Paul Usoro responds to Chidi Odinkalu

Re: “The Nigerian Bar Association: Leadership, Values and the Future”
In his recent article with the above title, Chidi Odinkalu, in continuation of his campaign against me founded ostensibly on the cash gifts that I gave to Honourable Justice James Agbadu-Fishim of the National Industrial Court (“NIC”), accuses me of professional misconduct, in the terms of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2007 (“RPC”). His earlier allegations of bribery against me, having been effectively debunked by the factual rebuttal that was issued by my colleagues in Paul Usoro & Co (“PUC”), Odinkalu now purports to anchor his campaign against me on Rule 34 of the RPC which stipulates that “a lawyer shall notdo anything or conduct himself in such a way, as to give theimpression, or allow the impression to be created, that his act or conduct is calculated to gain, or has the appearance of gaining special personal consideration or favor from a Judge” and claims that my gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J offend theseRules.

Odinkalu’s assertions are not borne out by the facts and are wholly incorrect. In addressing Rule 34, it is important to make the point that impressions are not, cannot and ought not to be created in vacuo; they are and always must be rooted infacts if they are not to qualify as mere gossip and street talk. It is also apropos that the relevant and surrounding facts be considered holistically and not selectively if the correct, credible and objective impression – as different from predetermined and jaundiced conclusions – must be created. Selective and prejudiced presentation of facts, which seems to be Odinkalu’s trademark, distorts and showcases an incorrectimpression  which obviously is his objective  whereas aconsideration of the facts, as a whole, bears out the contraryimpression and establishes the non-infringement of the RPC Rule 34. For a proper appreciation of my contentions, I would, in this write-up, classify my gifts to Agbadu-Fishim into two buckets – Pre- and Post PH/150 Gifts – and consider each of these in the context of Rule 34 of the RPC together with the surrounding facts thereof.
Pre-PH/150 Gifts
Pre-PH/150 Gifts refers to the N250,000.00 which I gave toAgbadu-Fishim J in August 2014, about 5 months before PUC was instructed to represent Access Bank (“the Bank”) in Suit No. NICN/PH/150 [“PH/150”], the only matter thatPUC has ever handled before His Lordship. In forming an impression on this gift, in the context of Rule 34, a number of relevant and surrounding facts, some of which are under-listed, need to and must be taken into consideration by the objective third party. First, I have never appeared as Counsel before Agbadu-Fishim J in any matter, in all my years of legalpractice. It was not until December 2014  about 5 months after my N250,000.00 gift to His Lordship – that PUC was instructed in PH/150. Given these facts and in the context of Rule 34, what “special personal consideration or favor” could I possibly have gained from His Lordship pursuant to that gift? In what circumstance can any reasonable person form the impression, given those facts, that I gave the gift to the Judge in order to gain any “special personal consideration or favor from” the Judge? None.
Second, I have consistently stated that my friendship with Agbadu-Fishim J predates his appointment to the Bench andalso that my gifts to His Lordship were at His Lordship’sinstance and based on our relationship. The N250,000.00 August 2014 gift was my contribution to His Lordship’s travel expenses for the Court’s annual vacation based on His Lordship’s request. What is so outrageous about aN250,000.00 gift to an old friend, albeit a Judge, more so,given the fact that I have never handled any matter before the Judge and PH/150 was not even in contemplation at that time?How could such a gift, in those circumstances, create animpression that it was “calculated to gain” or even “has the appearance of gaining special personal consideration or favor from” Agbadu-Fishim J? “Special personal consideration or favor” in regard to what matter or issue? No such impression, can be created in the mind of any reasonable and objectiveperson.
Third, the pattern of my professional practice before the NIC ought to be considered by any reasonable third party while forming an impression of my N250,000.00 gift, or indeed, all my gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J vis-a-vis RPC Rule 34. I have consistently asserted that I do not generally practice before the NIC and that the PUC matters that are before the NIC are all handled by my colleagues in PUC without my personal involvement or supervision. Odinkalu acknowledges thisassertion but points out that “the firm has a very activeportfolio of cases in the National Industrial Court” and that “at the time of these payments, it had about 36 cases before thecourt”. As an aside, it speaks to Odinkalu’s penchant fordistortion and dissembling that he refers to my gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J as “payments”. One pays for goods or services as different from gifts which are charitable in nature. When Odinkalu characterizes my gifts to Agbadu-Fishim as“payments”, he fails to state what service or favor I got fromHis Lordship in return. Of course, he knows that I got no favor from His Lordship but it serves his purpose of misleading the unwary to mischaracterize the gifts as “payments”.
There are however two other ancillary issues that I need to address relating to the PUC NIC case portfolio as presented by Odinkalu in his article. First, this is yet another illustrative instance of selective or elliptical supply of information by Odinkalu aimed at distorting facts and fudging the truth. The document from which Odinkalu lifted his information on the PUC NIC matters – my letter of 31 October 2016 to the EFCC together with the attached Narrative thereto  clearly statedthat PUC had 32 (not 36) pending matters before the NIC as atthe date thereof and drew the following conclusion therefrom, amongst others:
“. . . out of the 32 pending NIC matters in the Firm,Access Bank is the defendant in 25 (and represented byPUC) and only 1 is before Agbadu-Fishim J. There aresome other NIC Judges who have up to 5 or 6 of these matters before them – see attached List of NIC matters handled by PUC, both concluded and pending. As earlier stated, Mr. Usoro does not know any of these other Judges or have any relationship with them”.
If those gifts were intended or “calculated to gain” me any “special personal consideration or favor” in the context ofPUC’s “very active portfolio of cases in the NationalIndustrial Court”
– using the words of Odinkalu – would it not make eminent sense for me to dispense them across the board to all the NIC Judges handling the Firm’s matters or, at the minimum, make those gifts to and target those Judges with “5 or 6 of these matters before them”? Why would I give gifts to the NICJudge who adjudicates over only 1 (one) PUC matter insteadof targeting those Judges with “5 or 6 of these matters” if my intention, in the context of Rule 34, was to “gain special personal consideration or favor” from the Judges? And yet, as I mentioned in that letter, I do not even know those otherJudges personally nor have any relationship with
2

 

them. These facts should bear on the mind of any objective third party who desires to form an impression of my gifts toAgbadu-Fishim in the context of Rule 34 of the RPC. Thesefacts go to show that my gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J could not possibly have been “calculated to gain” me any “specialpersonal consideration or favor”. Why did Odinkalu suppressthese facts in his article even though he was aware of them, save for mischief?
The second ancillary issue I must address on this point is the obvious misconception by Odinkalu that 32 (or even, 36,using Odinkalu’s wrong figure) pending NIC mattersconstitute “a very active portfolio of cases” for PUC which, presumably, would command my personal attention and supervision. As at 03 November 2016 (about the time that my afore-referenced letter to the EFCC was written), PUC had 137 live appeals before the Supreme Court and various Divisions of the Court of Appeal as well as 173 pending matters before various High Courts. When these numbers areconsidered, an objective third party would comprehend that I do not and need not have visibility in regard to PUC’s NICmatters more so when the Firm has more than 35 qualified, knowledgeable, skilled and active advocates practicing under its umbrella. It would also be clear to such observer that my personal relationship with Agbadu- Fishim J has absolutely nothing to do with the PUC practice and my gifts to His Lordship do not howsoever gain me or the Firm any “specialpersonal consideration or favor” in the context of Rule 34 of the RPC.
When the totality of these facts on my personal professional practice before the NIC – recall that RPC Rule 34 talks about “special personal consideration or favor” – are thrown into the mix and contemplated by any objective third party, whyshould such an objective person form the impression that my N250,000.00 gift to Agbadu-Fishim J in August 2014 or even the aggregate of the 3 gifts, were “calculated to gain” me any “special personal consideration or favor” in the context of Rule 34? As it relates specifically to the N250,000.00 Pre-PH/150 Gift, how could any objective third party form the impression that I had infringed Rule 34 of the RPC in the circumstances that I have just outlined? What would be the basis for such impression? Where and what are the facts in support of such an impression or perception? There is no basis for and there are no facts in support of such misperception.
Post-PH/150 Gifts
Post-PH/150 Gifts refer to the N100,000.00 and N200,000.00 gifts that I gave to Agbadu- Fishim J respectively in December 2014 and March 2015 during the pendency of PH/150. In forming an impression of these gifts, in the context of Rule 34 of the RPC, the unbiased and reasonable third party, in my view, would be guided by all the preceding facts relating to the Pre-PH/150 Gift, and I therefore adopt these wholly for a consideration of these Post-PH/150 Gifts. There are at least 4 (four) additional facts which should gird the impression of any credible third party in regard to these Post-PH/150 Gifts vis-à-vis RPC Rule 34. First, since this review was undertaken in the last Quarter of 2016 (when the EFCC commenced its investigation of Agbadu-Fishim J), almost 2 years after the instructions to PUC on PH/150, I should expect any such reviewer to be interested in looking at the Records of the Court in that matter to determine whether, in the context of Rule 34 of the RPC, I actually gained, directly or indirectly (by association, for example), any “special personal consideration or favor from the Judge” in the conduct of that Suit.
As at Q4 2016 when I wrote my letters to the EFCC, PH/150had not progressed beyond being a part-heard matter andindeed was scheduled to commence de novo consequent uponAgbadu- Fishim J’s transfer from Enugu Division of the NIC.At no time had Agbadu-Fishim J made
2

 

any Ruling or Order in PH/150 other than routineadjournments. Absolutely nothing was done in the conduct of that matter by Agbadu-Fishim J that suggested, even remotely, the favoring of one party over the other and nobody, not even the opposing Counsel, has made any such suggestion. Even as I write, the Suit is yet to commence de novo. In what circumstance then would the objective third party form the impression howsoever that my Post-PH/150 Gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J gained or were “calculated to gain” me “special personal consideration or favor from the Judge” in the context of RPC Rule 34? And, by the way, the status of PH/150 was very well known to Odinkalu as at when he wrote his article. How come he failed to disclose these facts in his article? Obviously because they do not support or bear out his campaign against me. This is yet another instance ofdeliberate suppression of facts that do not support his campaign against me. That neither shows fidelity to scholarship nor the fidelity required of lawyers, practicing ornot.
Second, in forming an impression of the Post-PH/150 Gifts vis-à-vis RPC Rule 34, the independent third party would note that a pattern of unconditional and no-strings-attached giftingby me to Agbadu-Fishim J had been established by my Pre-PH/150 Gift of N250,000.00 and, in the absence of any contrary indication, would not believe or think that the motivations for the Post-PH/150 Gifts were any different fromthat of the preceding Gift. The Post-PH/150 Gifts were motivated by the same unconditional kindness that motivated the Pre-PH/150 Gift; they were not linked howsoever to PH/150 and the electronic communication to me from Agbadu-Fishim J which Odinkalu has read and alluded to in his article bear this out. That also explains why nothing in the Records of Proceedings of PH/150 suggests, even remotely, the favoring of one party over the other in the conduct of that matter by Agbadu-Fishim J. Much earlier, I had posited that impressions, in the context of Rule 34 of the RPC or at all, must always be rooted in facts, holistically considered and not based on selective dissembled facts. The point I make is that, in contemplating my Post-PH/150 Gifts vis-à-vis RPC Rule 34, the disinterested reader and third party needs to consider the relevant facts holistically including but not limited to thepattern that was established by my unconditional no-strings-attached Pre- PH/150 Gift and make a judgment, based on allthese facts whether that pattern was consistent all through or had changed. I am convinced that such a dispassionate third party would conclude, all the facts and circumstances considered, that the pattern remained the same and unchanged.
Third and as a corollary to the preceding facts, I would expect the disinterested third party, in forming his impression of thePost-PH/150 Gifts vis-à-vis RPC 34, to consider the modestsums involved  N300,000.00 gifted in two tranches ofN100,000.00 and N200,000.00 over a period of 4 months, between December 2014 and March 2015. Now that Odinkalu claims to have internationalized this issue, one expects that hehas been sufficiently honest and upfront to tell his presumed audience that the aggregate figure he is dissembling about (i.e. the Post-PH/150 Gifts) is a little over US$500.00. Is that theamount that Odinkalu believes would, in the context of RPCRule 34 “gain” me “special personal consideration or favor”from Agbadu-Fishim J in the conduct of PH/150? Is that how low Odinkalu thinks of our Judges? In making out his case,Odinkalu has referenced the alleged donation of N10m byPrince Arthur Eze to the former Chief Judge of Enugu State during the pendency of a matter involving Prince Eze before the former Chief Judge. Seriously, does N300,000.00 gifted in two tranches stand in the same league with N10m? In considering these matters, shouldn’t the dispassionate third party look at the quantum of the gifts and/or donations, not to mention other surrounding facts? Prince Eze, according toOdinkalu was a litigant before the former Chief Judge. Was I alitigant before Agbadu-Fishim J? Am I a litigant in any matter before the NIC? Did I make the Post-PH/150
2

 

Gifts to the Judge on behalf of any litigant? Does Odinkalu have any facts so suggesting? On what basis then does heplace me on the same pedestal with Prince Eze? No basiswhatsoever.
Fourth, Odinkalu ought to know that Rule 34 creates apersonal liability and responsibility for lawyers; it does not create any vicarious liability or responsibility through association. As Odinkalu himself acknowledges, I have consistently stated that I did not handle PH/150 and had no visibility of the matter prior to the EFCC enquiry in Q4 of 2016. I did not appear as Counsel in that matter and none of the Counsel who appeared announced their respective appearances as holding my brief. The other set of complementary facts is that my gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J wereentirely personal in nature and I did not share informationthereon with my colleagues in PUC. Prior to the EFCC enquiry, there was no basis for our discussing my personalrelationship with Agbadu-Fishim J apart from the fact that Ido not generally broadcast my kindness to people. There was therefore no way that my colleagues in PUC could have known of my gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J, whether pre- or post-PH/150, just as I had no knowledge of PH/150 prior to the EFCC enquiries, and therefore, no personal liability or responsibility could have attached to them or me, now or atall, in the context of Rule 34 of the RPC. Framed differently, my personal and private Post-PH/150 Gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J, at a time that I had no knowledge of PH/150, could not and cannot be misconstrued by an independent and unbiasedobserver as being calculated to “gain” me or my colleagues,directly or indirectly, any “special personal consideration or favor from the Judge” in the conduct of PH/150 or otherwise.
Again, Odinkalu disingenuously compares apples withoranges when he refers to the purported MTN case whereAgbadu-Fishim J allegedly recused himself at the instance ofthe defendant’s counsel because His Lordship had requested for financial assistance from the counsel during the pendencyof the matter and consequent upon His Lordship’sbereavement. Odinkalu should publish the full facts on the MTN matter and inform us, for example, whether there was any personal relationship between the Judex and Counsel prior to the MTN matter – similar to the relationship that I have had with Agbadu-Fishim J before his judicial appointment. Was there any instance of an unconditional no-strings-attached gift made by the MTN Counsel to the Judex, similar to my Pre-PH/150 Gift to Agbadu-Fishim J? If there were no such identical circumstances, on what basis does Odinkalu compare the MTN case with my Pre- and Post- PH/150 Gifts to Agbadu-Fishim J? In the MTN case, Odinkalu refers to the MTN Counsel as the “defendant’s counsel”. Did I at any time appear before Agbadu-Fishim J as Counsel in the PH/150 matter? These are different scenarios and, Odinkalu must know that precedents are determined and are binding only when the facts of the two matters are similar and on all fours with each other.
Conclusion
In concluding, I wish to draw attention to three residual issues.First, Odinkalu has not hidden his ambition of seeing me out of the NBA Presidential race in 2018, by hook or crook, and it is this ambition that informs his campaign against me. I can, albeit with some struggle, understand his position and motivation thereon seeing as he has his favored candidate(s) and believes that a smear campaign against me enhances the chances of those candidate(s). What I cannot understand are his gratuitous advice that I “put” my “ambitions to lead the Bar in abeyance while” I “either” clear my name or await “the outcome of the prosecution of James Agbadu-Fishim”. To Odinkalu’s knowledge, I am not under any trial and the issue of my clearing my name does not arise howsoever. More importantly, why does Odinkalu believe that the NBA votersare not sufficiently savvy and knowledgeable to make theirinformed
2

 

judgments based on the full facts of this matter as contained inthis write-up (as different from the dissembled and distorted untruths in Odinkalu’s published write-ups)? Why is Odinkalu so unkind to the NBA voters? Why does he have such dim view of and scant regard for their intellect?
My second concluding comment relates to Odinkalu’s consistent penchant for stoking dissension and strife between young and senior lawyers. That tension which Odinkalu stokes is not in anyone’s interest, Odinkalu inclusive, no matter his own age at the Bar. I stand for and believe in an inclusive and united Bar which has standing room for the young and the old and encourages mutual respect and knowledge-sharing for all. I know plenty of seniors who are playing their mentoring roles creditably and who are unfairly maligned and disparaged by Odinkalu’s generalizations and predilection for fiddling with facts and the truth. This is not healthy. I am hoping that, in the New Year, Odinkalu will turn a new leaf and join me in building an inclusive and united Bar. By the way, Odinkalu’s trademark lack of fidelity with truthand facts not to mention his consistent habit of tampering withfacts and figures (ranging from such seemingly minor details like changing 32 to 36 in the aggregate of PUC’s NIC matters to such grave allegations and misinformation as my purported criminal trial) neither does credit to him as a lawyer norconstitute an example worthy of emulation by young lawyers.
Finally, given his ambition of seeing me out of the NBA Presidential race in 2018, I have watched with some amusement Odinkalu’s shifting campaign against me on this issue of Agbadu-Fishim J. He started out by boldly publishing that I had bribed His Lordship and had admitted to thiscriminal conduct and was standing trial therefor. That lie wasexposed, notably by the PUC Rebuttal which, amongst others, educated Odinkalu on the constituents of “bribery” according to our statute books. Thereafter, Odinkalu struggled to find a new, albeit, weak and failed crutch in Rule 34 of the RPC. Now that I have in this write-up fulsomely addressed the Rule 34 campaign, do I expect Odinkalu to apologize to me and rest the issue? Not in the least. If his track record is anything to go by, I fully expect him to recycle his distorted facts and untruths, come up with further jaded arguments and continue to pursue his futile goal of running me out of the NBA Presidential race. Do I need to worry about these expected reprocessed attacks? No. Discerning readers, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, have seen through Odinkalu’s campaign of calumny and all that remains to be said is that a million Odinkalus cannot change God’s Will.

Hijab & Call to Bar – What the Law really says | Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem

There have been many opinions on the refusal of the Body of Benchers to call Firdaus Amasa to the Bar because of her hijab. I however noticed that most of the opinions were more of emotional outbursts rather than exposition of the provisions of the law on the subject matter. This piece will be x-raying the position of the law on the right of the female Muslims to wear the hijab on the call to bar.

WHICH BODY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING SUCCESSFUL LAW STUDENTS TO THE BAR?
S. 3(5) of the Legal Practitioners’ Act(LPA), Provides that, “There shall be a body of legal practitioners of the highest distinction in the legal profession in Nigeria to be known as “the Body of Benchers” which shall be responsible for the formal call to the Bar of persons seeking to become legal practitioners…
WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET BEFORE A PERSON CAN BE CALLED TO THE BAR?
S. 4(1) of the LPA provides that “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall be entitled to be called to the Bar If, (a) he is a citizen of Nigeria; and (b) he produces a qualifying certificate to the Benchers; and (c) he satisfies the Benchers that he is of good character.
WHAT IS THE DRESSING REQUIREMENT FOR THE CALL TO BAR?
S. 16(3) of the Body of Benchers Regulations provides that: “Every student proposed and approved for call to the Bar shall, on any Call Night, be dressed in his BIBS and BARRISTER’s gown but shall not place his wig on his head until he has been called to the Bar by the Chairman”.
Did Firdaus have a bib? Yes
Did she have a barrister’s gown? Yes
Did she have her wig? Yes
Please note that the provision above did not make any provision on exposing one’s natural hair. It could be argued that there was no mention of the hijab in that section, the answer to that is there was equally no mention of trousers, suit, skirt, shirt, pants etc. The only reasonable conclusion is that the hijab is not prohibited by the regulations guiding the operations of the Body of Benchers who are saddled with calling eligible persons to the Bar.
ASSUMING THERE IS A LAW PROHIBITING THE WEARING OF THE HIJAB FOR THE CALL TO BAR, WHAT IS THE IMPLICATION OF SUCH LAW?
The Courts have held in plethora of cases that Fundamental Human Rights are not ordinary rights, they are elevated rights. They are “Special class of rights” and no person should be deprived of the enjoyment of any such rights except by the proper observance of the due process of law. The 1999 Constitution is not a mere academic model but a pragmatic living instrument that must be respected , it must not read with levity, contempt or disdain. Every of its section must be given meaning and effect by the Courts. It is at the top of all normative prescription. See Marwa &Anor v. Nyako and Ors. (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1296) 199; Felix Amadi &Anor v. INEC & 2 Ors (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1345)595. 
A full panel of the Court of Appeal held in the case of Abdulkareem v. LASG (2016) 15 NWLR (Pt 1535) 177 that: “the use of hijab by female Muslims constitutes an act of worship, hence the refusal to allow the appellants to wear it on their school uniform, is a clear infraction of their constitutionally guaranteed right”. The court went further to hold that section 38 of the 1999 constitution which provides that every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and freedom (either or in community with others, and in public or in privacy) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, cannot be wished away just because some other persons feel uncomfortable with it. 
Jumbo-Ofo, JCA held that every citizen is imbued with the right to practice, manifest and even propagate their religious beliefs without restrictions in any community they found themselves within the precinct of Nigeria. Such religious practice, manifestation or propagation shall not be disturbed or hindered either expressly or by the practical application of any ‘LAW’ in force in Nigeria. Such a document cannot fly at all in the face of the supremacy of the constitution.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SECTION 45 ON THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 38 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION
In The Provost Kwara State College of Education, Ilorin V. Bashirat Saliu(CA/IL/49/2009) the Court of Appeal held that: “The provision of section 45 of the Constitution is designed to save laws that are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, notwithstanding their apparent inconsistency with any provisions in sections 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of the Constitution, either:
(a) In the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, or
(b) For the purpose protecting the rights and freedom of other persons
The laws saved by section 45 of the Constitutions are enactments made by the State Legislature. For the avoidance of doubt section 318 of the Constitution has defined “Law” as follows: “Law mean a law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State.” The Court also held in Abdulkareem v. LASG (Supra) that a law contemplated under section 45(1) must be one duly enacted to safeguard the defence of the country, public safety of its people, or public health and morality, or meant to protect the rights and freedom of other persons. Most people get it wrong by assuming that the exception is the main rule and the main rule is the exception. Ask them what is their justification, they simply tell you the right is not absolute, or the authorities have so so rules… but that’s not what the Constitution says. In conclusion the provision of S. 45 is not applicable in Firdaus’s case or in the case of any female Muslim who choose to wear the Hijab during the call to bar because there is no law enacted by the National Assembly validly curtailing such rights as guaranteed under section 38 of the constitution.
CAN THE RIGHT TO MANIFEST RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (IN THIS CASE WEARING THE HIJAB) BE WAIVED BY SIGNING AN OATH OR CONSENTING TO THE DRESSCODE?
Some commentators have argued that Firdaus waived her rights to use the hijab during the call to bar when she allegedly signed some forms on admission into the lawschool.
I doubt if that is true, but assuming it is true, the Supreme Court held in ARIOVI V. ELEMONA (1983) 1 SCNLR 1 that:
“Fundamental rights entrenched in our 1963 and 1979 Constitution are in my opinion, out of reach of the operation of the law of waiver. Our oath of office to protect and defend the constitution over all other laws ensures this…. The right to life, right to personal liberty, right to freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion, right to lawful and peaceful assembly and association which are vital to human existence and democracy in this nation cannot in my view be waived.”
In a more recent decision the Apex Court held in A.G Ondo State V. A.G Ekiti (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 743) 706 @ 763 per Karibi-Whyte JSC, that:
 “ Parties cannot contract out their constitutional rights. That is clearly not permissible, and in my opinion not the subject for argument between the parties.”
It was held in Provost of Kwara College of Education V. Bashirat Saliu (Supra) that:
“The Respondents could not individually waive their fundamental rights under section 38 of the Constitution. Such right may only be lost or forfeited under the proviso to that section or by application of section 45 of the Constitution, neither of which is applicable to the 3rd Applicant’s dress code.”
WAS IT RIGHT FOR FIRDAUS TO HAVE INSISTED ON WEARING THE HIJAB DESPITE ENTREATIES MADE BY SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE BODY OF BENCHERS?
In my view, the entreaties made by the members of Body of Benchers were most unnecessary since Firdaus’s dressing did not contravene any valid law. They should have concentrated that energy in convincing themselves to call her to bar since there was no valid law preventing them from doing so. She was very right in asserting her rights and the rights of thousands of female Muslims whose right have been trampled upon unjustly and unjustifiably. Today we hail Rosa Park, Nelson Mandela and Gani Fawehinmi. What stood them out was challenging the status quo and asserting their rights when others were too timid to speak.
AHMED ADETOLA-KAZEEM
19/12/2017

Rainmaking for Associates | Yimika Adesola



Rainmaking for Associates – winning clients for your law office


Wikipedia defines rainmaking as (in business)bringing in new business and winning new accounts almost by magic, since it is often not readily apparent how this new business activity is caused. Investopedia further defines it as bringing clients, money, or respect to one’s organization solely by one’s associationEssentially, a rainmaker “makes it rain” in the colloquial sense.
As a young Associate in a Nigerian law firm, your primary role is to assist your team with servicing the legal and regulatory needs of the client. Nevertheless, you can stand out even as an Associate by going a step further and winning briefs or transactions for your firm. 

Proprietors of law firms are first, businessmen and businesswomen, so they will appreciate your efforts, no matter how little, in directly impacting the bottom line of the organization. This is of course, where winning briefs and transactions for your law office is not already a job requirement

Below are some tips to help you stand out as a young lawyer by making money for your firm.

Be visible
It’s simple really – no one can give work to a firm or person they have never heard of. Get more active; not just in the legal community, but in various industries and sectors of the economy.

If you are a technology lawyer for instance, your absence from events such as TechPlus, Social Media Week, etc. is inexcusable. Develop a presence both online and offline.

Also pay attention to your personal branding and professional image (i.e. how you, or your firm, are perceived by the professional community)and leveragewhat you do best.

Become a thought leader
Every lawyer should write. It comes with the territory, or it should. Cultivate the habit of periodically publishing well-researched and well-written articles in your area(s)of expertiseWhen starting out, you could consider co-authoring with someone more senior.

Use sites like LinkedIn or even your company website with the permission of the appropriate authorities, of course.

In this regard, it is helpful to focus on one or two practice areas or sectors and provide content that is engaging, relevant and useful to your target audience. If you do this consistently, you remain at the back of the minds of the decision-makers in various industries. That way, you or your firm will be one of the first people they contact when they need assistance along those lines.

Follow up with previous clients
It is often said that lawyers are transactional in nature. This means we finish a brief or transaction and move on to the next one, often without taking any time to look back. As a result, lawyers often work for a client on a particular piece of work while another lawyer swoops in and completes the task on another front.

For instance, assume you have just assisted a client with the incorporation of a company. There is no reason that another firm should come in to assist that client in registering trademarks in the name of that company. This is of course, provided that you (or your firm) havethe capacity to provide the service.
So, think beyond what your firm may be doing for a client presently, and anticipate your client’s future needs.

Make your existing clients happy
It follows from the above that when winning more business for your law officeyou should start with the low-hanging fruit; your existing clients

Learn to cross-sell. This means that if you currently offer dispute resolution services in respect of a company’s dispute; indicate your availability to assist with other disputes, or even with their taxation, employee or company secretarial matters.

Pay attention to the clients you already work with, and provide high-quality service. This means treating their work with confidentiality, delivering within agreed timelines, and providing regular updates on the matter. If you do this well, not only will you get more work from these clients, but you will also get referrals. 

Don’t be afraid to give freebies
It is helpful to learn even as an Associate to provide value-added services to your clientSometimes, people want a sample of what they will be getting before they commit. You do not need to dole out your legal services for free. But remember that when clients see you as someone they can call to ask one or two preliminary questions on a matter, if you provide satisfactory responses, you are more likely to get the brief than an external lawyer.

So when a potential client calls to ask some harmless initial questions, don’t be afraid to help. You can tell them enough for them to have confidence in you, but still need to come back to properly engage you.

Also, consider sending potential and existing clients regular updates on their industry and how any new regulation could impact their business. You need to demonstrate that you know your onions and understand your client’s business.

In summary, law is a business, and the people that flourish in the legal profession are not just those well versed in the law, but those who get a good grip on business considerations before it is too late. Whether the plan is to make partner or set up your own firm, you will need to learn how to win business, so start now!




Yimika Adesola is a corporate lawyer and an Associate in the Corporate/Commercial arm of Aluko & Oyebode.

She runs a career center, Legally Engaged (available at www.legallyengaged.com.ng), via which she offers direction to students and young professionals by providing them with the information they need to launch successful careers, and make better career decisions. Follow Yimika on LinkedIn here.

Senator Ashafa urges the Minister of Transportation to deliver on rail

Senator Ashafa urges the Minister of Transportation to deliver on rail





DELIVER ON CRITICAL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE 2019, TO EASE TRANSPORTATION FOR ALL NIGERIANS- ASHAFA TO AMAECHI

Senator Gbenga Ashafa, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Land Transport has urged the Federal Ministry of Transport to ensure delivery of standard gauge rail lines and other vital rail infrastructure to Nigerians before 2019.
Ashafa made this call on Monday, 11th day of December,2017 while Chairing the budget Defence Session organised by the Committee in respect of Ministry of Transportation at the National Assembly. In his words “I call on the Honourable Minister to remain conscious of the fact that the 2018 appropriation cycle is the most important in the life of this administration. It is on its back that we expect most of the projects that have been commenced since 2015 to be delivered to the teeming population of Nigerians who voted the Buhari administration into government. We must therefore hit the ground running to ensure the delivery of as many critical infrastructure needed to ease the transportation of all Nigerians across the country as soon as possible.”
Further to the above, When asked by Senator Ashafa when the Lagos-to Kano Standard gauge railway project would likely be completed and delivered to Nigerians for use, Amaechi responded that initially the plan was for it to be completed by the end of 2018, but the company has stated that due to several technical works to be done it will most likely be by the first quarter of 2019.
The session also had in attendance Distinguished Senators Jeremiah Useni, John Owan Enoh, Olanrewaju Tejuoso and Osinakachukwu Ideozu who are members of the committee, while the Ministry of Transportation was ably represented by the Honourable Minister for Transportation Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi, the Permanent Secretary Alhaji Sabiu Zakari, the Managing Director of the Nigerian Railway Corporation, Engr. Fidet Okhiria amongst other key members of the ministry.
Ashafa also called for synergy between the committee and the Ministry to ensure a speedy passage of the 2018 budget, in line with the sense of urgency demonstrated by the early submission of the 2018 Budget estimates to the National Assembly by His Excellency, President Muhamadu Buhari. He stated that “that this meeting makes it the 2nd time that our Committee would meet with the Honourable Minister and his team in respect of budget defence in 2017.

 This is due to no other reason but the government’s commitment towards ensuring an early passage of the 2018 Appropriation Bill into law. What this translates to clearly is that there is a renewed sense of urgency in governance and we cannot afford to slow down this process in any way. I would therefore like to begin by imploring all parties to avoid any actions that would delay the appropriation process in any way”.

He therefore restated the committee’s determination to ensure that the estimates before them were painstakingly reviewed and also that the committee was prepared to work with the Ministry to arrive at the most realistic estimates in order to present a workable budget. 

The Minister of Transport RT. HON. Rotimi Amaechi on his part appreciated the support of the Senate Committee on Land transport for their support, understanding and cooperation and assured the committee that they shall work collectively to transform the Land Transport Sub-Sector for the benefit of all Nigerians. 

He took the committee through the 2017 budget performance of the Ministry and also though the 2018 budget proposals. He explained that priority has been placed on the completion of the ongoing Itakpe-Ajaokuta-Warri-Aladja railway project which commenced 32 years ago and the counter part funding that will be required as Federal Government contribution for the financing of the Ibadan-Kano project and the Nigerian Coastal line Lagos-Calabar project. 

He also took the committee through new projects that were inserted into the 2018 budget proposal which President Buhari has given approval to the Ministry to source for financiers. These include the new standard guage Rail line from Port-Harcourt to Maiduguri passing through Enugu, Lafis, Makurdi, Gombe with branch lines to Owerri, Onitsha, Awka, Abakaliki, Yola, Jalingo and Damaturu amongst other projects.  

With the conclusion of the budget defence, the Senate Committee on Land Transport is expected to conduct an oversight visit to the Ministry of Transport. 
Paul Usoro SAN’s Goodwill Message to Bwari Branch of the NBA

Paul Usoro SAN’s Goodwill Message to Bwari Branch of the NBA


It is with immense delight that I
felicitate with the executive Committee and the entire members of the Nigerian
Bar Association, Bwari Branch, on the auspicious occasion of the Branch’s 2017
Law Week, which commenced on the 7th of December 2017, and accords with the
long established legal tradition witnessed every year.


Instructively, the theme of this year’s Law week, to wit: “Making impacts amidst
institutional Challenges: Re-working the Bar Vision” depicts the can-do spirit
which lawyers must inculcate and imbibe to enhance the delivery of justice to
all and enthrone the rule of Law.
The road is truly rough and tough but the end, upon consistency and
perseverance, will justify the means. Quitters never win, just as winners never
quit.

Indeed we must as Lawyers and leaders, persistently strive to make positive
impacts despite organizational and institutional impediments, to achieve
meaningful contributions and service to humanity.
I congratulate members of the Branch once again for this giant stride and pray
that this Years’s Law week shall usher in tremendous advancements in all
ramifications to the Legal profession.

Long Live NBA Bwari Branch!

Long Live the Nigerian Bar Association!
Long Live the Federal Republic of Nigeria!
Yours sincerely

Paul Usoro, SAN, FCIArb. 
How to Compensate for Mental Stress at Our Workplaces|  Michael Dugeri

How to Compensate for Mental Stress at Our Workplaces| Michael Dugeri


Work-related mental stress has been
described as the adverse reaction experienced by workers when workplace demands
and responsibilities are greater than the worker can reasonably manage or are
beyond the workers’ capabilities. Therefore, it has been advocated that
employers need to balance both demands and resources in the workplace in order
to manage work-related mental stress.  This is because high levels of
job demand and low levels of job resources could easily result in mental stress
for the workers.

Mental health is an integral component of
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH), which is a primary concern of labour and
employment law. A safe workplace is not only about physical safety – it’s
about the worker’s psychological safety too. This means that employers
have a duty of protecting the safety, health and welfare of their workers. The
enjoyment of these standards at the highest levels is a basic human right that
should be accessible by each and every worker. Regardless of the nature of
their work, workers should be able to carry out their responsibilities in a safe
and secure working environment, free from all forms of hazards.
The law provides for compensation to
workers who have experienced mental stress in the course of their employment.
The Employee’s Compensation Act, 2010 (“ECA”) provides that compensation is
available to an employee who suffers mental stress, where the mental stress is
an acute reaction to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event arising out of or
in the course of the employee’s employment; or if the employee has been
diagnosed by a medical practitioner as suffering from mental stress arising out
of the nature of work or the occurrence of any event in the course of the
employee’s employment. See section 8 ECA.
Section 8 (2) of the ECA provides that
where the mental stress is caused by the decision of the employer to change the
work or the working condition in such a way as to unfairly exceed the work
ability and capacity of the worker (thereby leading to mental stress), such
situation shall be liable to compensation to the degree as may be determined
under any regulation made by the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF).
The NSITF is the statutory body charged with the responsibility of
administering the Employee’s Compensation Scheme (ECS) established under the
ECA.
It is pertinent to note that the ECS is a
social security/welfare scheme that provides comprehensive compensation to
employees who suffer from occupational diseases or sustain injuries arising
from accidents at the workplace or in the course of employment. The basis for
‘compensation’ is the employer’s duty of care. The idea of compensation
suggests that someone has suffered a wrong for which he has to be compensated
monetarily. This implies that another person has a duty to prevent the
occurrence of the wrong suffered. Payment of compensation by the employer to
the worker is rooted in the accepted common law principle that the employer has
a duty of care, a duty to protect the health, welfare and safety of the
workers. Where the worker sustains injuries, gets ill or dies under work-related
circumstances, the employer is liable to pay compensation to the worker or to
his dependents, in the event of death. The ECS is funded by monthly
contributions from employers for the purpose of this compensation, as may be
required from time to time by deserving workers.
The system of compensation for occupational
mental stress established under the ECA is laudable, even though it also poses
certain challenges for affected workers. First, having to prove that the
worker’s mental stress actually relates to his/her work is tough, especially in
an environment like Nigeria that is plagued with many other intervening
factors. Second, it is doubtful if monetary compensation is adequate for
victims of occupational mental stress or if full rehabilitation of the victim
is possible in all cases. It is against the foregoing that it is argued that a
better system of compensation is the type that mirrors contemporary frameworks
for OSH, which are designed to be proactive rather than reactive to the
physical, social and mental aspects of the workers’ health. Just like physical
infirmities, mental health problems in the workplace are a global phenomenon.
In Nigeria, the typical work environment is full of precipitating factors such
as:
i. High quantitative
and qualitative workload,
ii. Inconsiderate
work schedules,
iii. Poor
remuneration, deficient welfare package, delayed/unpaid salaries,
iv. Neglect of
safety measures, etc.
All these translate to an increase in the
risk of mental health problems in the workplace. Unlike the ‘loud’ nature of
physical health problems, mental health problems in workers is a ‘silent’
phenomenon, which goes unnoticed and may be confused with lack of commitment to
the job. Unrecognized mental health problems in the workplace can affect
performance and productivity, hence the need for organizations to be
proactively pre-occupied with promoting and ensuring both the physical and
mental health of its employees. Beyond the issue of high quantitative and
qualitative workload, closer attention should also be paid to physical features
of the workplace like lighting, ventilation, work space, sanitation and noise
levels.
Organisations can manage and prevent stress
by improving conditions at work. While the common treatment for mental health
problems is prescriptive medication, employers have a role in making
adjustments and helping the affected individual to manage the problem at work.
Some of the suggestions that have been advanced by experts in the field of OSH
include the following:
1.     Having senior
management committed to reduce workplace stress;
2.     Consulting with
workers to create and promote a mentally healthy workplace culture;
3.     Use validated risk
assessment processes;
4.     Ensuring the
organisation has appropriate policies and procedures in place and workers are
aware of these;
5.     Managing workplace
psychosocial risk factors and stressors;
6.     Providing regular
and respectful performance feedback;
7.     Having a
‘Harassment Contact Officer’ in place for workers to speak to;
8.     Provide training
around managing workplace and individual stress levels;
Mental health is an intricate but pressing
workplace issue with multiple consequences. Occupational demands can be highly
stressful and many jobs make severe demands in terms of responsibility, time,
and performance. Rather than continuing with a culture of indifference, denial
and evasion, there is need for Nigerian workplaces to recognize mental health
as a realistic and legitimate concern, as well as display total commitment to
the implementation of policies and practices that will ensure a supportive
framework for workers.

Michael Dugeri

Regulatory compliance & commercial law advisor




Source: Linkedin

10 Things Some Sars Officers Don’t Want You To Know

10 Things Some Sars Officers Don’t Want You To Know


1.    
Bail is free
2.    
Upon arrest, you are liable to remain
silent; Section 6 of the ACJA Act 2015; Section 35(2) 1999 Constitution
3.    
When been questioned, you must have your
lawyer present. Section 6(2)(a) Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015)

4.    
No one should be subject to torture or
unlawful treatment. Section 8, Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015);
Section 34, 1999 Constitution.
5.    
Upon arrest, suspect must be charged to
court immediately. Section 32 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act
(2015)
6.    
Police officer making an arrest must state
reason. Section 6, Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015.
7.    
Suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution.
8.    
No one can be arrested in lieu of another
person
9.    
Police cannot unlawfully search your phones
10.           
Anyone unlawfully arrested is entitled to
compensation. Section 35(6) 1999 Constitution.

If your rights have been breached in relation to any of
the laws mentioned above, you can make a formal complaint to the Police
Complaint Commission via @PoliceNG_PCRRU npf.gov.ng/complaint or contact
your lawyer.
10 tips for participating in the World Human Rights Day protest  #EndSars

10 tips for participating in the World Human Rights Day protest #EndSars


1. Know the law – no Nigerian law requires a police
permit before one can participate in a protest.

2. Dress appropriately- wear comfortable shoes &
clothes to cover your skin.

3. Charge your phones – for communication &
recording incidents of police brutality against protesters.

4. Make bold and legible signs on cardboard indicating
your protest message.

5. Tell a friend whose not going of your location and
have them check in on you at intervals.

6. Write an emergency contact number on your person.

7. Don’t allow thugs hijack your protest, it’s the only
excuse given by Nigerian police when breaking up a protest.

8. Don’t act unruly or attack police officers.

9. Share your experience via a hashtag, social media or
blog post.

10. Plan your exit in case violence erupts.

Appeal Court holds Sentaor Akpan as winner Akwa Ibom North-East Senatorial District

Appeal Court holds Sentaor Akpan as winner Akwa Ibom North-East Senatorial District

Yesterday, the 30th of November 2017, marked the date of the long-awaited judgement in the dispute regarding the PDP Primaries for the North-East Senatorial District of Akwa Ibom State. 
After the Judgement of the Federal High Court sitting in Uyo, the Appellant, Senator Bassey Albert Akpan, sought to rectify the several manifest inconsistencies in the judgement by appealing through his Counsel Mr Paul Usoro SAN, to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in giving a detailed and well-considered judgement, dealt with a wide range of issues arising from the Appeal. The first determination of the Court was regarding the Preliminary Objection to the Appeal raised by the 1st Respondent. He had sought a dismissal of the Appeal on the grounds that the Notice of Appeal upon which the Appeal was based was incompetent. In his counter-arguments to the Preliminary Objection, Mr. Paul Usoro, SAN had emphasised to the Court that the competence of a Notice of Appeal is not determined by the Records of Appeal as an Appeal is a constitutional right as long as the said right was exercised within the prescribed time limit. It was further argued by Mr Usoro that the Courts were inclined towards substantial justice as opposed to technical justice and urged the Court to dismiss the Preliminary Objection and determine the Appeal on its Merits. In giving its Judgement on this point, the Court agreed with all the arguments of Mr. Paul Usoro, SAN and noted in addition that the Learned Silk had ensured that the proper steps had been taken to regularize the processes. The Preliminary Objection was therefore dismissed and the Court proceeded to determine the Appeal on its merits.
In delivering its judgement on the substance of the Appeal, the Court extensively analyzed the arguments canvassed by the parties. Mr. Paul Usoro, SAN had earlier submitted that the trail of evidence adduced by the Appellant was neither broken nor controverted at any point in time. He pointed to admissions made by the 1st Respondent regarding the officer appointed for the purpose of conducting the election and reminded the Court that the same officer had affirmed the facts as adduced by the Appellant. He further argued, providing several legal authorities in support, that the 1st Respondent had failed to prove his claims satisfactorily at the Lower Court and submitted that the Lower Court had therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it gave judgement to the 1st Respondent. These arguments formed the basis for the decision of the Court of Appeal and it was unanimously held by the Honourable Justices that the decision of the Lower Court was perverse, misplaced in Law and unsupported by the facts and evidence adduced by the parties.
Following from the determinations and judgement of the Court of Appeal, the victory of Mr. Bassey Albert Akpan at the PDP primaries has been reaffirmed and the decision of the Lower Court sitting in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State has been reversed.