the line for this democracy.
“It is quite unfortunate that some of those who had no iota of contribution or know the geography of any detention camp are the ones reaping the benefits. They have to be very careful,” Akintola said.
Ali, who is the Chairman, NBA’s Anti-Corruption Commission, urged security agencies to apprehend the culprits and ensure that the full weight of the law was brought to bear on the perpetrators, if the act was intentional.
“I strongly condemn the act if it was deliberate. I condemn it with every fibre in me. The security agencies should go after the perpetrators if it was intentional. If it is arson, then we must get to the root of it,” Ali said.
Adesina warned that should the judiciary be exposed to such threats, there could be anarchy.
His words: “The recent attempts at bombing the Courts an otherwise sacred place is highly condemnable and must be outrightly condemned by all the right thinking and civilised members of the society.
“The Judiciary is the only institution saddled with the duty and responsibility both constitutional and statutory to adjudicate and resolve disputes between persons and persons, persons and goverments and governments and governments. The efficiency of a nation’s judicial system and its administration of justice is one of the indices for measuring its civilisation and economic development.
“I don’t know who will invest in an economy with an uncertain and intimidated judicial system. This novel development is not only brutish but it also constitutes a descent to anarchy. I hope it won’t repeat itself.
“One of the significant requirements of justice administration throughout the civilised world is that the judiciary must be fearless and independent. The institution as well as its officers and personnel must dispense justice without any interference, fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
“I see the bomb attacks as a calculated attempt to instill fear and timidity in our judges. I also see it as a well crafted threat of intimidation of the judiciary as an institution, an institution that ought ordinarily to command respect, trust and confidence of both the government and the governed.
“We must not forget that men are powerless, institutions build a nation. The implication of the dastardly act cannot be far fetched. First, access to court may be negatively impacted. Prospective litigants may be scared away and people may begin to result to settling their scores primitively and lawlessly by taking the laws into their hands leading ultimately to total breakdown of law and order.
“Secondly, intimidate the court and you see justice taken a flight particularly in a developing democracy such as ours where virtually all political and electoral disputes must end in court. People must realise that there is no alternative to the judiciary, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms not withstanding.
“The law of self preservation, personal safety and security is the very first law of standard behaviour. Government must rise up to the occasion not only to protect the right of access to courts but also to reassure the Justices, the judges, lawyers and the litigants of their personal safety and security in and around our courts and l think the Nigerian Bar Association must not only demand this but they must secure it otherwise rule of law will be constantly assaulted and our nascent democracy will be threatened.”
Shittu noted that under a democracy, the Judiciary ought to be independent and incorruptible. He added that if the Judiciary is endangered under a democratic dispensation, it portends great danger for law and order, and it is also an invitation to anarchy.
“So, the bombing of courts in Rivers State is a subversion of democracy, a subversion of constitutionality; it is a subversion of the rule of law, a subversion of due process and it is a subversion of the doctrine of separation of powers, as well as a threat to law and order, and national security.
“So, if you look at it from these parameters, you will see clearly that democracy is really endangered, and the right of the Judiciary to function unfettered is being hampered. It is a sad day for our Judiciary, a sad day for our democracy and a sad day for constitutionalism.
“It should be condemned by all democratic forces. The security agencies should get to the bottom of this; fish out those behind it in order to bring them to book.
According to Keyamo, the development is a danger to the nation’s democracy. He noted that in a democracy, people take refuge in court, so that, when the court makes pronouncement, at the end of the day, we can all be at peace.
“If they now take this terrorism into the court then, unfortunately people will have nowhere to turn to again. That is why I said it a danger to our democracy. If people have nowhere to turn to again, then we are looking at a revolution. This development is highly unacceptable.”
Tairu argued the attack was symbolical. He added that the Judiciary as a whole, is being watched by vested interests whose fate, on many fronts, depends on d output and performance of the Judiciary.
“The judicial institution is under a siege and pressure (for good or bad intention) to perform, live up to standard expectation.
“It is said – unto whom so much is reposed, so much is expected. Frustration breeds desperation, disenchantments will dovetail to nihilism and a slide to anarchy and such attacks as under comment. The event is unfortunate and condemnable. It should not be an occasion for the usual unprofitable institution of a tribunal of inquiry and other wasteful exercises.
“The attack should be seen as a wakeup call and summation of the daily countless, voiceless attacks, going on in the mind of the citizenry and even critical stakeholders within the judiciary itself, against the judiciary. Enough of palliatives, half-hearted, cosmetic reforms. A real change in the status quo is urgently called for lest we have a systemic failure with devastating domino effect on other sectors in the nation.”
Ikeji, who stressed the implication of the attacks on the independence of the Judiciary, noted that where a judge’s mindset is fettered by the fear of attack or of violence against his or her person or family, this will tend to hinder the independence of thought that such a judge ought to bring to bear on cases he or she is handling.
He argued that when a judge receives a threat to his or her life, for instance, from quarters that he or she knows are likely to bring the threat to fruition, the judge is most likely to act under the weight of such threat.
Ikeji noted that where judges are living under a threat to their lives, they are bound to either refuse to preside over cases, as happened some time ago in Borno State during the height of the Boko Haram insurgency, or sit on cases in fear of attacks. This, he said, fetters judges’ independence to a large extent.
“That is why it is a dangerous trend to allow the current spate of bomb blasts in Rivers State to continue unabated. The perpetrators must be fished out and dealt with appropriately in a transparent manner and according to the rule of law.
“Such people should not be left to go free. It is a sorry story of the level of social decadence that is prevailing in Nigeria today, where human lives do not mean anything and where people die like rats and nobody blinks an eyelid.
“It goes to show that Nigeria is a terrorist state, a still birth state or a failing state, if you like.
Where violence becomes a tool of settling scores or making points, then rule of law takes flight. There is absolutely no rule of law where people who perpetrate violence in a society are not adequately prosecuted or punished. If we agree with the theory that the bomb blasts have the potential to affect the independence and mentality of the judges, and we also agree that our courts are the custodians of the rule of law, the obvious inference to draw is that rule of law is being threatened.
“If you take a closer look at the Rivers State High Court bombing, you will agree with me that it has political undertones. The day of the bombing was the day fixed for the hearing of an application by Evans Bipi, the leader of the five members of the Rivers State House of Assembly who was restrained by the court from parading himself as the Speaker of the House. “Now, the order restraining him was granted ex-parte, meaning that Mr. Bipi was not heard before the order was granted against him, and the day of the bombing was the day fixed by the court to hear Mr. Bipi as to whether the order should be vacated or not. So, Mr. Bipi was to have had his day in court on the day of the bombing.
“Had the case come up, it would have pointed to a definite direction of the crisis in Rivers State House of Assembly as a result of the claim by some people that Mr. Bipi was duly elected Speaker. But the case did not come up as a result of the bombing and Governor Amaechi went ahead on the same day to hurriedly present the Appropriation Bill to the faction of the legislators loyal to him getting them to immediately pass the Bill within an hour.
“Now, several questions arise with regards to the effect of the incident on rule of law and democracy. Was is it legal for Amaechi to have got his loyalists to sit outside of the House of Assembly and passed a law? Is this a reminder of the Obasanjo era? What is the effect of the bombing on the mind of the judge handling the case? To all intents and purposes, the bombing is bad news to rule of law and democracy,” Ikeji said.
The consensus, however, is to the effect that the nation’s democracy is threatened by the attacks on courts in Rivers State and that there is need for the politicians and those in authorities to tread softly. There is also the need for the security agencies to wake up to their statutory responsibilities. This is because where anarchy sets in, no one is spared of the consequences.

Contempt of Court: Court to try ex- bank chief, others

Court to try ex-bank chief, IGP, others for contempt
A Federal High Court in Abuja will, on Thursday, hear a contempt case against former Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Verification and Reconciliation of Subsidy Payments to Petroleum Marketers and former Group Managing Director of Access Bank Plc, Aigboje Aig-Imokhuede and four others.
They were charged with allegedly acting in defiance of the judgments of the court.
Also cited as alleged contemnors are the Chairman of Coscharis Group of Companies, Cosmas Maduka; inspector general of Police (IGP) Mohammed Abubakar; Commissioner of Police, Special Fraud Unit (SFU), Lagos, Ayotunde Ogunsakin and Peter Gana, a deputy inspector-general of Police (DIG) attached to ‘D’ Department.
The proceedings, which were initiated last Monday by promoter of Capital Oil and Gas Industries Limited (COGIL), Ifeanyi Ubah, is pending before Justice Abdulkadir Abdulkafarati.
Last Wednesday, the judge granted an ex-parte order directing “all parties to stay action in the matter, pending the hearing and determination of the motion for committal and injunction”, filed by Ubah.
Justice Abdul Kafarati also ordered the service of court documents on Maduka, Aig-Imokhuede, Ogunsakin and Gana, in Lagos.
Ubah, in the motion filed by his lawyer, Ajibola Oluyede, is seeking to commit the alleged contemnors “to prison for a term of one year or as the court may determine for reasons of the criminal contempt.”
Ubah alleged that Aig-Imokhuede and others aided and abetted “the defiance and violation of the orders in a judgment of the court on June 21, last year, and another by the Lagos Division of the court delivered on February 18, last year, by Justice C. J. Aneke.
He averred that as against the orders, the alleged contemnors allegedly continued to instigate the police “to persecute, harass, intimidate, threaten to arrest and detain” him over the petroleum products importation transactions, which resulted in his alleged indebtedness to Access Bank Plc. culled Nation

Thursday, 16 January 2014

Lawyer slumps in court

The premises of the Magistrate Court, Owo, Ondo State, was in pensive mood on Thursday following the death of a prominent legal practitioner in the ancient town, Mr. Olufemi Adeyeri.
He was 65 years.
He reportedly slumped and died inside the Magistrate Court two.

The lawyer‘s death has been described as a rude shock by residents of Owo, particularly his neighbour at his Ego Street residence.
Olawoye described the deceased as a seasoned legal luminary, committed Awoist and unrepentant APC supporter

Institute opens online law clinic

The Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) has launched an online pro bono law clinic in Lagos.Its Director-General, Prof. Epiphany Azinge (SAN), described the institute as a centre of excellence and a reservoir for legal research and training.
He said: “That is why today is epochal in the life of the institute as we launch a service that will benefit Nigerians who suffer injustice and grieve in ignorance, because they cannot gain access to legal advice or aid.”
He said the e-programme would provide free legal assistance to the under privileged.
“The 2013 United Nations Development Index ranks Nigeria at 153 out of the 186 countries surveyed, with 68 per cent of Nigerians stated to be living below $1.25 USD daily. Also, research conducted by the Public Interest Law Institute (PILI) also suggests that more than 80 per cent of Nigerians cannot access a means of getting quality legal advice in their bid to obtain justice due to poverty and other factors.
“After questioning and probing these facts, the follow up question is: What can we do about this? How can the apex legal institution for research and learning in Nigeria use its skills and earned expertise to better the life of the common man?” he further said.
He added that the association was responding to President Goodluck Jonathan’s call to ministries and parastatals to harness the potentials of the internet.
“In heeding to Mr. President’s call, we have decided to set up our law clinic on the platform of an independent website online; however, this does not exclude the services we will provide by creating a corporeal office-type law clinic in due time,” he added

Dangote v. Otudeko: Two Elephants Fighting


Otudeko vs Dangote: Court to hear land suit January 21

Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court in Lagos will on January 21 hear a suit involving two of Nigeria’s richest men, Oba Otudeko and Aliko Dangote.
They are in court over a land measuring 10.841 square metres at the Lagos Ports Complex, known as the 5th Apapa Wharf Extension.
Otudeko, through his company, Honeywell Group Limited, is urging the court to declare that he is the rightful owner of the land by virtue of a lease agreement between his company and the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA).
But Dangote is insisting that the agreement was neither turned into a deed nor was it registered in any lands registry.
The matter was before Justice Ramat Mohammed before it was assigned to Justice Okechukwu Okeke following Mohammed’s transfer to another division.
Following Justice Okeke’s retirement last year, the case was reassigned to Justice Abang to begin de novo (a fresh).
In the suit with number FHC/L/CS/329/06, listed NPA, Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), Dangote Industries Limited,Dangote and Greenview Development Nigeria Limited as defendants.
The claimant said NPA leased the said land to it for five years for setting up a bulk food handling facility at N2.168 million per year.
Honeywell added that in keeping with the agreement, it paid the sum as well as N290, 000 for the land survey.
The plaintiff noted that it took possession of the land to the knowledge of the defendants and began the required technical investigations.
It said its expenditure on setting up facility costing about $100 million.
The plaintiff added that despite being aware of its massive development plans on the land, the BPE allegedly suddenly suspended the pre-existing rights by concessioning NPA’s Apapa Ports Complex, including the 5th Apapa Wharf Extension to Greenview Development Limited, a company which Dangote allegedly has interest in.
Honeywell Group added that NPA and BPE latter asked it to vacate the facility to ensure smooth transfer to the new operator.
According to the claimant, Dangote and his company actually procured and induced the NPA to break the initial agreements and legal relations.The plaintiff alleged that Dangote, through his agents, harassed, threatened and ordered its officials to vacate the land.
Besides, the plaintiff argued that BPE lacked the power under its port reforms to take over and alienate NPA’s assets when the NPA Act has neither been amended.
By the alleged forceful eviction from the land, Honeywell said it lost the profit it would have made and was greatly injured in its business.
The plaintiff said due to the delay, the cost of putting up the contemplated structure rose from $100 million to $148 million.
The plaintiff is, therefore, urging the court to declare it as the land’s exclusive legal occupier.
It prayed the court to restrain the defendants from treating it as stranger or trespasser on the land.
It also wants $48 million damages, being the additional expenses required to build the bulk food handling facility.
But Dangote, in his statement of defence, said the action was frivolous, vexatious and constituted an abuse of court process.
Urging the court to dismiss the suit, the industrialist added that the action was aimed at truncating the Federal Government’s policy on the seaports.
He said it was also filed to stall the progress of work being carried out by Greenview Development on the land.
He argued that no Presidential consent was sought or obtained before the lease agreement was granted to Honeywell Group in respect of the land.
According to him, notices were given to the public in 2003 for the concessioning of all seaports/complexes by the BPE as part of the Federal Government’s privatisation and commercialisation policy.
Under the policy, Dangote said all existing leases/licenses of land at the seaports were affected, and that fresh bids were required for the concessioning of the various seaports.
The defendant added that Greenview was eventually granted the concessionaire approval by the Federal Government of Terminal E of Apapa Ports covering an area of 19.091 hectares.
Dangote said it was untrue that the plaintiff had ever been in occupation of the land known as the 5th Apapa Wharf Extension.

Monday, 13 January 2014

GANI FAWEHINMI ANNUAL LECTURE TO HOLD JAN 15TH

Gani Fawehinmi lecture holds Jan. 15
The late Chief Gani Fawehinmi Annual lecture, organised by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch, will hold on January 15 at the Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja at 10am.
According to the Chairman of the branch, Mr. Monday Ubani, the topic for this year’s lecture is: Nigeria at centenary, A nation under bondage?
He said the immediate past President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Isa Ayo Salami will chair the event.
The lecture will be delivered by the senior Pastor, Latter Rain Assembly, Pastor Tunde Bakare.
The Special Guest of honour is Ondo State Governor Segun Mimiko while Governor Babatunde Fashola (SAN) is the host.
Ubani listed the guests of honour to include Lagos State Chief Judge, Justice Ayotunde Phillips; President, Campaign for Democracy (CD), Dr. Joe Okei-Odumakin: former governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Babarabe Musa; National Chairman, National Conscience Party (NCP), Dr Yusuf Tanko; Mr Femi Falana (SAN), among others.
Fawehinmi, born on April 22, 1938 on Ondo, died on September 5, 2009.
He was a renowned human rights lawyer, author, publisher of the popular Nigerian Law Reports, politician and philantropist.
He studied Law at the Holborn College of Law, University of London.
He was a fearless critic of military dictatorship and corruption.
In 2008, Fawehinmi rejected one of the highest honours that can be bestowed on a citizen by the government – Order of the Federal Republic (OFR) – in protest of the many years of misrule since Nigeria’s independence.
Gani, as he was fondly called, died in the early hours of September 5, 2009 after a prolonged battle with lung cancer. He was 71 years old.

Friday, 3 January 2014

LAWYER IN CUSTODY OVER WIFE'S DEATH


The nation newspaper is reporting that a lawyer John Oghie Atogwe is being detained by the police in Auchi, Estako West Local Government Area of Edo State, over the mysterious death of his wife.
The wife was found dangling by the window in what seemed a suicide at their Ayogwiri residence.
Police sources confirmed to The Nation that they were holding the lawyer pending the outcome of an autopsy conducted on the deceased.
The police source said it was the lawyer that reported the death of his wife but he was promptly detained.
It was learnt that the deceased, a school teacher was Atogwe’s second wife, who had two children from previous marriage.
Atogwe was a councillor in Estako West Local Government.

Justice ministry to spend N181.3m on clothing in 2014 - Report


According to a report by Punch, the Federal Ministry of Justice Headquarters will spend the sum of N181.3m on uniforms and other garments in 2014, according to the budget estimates submitted to the National Assembly by Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala.
A copy of the proposed budget of the headquarters of the justice ministry, which was obtained by a Punch correspondent, revealed that the sum of N181, 391,000 was allocated for “uniforms and other clothing” in 2014.
The sum is part of the total N4.7bn allocated to the Federal Ministry of Justice Headquarters in the 2014 budget proposal.
However, the nature of the “uniforms and other clothing” was not disclosed.
The ministry is to spend the sum of N1.3bn on legal services in the New Year, while N1.4bn is allocated for consulting and professional services.
Travels, including local and foreign trips, formed a substantial part of the ministry’s proposed budget.
The sum of N362.6m has been budgeted for travels and transport (general).
Local travel and transport (training) and local travel and transport (others) will cost N76.7m and N142.3m, respectively.
In the same vein, international travel and transport (training), and international travel and transport (others), will cost N34.9m and N108.5m respectively.
The sum of N371.7m was budgeted for materials and supplies (general).
Also, the sum of N59.4m was set aside for foreign grants and contributions, as well as grants to foreign international organisations.
The proposed budget suggests that the Federal Ministry of Justice Headquarters intends to upgrade its security system as the purchase of security equipment as well as improvement of ministry security system would cost N40m, respectively.
The same N40m is equally budgeted for the rehabilitation and repair of office buildings, while the sum of N19.8m is provided for maintenance of office building and residential quarters.
Other sums allocated for maintenance works include N9.9m for maintenance of plants/generators; N27.7m for cleaning/fumigation services; and N59.1m for general maintenance of motor vehicle/transport equipment.
The proposed budget also reveals that the Federal Ministry of Justice Headquarters will spend the sum of N55.8m on fuel and lubricants.
Motor vehicle fuel will cost the sum of N24.7m, while plant/generator fuel costs the sum of N28.3m.
N7.8m is provided for refreshment and meals.
Also, the sum of N56.9m is earmarked for a baseline survey of justice institutions, while the sum of N16.5m is budgeted for ICT consulting.
The proposed budget further shows that the ministry budgets the sum of N37.2m for utilities (general).
Electricity charges will cost N31.5m, water rates 904,016, while sewerage charges will take the sum of N4.8m while the ministry will spend the sum of N14.6m on printing of security documents.

Culled from Punch

Wednesday, 1 January 2014

Why Nigerians can’t access African Court

The African Court on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) was established by the African Union (AU) following member-states’ adoption of the Protocol establishing the court in 1998 in Burkina Faso. The Protocol came into force on January 25, 2004. The court began operations in 2006 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The court’s President and a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana,  Sophia Akuffo, in this interview with ERIC IKHILAE, speaks on its activities and why citizens of most member-states, especially Nigeria, cannot access the court.
You will be rounding off your tenure in September, next year. How has the journey been?
When we were set up in 2006 literally, it was a court because there were judges who had been sworn in. But, there wasn’t even a typist, there was no office. We had to decide by ourselves that, until they give us where to operate, we will operate from Addis (Ababa). That is the head office of the African Union (AU). We had no budget and we had no Rules of Procedure. So, it was a start-up from scratch. We relocated here, Arusha in 2007 and by 2008, we were able to do our first draft of Rules of Proceedings. Without the Rules of Proceedings, the court cannot accept any case. So, we did that and let everybody know that we are ready for business.
What were the efforts made to popularise the court among member-states of the AU?
One thing you have to realise is that at the moment, it is not everybody who can come to this court. This is because the Protocol setting up the court gives access to state party to the Protocol, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (the Banjul commission), the AU, certain intergovernmental bodies in the continent and then, individuals and non- governmental bodies (if the case brought is against a state that has ratified the Protocol and has also declared that individuals/non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can bring cases before the court). It was only Burkina Faso that had made that declaration as at when we started.
How have you created awareness?
After we did our first case, on which we had to decline jurisdiction, because it was a matter brought by an individual against a state that had not made the declaration, we realised that we had reach-out by ourselves. But as judges, it was a difficult decision for us to make because courts don’t normally go advertising themselves. It is assumed that everybody knows where the court is. But we had to start doing that to get people, and even governments, to know why the court exists. So, we have been doing that since 2008. We have been going from country to country. We have been to Nigeria. We had a seminar and we also spoke to highly placed government officials and the parliament. We also had a meeting with the Human Rights Commission, among others. That is what we have been doing – reaching out. And it has yielded some results.
What is the acceptance like so far?
The question is, if there are other entities that can come to the court, why don’t they come? Well, it is the individuals, whose rights get trampled upon or violated. Those will be the people with primary interest and then, the NGOs that are espousing particular human right causes. But as for states, we will wait for a long time before states start coming to uphold human rights for their citizens. This is because I can barely envisage a situation where a state will bring an action against another state over the violation of its citizen’s rights by the country sued.
What is Nigeria’s status with the court at the moment?
As at today, Nigeria has signed the Protocol, it has ratified. That is why one of our judges is a Nigerian. But cases cannot be brought against Nigeria directly by individuals or NGO. It can only be brought by other African states or they will have to go to the Banjul Commission, who will look at the matter and decide whether it could be brought here. Right now, direct access to the court is only limited to the people bringing matters against seven members of the AU. These are Burkina Faso, Mali, Malawi, Tanzania, Ghana, Cote d’ivoire and Rwanda, because they have made the declaration (recognising the court’s jurisdiction to hear cases brought directly by individuals or NGOs). During our visit to Nigeria, we had promises, particularly in relation to making the declaration. In fact, we had firm promises that ‘by certain, certain time, we would have done it.’ It was supposed to be May 2011 and still, it has not been done. We do not know why. I think it requires that we keep reminding the Nigerian authorities and other countries about the activities and benefits of patronising the court.
To what extent would you say the court’s activities have affected the culture of impunity and rights abuses on the continent?
I think, in the global term, you are being too ambitious and you are pushing the court too much. What matters is what decisions have been made, which we expect to have impact. And the point is that, because the majority of the member-states of the AU have not made their declaration, we have not had a significant number of qualifying applications (cases filed before the court). The other thing is that we are not a court of appeal, and sometime, we have received cases that are more like appeals than bring human rights cases. Last July for example, we made a decision that concerned the compliance of a constitutional provision with the Charter (the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights). We found that the provision was not in compliance with the Charter. It violated rights. Because we are a court of competent jurisdiction set up by the AU, when we make a decision, like the one that was against a particular state and its Constitution, it means that every member-state of the AU, which is a party to the Charter, will learn from it. And that is how our impact is felt.
How does the court ensure that its decisions/judgments are complied with?
Usually, real enforcement of court’s judgments is not always by the court itself. So, enforcement can always be an issue. But under the Protocol setting up the court, the body that is responsible for monitoring compliance is the Executive Council of the AU (made up of Ministers of Foreign Affairs). It reports to the Assembly of the Heads of State. What the court does is that, we report to the AU on our activities. And we are specifically required to report on non-compliance. We actually report on all the cases we have finished and non-compliance. Another way we report is that, as soon as we deliver a judgment, we do not only serve the parties, we also serve the AU and such judgments are expected to be disseminated among AU member-states.
Don’t you think the court is disadvantaged by not having a criminal jurisdiction?
Criminal jurisdiction is at the end of a spectrum; where things went wrong, that is where you reach the point of criminality. The fact that this court does not have criminal jurisdiction does not weaken it. In fact, the first international criminal court is the International Criminal Court (ICC). How old is it? It was established for certain purposes; where it is evident that states themselves do not want to deal with what is going on. But what is more important is that eventually the ground for nurturing and protecting human rights gets solidified and firmed. Then, impunity does not even arise because you know that even if you are not hauled off to any court, you will not be found guilty, but the state will be. What we must remember is that it is the responsibility of every state to assure and protect the human rights of its people. And when there is a violation of human right, it means that the state has failed to ensure this.
When does the court take up cases?
This court takes cases only when the person is able to show that there were no adequate local remedies provided by their states or they have exhausted the local remedies. I am optimistic because it is the beginning of something important. In the world at the moment, there are only two other courts like ours – the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. And we do a lot of interactions with them. We have gone farther than they did when they were first set up. It takes a while to become established and become known by other people. The ICC is known because it seems to deal with people, who have done horrible things that you only see in the movies. Human rights courts are there to ensure that, at the end of the day, people do not reach that horrible level.
What are the hinderances to the court’s effective performance?
The main challenge is to get Africans to know and understand that they have this court. I realised that most people do not even know that we have the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights or even what it stands for, and that there is the Banjul Commission and this court. So, it is important for people to know that they have these structures (to ensure the protection of their rights) and to be interested in what the court is doing. People should always be engaged in matters concerning human rights because it concerns everybody. If your state (country) has not made the declaration or ratified the Protocol, I think, with the growth of democracy and constitutionalism in Africa, it is important for people to ask their leaders why they have not ratified and made the declaration. But it starts off with the knowledge, to know you have the right, before you can even ask your country’s leaders why you cannot have full access to the court. Another challenge is to get the leadership of member states to realise that they have either not ratified or declared. And after making them become aware of their status, there is the challenge to also get them to make a move.
What efforts are being made to tackle these challenges?
To me, issues about human rights are very fundamental in human life, but somehow, to those in government, it is always placed on the back burner, and with the fire off (let me put it that way). One needs to be pressing about it. We are a court. So, we will prefer that as time goes on, we have others doing that advocacy, because we should not be doing too much advocacy. There is a point one needs to stop so as not to put the court into a conflict of interest. We now live in the information age. No matter how much one tries to control the flow of information, it will be everywhere in no time. People now have easy access to information. Every decision of the court is published on the internet. We also conduct public hearing in some cases. We are doing our best to let the people know what we do. The rest of it is left to the people. You hear the message, and you run with it or you use it.
In what areas do you think the court’s capacity could be further improved to allow for enhanced performance?
First, we don’t have enough people, we don’t have enough staff. It was only last year that the barest structure that the court recommended was accepted. Even the provisions that have been approved had to be staggered for financial reasons. As I said earlier, we were set up as a court of judges. We have come a long way and we know we will go even farther. We have got a very good staff who are prepared to do the odd, in relation to their job descriptions. We intend to use technology to optimise the speed and accuracy with which we do our work. Of course, machines will never replace human being in a judicial system, but in terms of processes, we will optimise the use of technology, particularly in the courtroom. This is because one of the time wasting problems in the courtroom is the record, in terms of getting it and getting it right. And fortunately, there is technology for ensuring that accuracy to a very, very large extent.

How Supreme Court wrongly freed Bode George: Femi falana

Lagos lawyer and activist Femi Falana (SAN) criticises the Supreme Court judgment which quashed the conviction of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chief Bode George.
In criticising the lack of commitment of the Goodluck Jonathan Administration to the anti-corruption crusade
commentators have often failed to pay sufficient attention to the penchant of Nigerian courts to dismiss corruption cases on the altar of technicalities. It is on record that many corruption cases filed against members of the ruling class by the anti-graft agencies have been dismissed in the last few weeks on flimsy grounds. On the contrary, the courts have had no difficulty in convicting petty criminals and sentencing them to long terms of imprisonment for stealing telephone handsets, bush meat, tubers of yam etc on account of poverty. In reviewing the anti-corruption war, therefore, the class character of the nation’s neo-colonial legal system should always be taken into consideration.
Last month, the case involving the missing hundreds of millions of naira from the Universal Basic Education Fund was struck out by the Federal High Court. A fortnight ago, the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal struck out the criminal case filed against some bank chiefs by the EFCC on the ground that the Lagos State High Court lacks the jurisdiction to try them for allegedly stealing billions of Naira through the manipulation of the capital market. On December 13, 2013, the Federal Capital Territory High Court struck out the charge of stealing government land and allocating same to his wife and other family members filed against Mr. Nasir El-Rufai when it upheld his no case submission while the Supreme Court discharged and acquitted Chief Olabode George and other former members of the Nigeria Ports Authority on the ground that the offence of contract splitting was unknown to law at the material time.
This review is limited to the case of Chief Olabode George & co. for two reasons. Firstly, the EFCC has decided to appeal against the judgments, which freed the other accused persons. Secondly, the verdict of the Supreme Court has serious implications for the nation’s criminal law jurisprudence. More so, that the finding of the apex court that the appellants were tried and convicted for contract splitting is not borne out of the records of both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. In other words, the Lagos High Court had convicted them of the offences of abuse of powers and disobedience to lawful order contrary to sections 104 and 203 of the Lagos State Criminal Code. However, while congratulating the appellants on removing the stigma of infamy from their names it cannot be denied that the outcome of the case is a major setback for the anti corruption crusade.

The right to criticise court judgments
Before one is accused of committing contempt of court for commenting on the controversial judgment, it is pertinent to point out that the right to criticise the judgments of courts is part of the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of expression guaranteed by section 39 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has always welcomed a constructive criticism of its decisions having regards to their finality and overall impact on the nation’s legal system. In Adegoke Motors v Adesanya (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt 109) 250 at 274-275, the reverred Chukwudifu Oputa J.S.C alluded to the finality of the decisions of the Supreme Court when he said that “we are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human beings capable of erring. It will be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth”.
In the same vein, the late Justice Kayode Eso said in the case of Adigun v Governor of Oyo State (No 2) 2 N.W.R (Pt 56) 197 at 214-215 that “the decision of the Supreme Court is final. Final in the sense of real finality in so far as the particular case before it is concerned. It is final forever, except there is legislation to the contrary, and it has to be a legislation ad hominem”. In recognition of the enormous powers of the apex court Justice Eso was of the view that “It is such dread powers that must necessitate great care in the calibre of the Court and such dread that must necessitate pungent and constructive analytical criticism of every judgment of the Court in the law journals and similar fora”. In reaction to the view of some judges and lawyers that it is contemptuous to subject decisions of courts to criticism Justice Eso stated that “the judgment of a court should not be treated with sacred sanctity, once it gets to the right critical forum”.

Where the supreme court erred in law
In the case of Chief Bode George & co. the appellants were tried, convicted and sentenced to various prison terms by the Lagos High Court on October 26, 2009 for abuse of powers and disobedience of lawful orders. Completely displeased with the verdict, the appellants challenged it on appeal. In its considered judgment delivered on January 21, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the learned trial judge, Olubunmi Oyewole J. Still dissatisfied the appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court. In its judgment handed down a fortnight ago the Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of both the Lagos High Court and the Court of Appeal with respect to the conviction of the appellants.
In discharging and acquitting them the apex court held that the offence of contract splitting was unknown to law at the time the appellants were tried and convicted by the Lagos High Court. In his leading judgment the Honourable Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi held inter alia: “It occurred to me that Section 203 of the Criminal Code is not in tune with the dictate of Section 36 (12) of the 1999 Constitution. That being the position, the charges filed under section 203 of the said Code ostensibly for splitting contract in disobedience of lawful order by constituted authority cannot stand … I say it with utmost confidence that the same position applies to the provision of Section 104 of the said Criminal Code. Acts said to have constituted arbitrary acts resulting in abuse of office are splitting of contracts which were not offences known to law at the material time.”
It is submitted, without any fear of contradiction, that the appellants were not charged for contract splitting by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission but for “abuse of powers” and “disobedience of lawful order” contrary to sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code of Lagos State respectively. In summarising the unassailable judgment of the learned trial judge, Clara Ogunbiyi JCA (as she then was) had, in her lead judgment, said the appellants were arraigned “on 68 counts of offences bordering on inflation of contracts, conspiracy to disobey lawful orders and abuse of office …”
Since both sections 104 and 203 have been part of the Criminal Code as far back as 1914 it is unbelievable that the Supreme Court held that the appellants were charged under an unknown law. The crime of disobedience to lawful order by splitting contracts was not unknown before the enactment of the Public Procurement Act, 2007. In the instant case, contract splitting was a particular of the offence and not the offence alleged against the appellants. But for some inexplicable reasons, the apex court substituted the particular for the offence and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Curiously, the Supreme Court conveniently ignored the finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellants violated sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code when they awarded contracts beyond their approval limits which was “borne out by evidence from all the witnesses on both sides”.
Although it has been established in a plethora of cases decided by the Supreme Court that an appellate court has no power to disturb the finding of a lower court which is not challenged on appeal. But for reasons best known to the apex court it decided to depart from the settled principle of law in discharging and acquitting the appellants. From the record of appeal it is indisputable that the Court of Appeal had unanimously agreed with the prosecution that the intention to defraud the nation was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the conduct of the appellants who consistently approved contracts of several billions of naira beyond their approval limit. There was not a single ground of appeal that attacked that particular crucial finding of the lower court. Yet the Supreme Court decided, albeit illegally, to tamper with the finding of the court below and proceeded to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants.
The most embarrassing aspect of the judgment was that the Supreme Court annulled two provisions of the Criminal Code of Lagos without hearing from the Attorney-General of Lagos State in line with established practice. With profound respect to their Lordships there is no legal justification whatsoever for declaring sections 104 and 203 of the Criminal Code illegal and unconstitutional. No doubt, the attention of the apex court was not drawn to the undeniable fact that Section 104 of the Criminal Code is in pari materia with Section 9 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers set out in Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution which has created the offence of abuse of power. Therefore, Section 104 of the Criminal Code cannot be said to be unconstitutional since the same Constitution has created the offence of “abuse of powers”.

Conclusion
As the verdict of the apex court was based on wrong legal foundation its validity remains questionable. Although the appellants have been exculpated, it is hoped that the Supreme Court will soon have another opportunity to reverse the highly erroneous judgment so as to restore sections 104 and 203 of the Lagos State Criminal Code which were struck down for no justifiable legal reasons. However, the case of Chief Bode George & co. should not be treated in isolation as it is now the trend to strike out or dismiss charges filed against members of the bourgeoisie. To that extent, decision of the Supreme Court should be seen as an audacious expression of class solidarity.
Perhaps, majority of Nigerians are not aware of the fact that out of the over 400 convictions which the EFCC has secured in the 10 years of its existence, only four members of the political class have been successfully prosecuted through dubious plea bargain deals. In the circumstance, instead of wasting the meagre resources allocated to the anti-graft agencies on securing convictions which are going to be set aside in favour of members of the ruling class it is high time the Federal Government stopped charging politically exposed persons and other influential criminal suspects to court. In the atmosphere of impunity in the land judges should equally stop the immoral practice of railroading petty criminals to jail.