LP Sues INEC, Others over By-Election

Ondo State chapter of the Labour Party (LP) has instituted a suit to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to declare its own candidate in the April 5 by-election into the vacant Ilaje/Ese Odo federal constituency in the House of Representatives, Kolade Akinjo, the winner of the poll. The INEC, through the Returning Officer for the election, Prof Babatunde Adeyemi, had declared the election inconclusive due to the fact that the difference between the votes scored by the LP candidates that led in the poll was far below the number of voided votes while more than 28,000 registered voters could not vote on the day of election.

The commission therefore ordered that a supplementary election should be conducted in units where voters could not exercise their rights.

This declaration by INEC had caused series of controversies among stakeholders particularly between the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the LP.

Not satisfied with the insistence of INEC on the supplementary election, the LP therefore approached the Federal High Court in Akure to seek some orders.

According to the suit with number FHC/AK/CS/28/14 filed on behalf of the party by Dayo Akinlaja, the LP prayed the court for a declaration that the INEC Returning Officer for the election has no power to declare the election as inconclusive.
Defendants in the suit are the INEC, Returning Officer, Advanced Congress of Nigeria (ACN), All Progressive Congress (APC), Democratic People’s Party (DPP), People for Democratic Change (PDC), Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Progressive People’s Alliance (PPA).

Supported by an 18-paragraph affidavit deposed to by the state Chairman of the party, Chief Dele Akinyele, the suit formulated two issues for determination by the court which include, “having regard to the provisions of Sections 27 and 69 of the Electoral Act, 2010, does an INEC Returning Officer have the power to declare a National Assembly election inconclusive after the conduct of the election, counting of votes and collation of results of the election?

“Did the first and second defendants act within the ambit of the law in failing to formally declare elected candidate who scored the highest number of votes in the House of Representatives election held on April 5 after the final collation of results?”


The LP therefore prayed the court for “a declaration that the first and second defendants acted ultra vires of their powers under the law in declaring as inconclusive the House of Representatives election for Ilaje/Ese-Odo federal constituency instead of formally declaring the candidate with the highest number of votes the winner of the said election.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the first and second defendants from conducting any further election in respect of the vacant seat of Ilaje/Ese-Odo federal constituency in the House of Representatives in whatever part of the constituency.

“Also, an order of mandatory injunction compelling the first and second defendants to formally declare the candidate with the highest number of votes in the said election the winner.”

The crisis on the election had taken various dimension including accusations and counter accusations among various stakeholders.

Rights Commission Asks AGF to Prosecute Osunbor, Olafemi, Ayooka Others for Electoral Offences

The Governing Council of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has recommended 41 persons to the Attorney General of the Federation for prosecution for their alleged violation of electoral laws and commission of other criminal offences.

Prominent among those recommended for prosecution are a former Governor of Edo State, Professor Oserhiemen Osunbor; a former Speaker of the Kogi State Governor, Clarence Olafemi; a former Resident Electoral Commissioner  of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in Ekiti State, Mrs. Ayooka Adebayo and an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Christopher Oloyede.
Two public institutions namely; INEC and the police were also indicted in the recommendation to the AGF.
The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was also indicted.
Others are  police officers, INEC’s officials, lawyers and politicians. They had all been indicted by various election petitions tribunals and courts.

Some of the offences with which they were indicted are forgery, perjury and breach of trust.
Copies of the judgments where they were indicted were attached to the letter to the AGF. In making the recommendations, the commission said it was exercising its power under Section 6 (1) of the NHRC Act 1995 as amended.

The recommendations followed the council’s consideration of an independent review of evidence of gross violations of rights to participate in government.

In a covering letter to the recommendations to the AGF, the council said the purpose of recommending those who had committed criminal offences during elections was to address impunity.

The letter, which was signed by the Executive Secretary of the commission, Professor Bem Angwe, read: “The main objective being to address impunity by ensuring that individuals and groups indicted for various electoral offences are brought to justice to serve as a deterrent, to uphold sanctity of the ballot and to ensure greater respect for democratic values among citizens.”

The council had earlier set up a Technical Working Group (TWG) comprising academics in the field of law to carry out a holistic review of those indicted of electoral offences by the courts.
The TWG submitted its initial report wherein individuals and institutions indicted by the various election petition tribunals and courts of record were identified.

The report showed that none of those indicted had been prosecuted. The letter to the AGF further stated: “The commission therefore, in exercise of its mandate under Section 5 which empowers it to refer any matter of human rights violations requiring prosecution to the AGF or of a state, hereby respectfully forwards to the AGF list of persons and institutions indicted for various offences committed under the Electoral Act, 2006 for prosecution and further necessary actions.”

In the case of Olafemi, the report quoted the judgment of the electoral tribunal which indicted him thus: “The petitioners have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the first respondent, Olafemi, leading his agents and thugs did commit acts of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the Electoral Act by disrupting the conduct of election, harassing and intimidating eligible voters who were sent away from polling units without voting.”

For ASP Oloyede, the Court of Appeal held thus: “The evidence on record showed that a policeman, ASP Oloyede, signed an election result sheet as party agent on behalf of the PDP.
“This is an illegality and violation of electoral rules both by INEC and the police.

“ASP Oloyede behaved disgracefully and abused his position. Neither INEC nor the police could defend the illegality that ought to have been sanctioned.”

Lawyer In $1 Billion Insurance Scam Sentenced To 10 Years

A longtime South Florida lawyer was sentenced Tuesday to 10 years in federal prison for his role in a $1 billion insurance investment scam.

Anthony M. Livoti Jr. could have gotten as much as 80 years, and the prosecution in the Mutual Benefits Corp. case sought at least 30 years. But U.S. District Judge Robert Scola said he didn't want to give the 65-year-old an effective life sentence, since Livoti was not a mastermind of the pyramid scheme, the Miami Herald (sub. req.) reports.

Livoti—a respected 40-year practitioner who was active in pro bono matters and supported at the hearing by family, friends and colleagues—apologized extensively, admitted he had "lost his way" and asked Scola for a second chance before the judge pronounced sentence in the Miami case.

As trustee, Livoti disbursed funds to pay life insurance premiums for terminally ill individuals with short life expectancies whose policies had been purchased by investors. The plan was to make money by getting a payout when the insured individual died in excess of the discounted amount paid to acquire the rights to his or her policy. However, these so-called viatical life settlements did not perform as well as promised, and the defendants in the case were accused of making misrepresentations to investors and misusing their money.

A dozen defendants took pleas, and Livoti was the only one to go to trial, the newspaper reports. Although he was acquitted on most counts, he faced a hefty sentence for convictions on money laundering, conspiring to commit fraud and two other counts, in part because of the amount of money at issue.

During Tuesday's sentencing hearing, former Broward Circuit Judge Robert Zack spoke of Livoti's "impeccable” credentials and urged leniency. “His good deeds far outweigh this mistake,’’ Zack told Scola, “though I do admit it was a grievous mistake.”

LinkedIn faces lawsuit over security

A Californian judge has allowed a claimant to sue LinkedIn over its paid for service.
The lawsuit alleges that LinkedIn sought to misrepresent the security features of its “premium” subscription service to entice people to buy this package over the regular free service. The plantiff is one of six million LinkedIn users who saw their data posted online in a 2012 data breach of the site

Litigation lawyers must innovate

Litigation lawyers must fundamentally change their approach on delivering solutions for their clients if they are to enjoy long-term relationships with clients, a leading US lawyer says.

Steven Berrent, managing director of WilmerHale’s Discovery Solutions, said that law firms needed to adopt innovative ways of dealing with processes such as document review. Mr Berrent said that law firms were in the ‘business of long-term relationships with clients’ and if document review was carried out ‘as efficiently as possible, clients will come back.’ Also speaking at the launch of Axcelerate 5, the next generation of  Recommind’s cloud-based e-discovery platform, managing director Simon Price said: “The legal market, and in particular the process of disclosure in litigation cases, continues to evolve at pace. As a result, firms are under increasing pressure to find more efficient and cost-effective ways to manage eDiscovery.’ 

His company’s recently released product was rebuilt to create a user-friendly design with ease of use being a key ambition. With some 300 new features or enhancements, the software allows visualisation of relationships between people and data as well as the ability to analyse all email messages and attachments. It uses HTML 5, allowing allows performance of tasks such as redaction over native documents.  Furthermore, it automates a number of manual and routine tasks involved in managing a document review such as batching documents. 

Mr Price said of the new technology: “Axcelerate 5, lawyers need no longer be bound by rigid technology processes. This powerful new solution offers flexibility and performance, as well as providing immediate access to the documents that matter most. This combination of earlier insights and control brings about a step change in the quality and value of the service firms can offer their clients.”

The system also streamlines predictive coding, a technology which helps streamline reviews and which many believe will revolutionise document review. Herbert Smith Senior Case Manger Johan Botha says that he was passionate about predictive coding, a technology which would see “enormous growth” he said and which would speed up the whole process of document review. 

BoA goes into loss through $6b legal costs

Bank of America has reported a quarterly loss of US$276m and was pushed into the red by legal costs including US$3.6b over mortgage-backed securities.
Chief executive Brian Moynihan said: ‘The cost of resolving more of our mortgage issues hurt our earnings this quarter.’ The bank said that the $3.6b related to a settlement with the Federal Housing Finance Agency over claims that the bank had mis-sold the securities to the government-backed mortgage companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The rest of the legal costs also relate, in the main, to mortgage-related issues

Lagos shuns appeal against okada ban judgment

Residents of Lagos State may have accepted the reality of the ban on operations of commercial motorcyclists, popularly called okada riders, on some roads in the state, but the legal battle seeking to upturn the court judgment which affirmed the ban is still on.

However, the Lagos State Government may have shunned the legal action, perhaps not concerned about whatever is the outcome of the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, where the motorcyclists had proceeded to challenge the judgment of the lower court.

The commercial motorcyclists had filed an appeal against the judgment since April 2013, but it is now a year that the government had refused to oppose it.

The government may have shunned the rules of the appellate court which provide that respondents must file their briefs within 30 days of being served with the appellant’s.

But the Senior Special Assistant to Lagos State Governor on Justice Sector Reform, Mr. Lanre Akinsola, in a chat with our correspondent, denied the allegation that the government had shunned the appeal.

Akinsola said government was already working on its respondent’s brief, adding that its filing had only been delayed by closing down of the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal for renovation purposes.

“We are working on our brief; but you know that the Court of Appeal in Lagos has been shut down for renovation,” Akinsola said.

The appellants, under the aegis of the All Nigerians Autobike Commercial Owners and Workers Association, have filed an application, urging the Court of Appeal to hear their appeal without the opposition from the respondents.

Justice Aisha Opesanwo of a Lagos High Court in Ikeja had on December 13, 2012, in  a judgment, dismissed the suit filed by appellants challenging the propriety of the law.

The motorcyclists had sued under the aegis of the ANACOWA. Apart from the association, other claimants in the suit dismissed by the lower court were officials of the association  and others using motorcycles as their means of private transportation: Mr. Yusuf Oladimeji, Mr. Mordecai Samuel, Mr. Aremu Simeon and Mr. Ejiofor Godwin.

The claimants are now the appellants before the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division.

The respondents both at the Lagos High Court and at the appellate court are: the Lagos State Government, the Lagos State House of Assembly and the state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye.

The appellants, through their counsel, Mr. Bamidele Aturu, argue in their application dated June 24, 2013, that  they  had served their appellant’s briefs on all the three respondents on March 27, 2013.

Aturu maintained that the respondents were no longer entitled to filing their briefs of arguments in opposition to their appeal.

The application states, “The 30 days within which the respondents have to file their respective respondents’ briefs have long expired. The respondents were served with the appellants’ brief of argument on the following days respectively:

“The 1st respondent was served on March 27, 2013; the 2nd respondent  was served on March 27, 2013; and the 3rd respondent was served on March 27, 2013; while a copy of the appellants’ brief was served on the counsel for the 2nd respondent on April 2, 2013.

“The time allowed by the rules of this honourable court for the respondents to file their respective respondents brief of argument has lapsed and the respondents have failed to file their respective respondents’ brief.

“This honourable court has the unfettered power to set down the appellants’ appeal for hearing, the respondents having failed, refused or neglected to file their respondents brief within the time stipulated by the rules of this honourable court.

“It is in the interest of justice to grant this application. The respondents will not be prejudiced by the grant of this application.”

In their brief of argument, the appellants expressed dissatisfaction over the judgment of the Lagos High Court, which dismissed, among other arguments of the claimants, that the state government lacked the power to regulate traffic on the federal  trunk or highway roads.

The appellants’ brief reads in part, “On the 2nd day of August 2012, the Governor of Lagos State, the 1st respondent herein, signed into law the Lagos State Traffic Law, No. 4 of 2012, which was passed by the 2nd respondent ( the House of Assembly).

“The said law in section 3 specifically prohibits the use of carts, wheel barrows, motorcycles and tricycles of some roads, bridges and streets in certain local government areas in Lagos State.

“However, the prohibited roads listed under Items 1 –  11 and in other parts of Schedule II of the said law are Federal Trunk or Highway roads within the meaning of the Federal Highways Act, Cap., F 13, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“The 1st appellant which is an association duly registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act to protects the interest of commercial motorcyclists and the other appellants who are individuals and private motorcyclists, who use their motorcycles as a means of private transportation, challenged the law by way of an Originating Summons at the High Court of Lagos State on the grounds that the respondents had no power to regulate traffic on Federal Trunk  Roads or Highways in Lagos State and that the law was discriminatory and to that extent a breach of their fundamental rights.”

The appellants submitted six issues for determination by the Court of Appeal.

The issues are that, “Whether the learned trial judge was in holding that the roads listed in Schedule II of the Lagos State Road Traffic Law, 2012 are not federal trunk roads;

“Whether the learned trial judge  was right in holding that the respondents could validly enact section 3(1) of the Lagos State Road Traffic Law, 2012 and Schedule II thereof which prohibited the use of certain modes of transportation on Federal Highways/Trunk Roads.

“Whether having regard to the circumstances of the case, the learned trial judge was right in her decision that the means or mode of movement is not recognised in section 41 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to freedom of movement.

“Whether the learned trial judge was correct in deciding that only persons who live in a common location can validly complain against breach of their right not to be discriminated against under section 42 of the Constitution;

“Whether the learned trial judge was right to have held that except a right is specifically provided for in Chapter IV of the Constitution no declaration can be made by a court in the name of fundamental right.

 “Whether the lelarned trial judge was right to have refused to restrain the respondents from forcible seizure of the property of the appellants and order release of the already seized property of the appellants by the respondents.”

 Aturu asked the Court of Appeal to determine the issues in the favour of his  clients and set aside the judgment of the Lagos High Court.

The highways on which the appellants argue that the state government lack the power to regulate traffic are: Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Apapa-Oshodi Expressway, Oworonshoki-Oshodi Expressway, Lagos-Ikorodu Expressway, Lagos-Abeokuta Expressway and Third Mainland Bridge. Others are, Eti-Osa/Lekki-Epe Expressway, Lagos-Badagry Expressway, Funsho Williams Avenue, Agege Motor Road and Eti-Osa/Lekki Coastal Road.

The roads are as listed in the Items 1 to 11 of Schedule II of the Lagos State Road Traffic Law.

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appellants’ application and the abstantive appeal