Get Personalised Study ,Visa & Scholarships Advice at the  Study UK Fair

Get Personalised Study ,Visa & Scholarships Advice at the Study UK Fair

Are you
considering an international education?

No better way
to evaluate your options than by attending the Study UK Fair.

You will
receive personalised counselling on the different study options
available to you , advice
from our visa experts as well as mentoring and 
insider perspective from UK Commonwealth
Alumni

So get ready to
meet with UK institution representatives, UK Visas & 
Immigrations service
representatives  and commonwealth alumni, who will 
be ready to answer your questions.

Register at https://ng.edukexhibition.org
to book your place today!


Date: 7 March
2019
Venue: Eko
Hotels & Suites, Victoria Island, Lagos
Time: 10:00am –
04:00pm.

We hope to see
you !

1st Interim Report Of The Nigerian Bar Association Election Workinggroup (2019 Nba-Ewg) On The 2019 Presidential And National Assembly Electionswhich Held On Saturday, 23rd February, 2019

1st Interim Report Of The Nigerian Bar Association Election Workinggroup (2019 Nba-Ewg) On The 2019 Presidential And National Assembly Electionswhich Held On Saturday, 23rd February, 2019

Preamble
The Presidential and National Assembly Elections were conducted by
the Independent National Electoral Commission (“INEC”) on Saturday,
23rdFebruary, 2019 in all the thirty-six States of the Federation as well as
the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The Elections were initially slated for
February 16, 2019 but were postponed at the instance of INEC by one week. The
Gubernatorial and Houses of Assembly elections are now scheduled to hold on
Saturday, 9th March, 2019.

Mandate
On February 12, 2019, the President of the Nigerian Bar
Association, Mr. Paul Usoro, SAN inaugurated the 2019 NBA-EWG with the core
mandate to, amongst others, observe the Presidential, Gubernatorial, National
and State Houses of Assembly Elections, 2019 and ascertain and be able to
comment on the extent of the conformity of the processes and procedures
for the conduct of the elections with the relevant laws, regional and international
standards and best practices.
The work of the 2019 NBA-EWG as stated by the NBA President was to
focus, amongst others, on observing the following:
i. The extent of compliance of all stakeholders with the governing
laws and regulations in the conduct of the elections;
ii. To what extent the elections are free, fair and credible and
that there is no voter intimidation and/or violence; and
iii. That every vote counts and to that extent, there is no
falsification or manipulation of the votes, howsoever, at any stage of the
election process, and that the announced results reflect the choice of the
voters.
Modus operandi
Having been duly accredited by the electoral umpire, INEC, the
2019 NBA-EWG not only mobilized its members but also deployed the membership of
the Association nationwide to observe and or monitor the elections in all the
States of the Federation and the FCT.
To ensure a seamless operation, the 2019 NBA-EWG set up a
Situation Room at the National Secretariat of the Association in Abuja where it
receives real-time reports and live feeds of events from its members who were
deployed on the field for the purpose of its mandate. Additionally, and in
order to achieve promptness, speed and coordination, the 2019 NBA-EWG procured
a toll-free telephone line where members called in with their reports and,
also, activated various social media platforms where it streams live reports
and events as contributed by members.
Nature of Report
This constitutes the 1st Interim Report of the 2019 NBA-EWG. The
Report makes no pretence at completeness but is submitted only as a precis of
the initial observations of its members in respect of or in relation to the
conduct of the national elections of Saturday, 23rd February, 2019. It is the
2019 NBA-EWG’s legitimate expectation that a comprehensive, composite and
all-encompassing report will be published at the completion each of the two
electoral tranches i.e.
(a) the Presidential and National Assembly Elections; and (b) the
Governorships and Houses of Assembly Elections. Meanwhile, as necessary and
required, additional Interim Reports may be issued by the 2019 NBA-EWG prior to
the publication of the final comprehensive report of the Group in respect of
the Presidential and National Assembly Elections.
Dramatis Personae
A total of Ninety-One (91) registered political parties
participated in the elections, although only Seventy-Three (73) of these
parties fielded candidates for the presidential elections in which the
incumbent President and candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC),
Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR and a former Vice President and candidate of the
Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, GCON, are said to be
the leading contenders.
Issues:
In respect of the Presidential and National Assembly Elections
of Saturday, 23rd February, 2019, the 2019 NBA-EWG reports as follows:
INEC and the challenges of
logistics
The NBA-EWG notes that although the elections were originally scheduled
to hold on Saturday, 16th February, 2019, INEC caused same to be postponed by a
week, citing “logistical challenges”. The NBA-EWG notes with regret, however,
that despite the postponement, the elections recorded some noticeable but
avoidable lapses associated with the same ‘logistical challenges’.
For example, members reported that polls did not commence at the
scheduled time of 8am in most polling units nationwide. This drawback was,
however, more manifest in the States of the South-South, South-East, South-West
and North-Central regions of the country.
In a number of polling units across the country, election
materials, especially ballot papers, were either over-supplied (i.e. in excess
of the registered voters in the polling unit) or under-supplied. From reports
available to us at this time, this situation was prevalent in the South-South
and South-East sub-regions, particularly in Edo, Akwa Ibom, Imo and Enugu
States respectively.
The 2019 NBA-EWG notes as well that in isolated cases (Owerri in
Imo State for example), INEC officials conducted the elections using
photocopies of approved ballot papers. In polling units where voters complained
about this unwholesome practice, the INEC officials rebuffed them and proceeded
to conduct the elections in that manner, nevertheless.
We also observed that many electoral officers could not locate the
Polling Units where they were to conduct elections. In one example at Dutse
Alhaji, Abuja FCT, polling officers who could not locate their polling unit
returned to a wrong polling unit with the electoral materials. In another
example in Abuja the polling officers actually commenced the conduct of
elections in a different and wrong polling unit.
Many voters also had difficulties locating their polling units as
there were insufficient details on the PVCs and at INEC website on how to
locate one’s polling unit. This was very prevalent in Abuja.
The splitting of the Polling Units into sub-units based on
alphabetical order without informing the voters or putting in place some order
in executing same, initially caused disenchantment as voters had lined up
randomly or in a single straight line in accordance with their time of arrival
not knowing that such polling units had been subdivided.
INEC hotlines were almost always unreachable and when reached
there was nobody to address callers’ enquiries and in some instances the calls
terminated on their own.
Smart Card Readers
The major complaints of the voters, as aggregated by members,
revolve around the card reader. The 2019 NBA – EWG reports that the performance
of the card readers, although not generally unsatisfactory, raised concerns and
provided sufficient basis for anxiety among the voting populace.
Some of the acknowledged complaints about or concerning the card
reader device include but are not limited to: inability to authenticate
fingerprints or biometrics, inaccurate or false outputs for identified card
holders, non-recognition of certain alphabets associated with some surnames or
forenames. Illustrative locations where these incidents occurred include some
polling units in FCT, Kano and Akwa Ibom States.
The Working Group reports also that in most units and concerning
the malfunctioned card readers, presiding officers commendably resorted to
manual accreditation to enable registered voters to cast their ballots.
However, this was not devoid of the associated suspicion by the voters of
possible abuse of such discretion by the polling officials.
The NBA-EWG reports also that in some polling units in Abuja, smart
card readers recognized voters’ cards but produced unintended outputs,
particularly in cases where, for example, the facial features of the Permanent
Voter’s Card (PVC) holder were inexplicably different from those displayed on
the card reader device. In such cases, the discretion whether the affected
voter proceeds with the voting process or should be disenfranchised rested with
the presiding officer. It was reported that in most of such peculiar cases,
such discretion was exercised against the registered voters.
By and large, the preponderance of opinion from the NBA-EWG, 2019
is that the smart card device although it may not have totally failed the
integrity test, created appreciable anxiety among the voting populace
consequent upon the reported cases of malfunction and/or outright performance
failure of the device.
We also observed a nation-wide absence of technical assistance
needed to resolve issues associated card reader malfunction. There were also issues
of non- availability of back-up card readers in most of the polling units
observed.
Electoral Violence
There were several reports and live feeds of electoral violence
from all over the country. Party thugs and hoodlums had a field day invading
voting centers to harass, molest and intimidate voters and, in some instances,
INEC officials. Strangely, in places where these despicable acts were recorded
or registered, security agents were either complacent or complicit.
Rivers, Lagos and Kogi states were notorious in this regard.
There were also confirmed reports from different parts of Nigeria
where voters were prevented, hindered or inhibited from performing their civic
responsibilities on the suspicion that their votes had the potential to produce
outcomes that were undesirable to or unintended by the illegal “enforcers” and
“gatekeepers”. Thus, voters were chased away and forced to return to their
homes. Akwa Ibom, Niger, Lagos, Imo, Kogi and Benue States rank high as
examples of places where these unconscionable and loathsome acts of voter
intimidation and suppression took place.
In some places, such as Lagos, Kano and Edo States, amongst
others, voters who wanted to vote for certain candidates were threatened with
violence, suffered violence and/or were prevented from voting by the earlier
referenced illegal “enforcers” and “gatekeepers”. Cases of supervised or guided
voting were also reported in parts of Kano State.
Additionally, the NBA-EWG situation room was inundated with
widespread reports confirming the manipulation of election processes by INEC
officials aided by party thugs and security agents. Such reports included
incidents where the Electoral Officers deliberately voided votes cast, refused
to allow some persons to vote, refused to allow voters whose names were on the
voters register to vote by using Incidence Forms where there were card reader
issues, giving out ballot papers with 2015 dates, refusing to stamp or sign or
date ballot papers, refusing to allow some party agents to inspect and confirm
the sensitive materials brought to polling units, etc. 
Secrecy of the voting process
It was observed that all over the nation the INEC polling booths
did not offer sufficient privacy to voters. Party agents and some other persons
had widespread, easy and unrestrained access to voting areas to either
supervise voting by voters or to pry into how they were voting. Lagos, Kano,
Edo, Imo and parts of Rivers States illustratively recorded these incidents of
gross breach of voter privacy. Neither the electoral officers nor the police
officers around the voting areas made any effort to prevent and/or stop this
unwholesome practice.
Voters’ Turn-Out.
The NBA-EWG reports that despite the late arrival of INEC
officials and voting materials, the turn-out of voters and their enthusiasm for
the elections was largely impressive and satisfactory.
Voters in many places helped to organise themselves by writing
their names on sheets of paper so as to ensure orderly and seamless conduct of
the accreditation and voting processes.
In most of the polling units observed, there were significant
turnouts of senior citizens, women and even persons with disabilities.
Security Arrangements
It was observed that police personnel posted to voting centers
visited by the NBA-EWG members generally arrived on time apart from some
isolated instances where the absence of the police personnel were observed.
There were indeed cases where police personnel were completely absent or left
at some point and before the conclusion of the election processes at the
polling units.
In cases where there were infractions of electoral laws or threats
of violence or actual violence, it was observed that the police personnel at
those polling units stayed aloof and did nothing to prevent or stem those
infractions and/or acts of violence. It was also observed that in some voting
centers the number of police personnel posted there was not commensurate with
the large number of registered voters in the centers.
CONCLUSION:
As earlier indicated, this is but the 1st interim report of the
2019 NBA-EWG which may be followed by other interim reports, as deemed
necessary and required by the NBA-EWG. A detailed and final Report of the
Presidential and National Assembly Elections will be published by the NBA in
the fullness of time, specifically, after the release of all the Presidential
and National Assembly Elections results which would be preceded by (a) the
complete collation of the results by INEC; and
(b) the conduct of the elections in places where INEC has now
cancelled and rescheduled polls, notably in Rivers, Lagos and Akwa Ibom States.
SIGNED.
Mazi Afam Osigwe, FCIArb.
(UK)
Chairman
2019 NBA-EWG
23rd February, 2019

THE ONNOGHEN ASSET DECLARATION DISPUTE: A DISPASSIONATE LOOK AT NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ITS TRADUCERS AND THE VERDICT OF HISTORY

THE ONNOGHEN ASSET DECLARATION DISPUTE: A DISPASSIONATE LOOK AT NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ITS TRADUCERS AND THE VERDICT OF HISTORY

There are insinuations in some quarters that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is in support of the embattled CJN, Hon Justice WSN Onnoghen in his trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) on charges related to non-declaration or late declaration of his assets as required by the Code of Conduct for Public Officers contained in the 5th Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN), 1999 (as amended). Those who hold this view are quick to suggest that NBA’s support is a deliberate attempt at derailing the “war against corruption” in Nigeria. 

It is my humble view that neither the NBA leadership nor the NBA as a body is in support of CJN Onnoghen as a person. All I think the NBA and its leadership have been doing is merely to demand and insist on decorum and observance of due process of law, as opposed to arbitrary desecration of the Constitution. NBA’s stand is made more rational when one recalls the famous declaration in a 1998 book titled, Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince: A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People written by Samuel Rutherford whose view I would paraphrase it to read, “arbitrary application of laws has no alliance with God.” Besides, one must not forget that, by the very peculiar nature of their office, the judicial officers are not ordinarily able to speak out for themselves in matters such as this. The Bar serves as the mouth piece of the Bench, in deserving situations, since the two are two sides of the same coin. Let me quickly reiterate that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and its leadership would lose my sympathy the day it chooses to overtly or covertly support, encourage or condone acts of corruption – whether of the public funds or of the laws. I shall now proceed to lay out the legal foundations for this humble opinion of mine in the hope that this would enflame further dialogues on the issue in a manner that could bring about a resolution, now, sooner or later, on whether the role being played by the NBA’s is reasonably justifiable or justified in the circumstances.
(1) In the case of MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR 589, the Nigerian Supreme Court provided the guide on how to determine whether a court has or does not have jurisdiction in any particular case. Hon Justice Vahe Bairamian (FJ), while delivering the lead judgment in that case was of the view that a court is considered competent when, among other factors, “the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.” In this respect, I refer us to the decision in the case of HON. JUSTICE HYELADZIRA AJIYA NGANJIWA v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2017) LPELR-43391(CA) where the Court of Appeal in its judgment, laid the following mandatory rule of procedure, which was cited by Nonso Robert. Attoh, with approval, in his article titled, “Constitutional Issue Raised By The Proposed Trial Of The Chief Justice Of Nigeria By The Code Of Conduct Tribunal,” and published on 14 January 2019 on www.educationalresourceproviders.com:
Whenever a breach of judicial oath occurs, it is a misconduct itself, then the NJC is the appropriate body to investigate such breaches by the judicial officer and if found to be so, such judicial officer shall face disciplinary action and the NJC may recommend the removal of such a judicial officer to the appropriate authority which is either the President in the case of a Federal Judicial Officer or the Governor of the State in the case of a State Judicial Officer and/or take other actions appropriately. When this is done and accepted by the appropriate authority in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, then the relevant law enforcement Agent or Agency is at liberty to make the said judicial officer face the wrath of the law. Any act done by the law enforcement Agent or Agency in violation of the above is tantamount to denying the NJC its powers to discipline Judges in accordance with the provisions of Section 153(1) and Paragraph 21 Part 1 of the Third Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). See Paragraph 21 (a) & (b) of the Third Schedule, Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) respectively. Whenever there is an allegation of official misconduct against a judicial officer and the above stated process is not adhered to, it amounts to jumping the gun and ipso facto a direct violation of the Constitution. Recourse to the National Judicial Council is a condition precedent as clearly set out by the Constitution, and any attempt by any Agency of Government to by-pass the Council will amount to failure to observe condition precedent thereby leading to flagrant violation of the Constitution.
In view of this decision in Hon Justice Ngajiwa’s case as reproduced above, can anyone tell straight from the shoulder that CJN Onnoghen could validly be arraigned and tried by the CCT at a time when the National Judicial Council (NJC) is yet to sit and give a determination over the same case? As noted by Nonse Attoh in the work cited above, the Ngajiwa judgment remains the law for what it decided until it is either set aside or overruled. 
The stance of the CCT in CJN Onnoghen’s case becomes more curious when one recalls the judgment of the same CCT in FRN V. SYLVESTER NGWUTA, another Justice of the Supreme Court. The CCT had in that judgment, delivered on 15 May 2018, discharged Hon Justice Ngwuta over false assets declaration charges brought against him by the Federal Government. Hon Justice William A. Atedzeb (a member of the CCT who delivered the judgment of the CCT) had held that as a serving judicial officer, Hon Justice Ngwuta was under the management, control and discipline of the National Judicial Council (NJC) and also that the NJC is a body whose independence of external control or interference is constitutionally provided for in section 158 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The judge then accepted and upheld the decision in HYELADZIRA NGAJIWA V. FRN (supra) as the guiding precedent, and quashed the charges against Hon Justice Ngwuta, noting that “any allegation of official misconduct against a judicial officer would first have to be referred to the NJC to the exclusion of any other body, court or tribunal.” (See https://guardian.ng/news/cct-discharges-ngwuta-over-false-assets-declaration/ accessed on 17 February 2019). Why then the summersault in Onnoghen’s case? Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander?
(2) The second issue is to look at the processes leading to CJN Onnoghen’s suspension from office and to determine whether they are not a breach of due process of law. Section 292 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN), 1999 (as amended) provides thus:
A judicial officer shall not be removed from his office or appointment before his age of retirement except … by the President of the FRN acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate, praying that he be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or of body) or for misconduct or contravention of the Code of Conduct; and in any other case, by the President … acting on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council that the judicial officer be so removed for his inability to discharge the functions of his office or appointment (whether arising from infirmity of mind or of body) or for misconduct or contravention of the Code of Conduct.
I respectfully submit the following as necessary implications of the provisions of section 292(1) CFRN, 1999 (as amended):
(a) Under no circumstance may a judicial officer be removed without the recommendation of the NJC (National Judicial Council) or a prior resolution of the Senate of the FRN. Accordingly, the suspension of the CJN without first complying with this provision is a violation of the constitution.
(b) I agree that under paragraph 18 of Part I of the 5th Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN), 1999 (as amended), one of the punishments the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) may impose on its convict is “vacation of office,” I however respectfully submit as follows:
i) The CCT may only impose punishment after full trial and conviction:
The CCT is not entitled to impose any such punishment unless and until trial is completed and upon the defendant being found guilty before it. Consequently, the ex parte order purportedly given by the CCT Chairman on 23 January 2019 was an illegal order, having NO legal justification whatsoever, anywhere in Nigeria’s statute books or case law. I have given other legal reasons why the said order is null.  (see https://thenigerialawyer.com/was-onnoghen-properly-suspended-is-nbas-position-in-support-of-or-against-rule-of-law-sylvester-udemezues-response-to-abu-orisankoko-oris/)
ii) The CCT does not have any powers under the Constitution to unilaterally suspend or remove a judicial officer from office: 
In a statement published on February 01, 2019 on www.legalnaija.com, celebrated constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Professor Ben Nwabueze, had submitted that “It is clear from paragraph 18 that: (a) only the CCT itself can order vacation of or suspension from office; the President is not empowered to do so, and cannot be ordered or directed by the CCT to do so; (b)  more importantly, the CCT cannot make an order vacating an office or suspending a person from office until the trial before it is completed and the accused person is found “guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of this Code”; the trial in this case is only just commencing.” The learned professor of constitutional law had then gone ahead to conclude that this applies to a judicial officer in Nigeria, thus ascribing to the CCT a unilateral power to remove a serving judicial officer, albeit upon conviction of such judicial officer. With the greatest respect to the revered learned Professor-Silk, I strongly disagree with any suggestion that the CCT can unilaterally remove or suspend a serving judicial officer without the participation of (A) the President/Governor and (B) the NJC/Senate/House of Assembly, as the case may. I will explain.
Paragraph 18 (2) (a) of Part I of the 5th Schedule of the CFRN, 1999 is a GENERAL provision relating to all public officers and as such does not and cannot override the provisions of section 292 (1) of the same CFRN, 1999 which is a SPECIFIC provision relating exclusively to (only) judicial officers. Section 292(1) clearly states that “a judicial officer SHALL NOT be removed from office or appointment before his age of retirement except in the following circumstances.” There are only two such circumstances in section 292 — the first is on the request made vide a resolution supported by two-third majority vote of the Senate of the Federal Republic or the House of Assembly of the affected State, as the case may be; the second is on the recommendation of the NJC. And in each instance, removal may only be made by the President or the Governor (as the case may be). 
I accordingly respectfully submit that although the CCT may, upon convicting a public officer, unilaterally give an order that the “public officer” should immediately vacate his or her office, the CCT does not have similar powers with respect to a “judicial officer.” The guiding principle is the Latin legal maxim and canon of statutory interpretation, “generalia specialibus non derogant.” The maxim states that “general provisions in a statute must yield to special or specific provisions in the same statute.” See DORE V. VERDOM [1997] 2 SCR 862. Thus, when a matter falls under any specific provision, then it must be governed by that provision and not by any later general provision in the same statute. General provisions in a law must admit or submit to specific provisions in the same law, on the same subject. This is why section 292 (1) of the CFRN (a special provision made for judicial officers) must necessarily prevail over para 18 (2) (a) of Part I of the 5th Schedule of the CFRN (which is a general provision made for all public officers). 
The reason offered by the courts in support of this principle of interpretation is that the legislature, having had its attention directed to a special subject, and having observed all the circumstances of the case and provided for them, does not intend by a later general enactment or provision to derogate from its own act when it makes no special mention of its intention so to do. See LALONDE V. SUN LIFE [1992] 3 SCR 261; IBORI V OGBORU (2004) 15, NWLR (PT 895) 154; In AKINDOLIRE V. AKINDOLIRE (1977) 1 FCAR, 148, the Court explained thus:
On the maxim of generalia specialibus non derogant,’ the position of an earlier Special Act will not be affected by that of a later general Act although inconsistent with the earlier particular Act and although they deal with the same subject matter.
The above suggestion of mine is strengthened by the provisions of section 23 (3) of the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act, 1991, Cap C15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the (CCB&T Act) which provides that “the punishments mentioned in subsection (2) of this section shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the breach of conduct is also a criminal offence under the Criminal Code or any other enactment or law.” 
I therefore humbly suggest that the proper approach where a judicial officer in found guilty by the CCT of breach of the Code of Conduct is to make an order recommending vacation of office of the affected judicial officer, which order could or would then be a ground for the action of the NJC or the Senate/House of Assembly of a State, as provided for in section 292 (1), as the case may be. It appears that, on the clear provisions of section 292 (1) CFRN, 1999, one ground for which the NJC or the Senate/House of Assembly of a State may recommend the removal [or suspension] of a judicial officer is “contravention of the Code of Conduct.” Accordingly, issues relating to Code of Conduct are well within matter that the NJC has powers to look into in respect of a judicial officer. Any removal or suspension of the CJN pursuant only to a purported court order is improper in law as such amounts to a disregard of the condition precedent put in place in section 292(1) CFRN which makes participation of the Senate/NJC a sine-qua-non. 
(3) The third issue to consider is the conduct/attitude of the CCT Chairman on the last date of adjournment of the Tribunal (CCT) in the Onnoghen case. It would be recalled that the CCT Chairman had all along insisted (against existing legislation and case law supporting the contrary) that CJN Onnoghen’s arraignment must precede the hearing of pending interlocutory applications questioning CCT’s jurisdiction to hear the case. EFCC V. PHILIP ODIGIE (2013) 17 NWLR (pt. 1384) 607 is among the cases cited by the Defence in the Onnoghen case, to show that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of any court proceedings and that once raised it is in the interest of justice to first resolve it because any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction is s nullity. The CCT Chairman had however rejected all those legal authorities and this had culminated in the issuance of a Bench Warrant by the CCT Chairman against CJN Onnoghen, who had then decided to end the drama by personally coming to court on 15 February 2019. It was however most stupefying and flummoxing to all reasonable men that when, on 15/02/2019, CJN Onnoghen entered the dock (on the orders of the CCT Chairman) and the arraignment commenced, the following scenario was reported to have happened:
As the Charge was being read to the Defendant, the CCT Chairman suddenly stopped the Clerk from continuing with reading of the charge. This was after the Clerk had read only count one. The Chairman then asked the Defence team whether it (the Defence) would prefer that pending interlocutory applications be taken first. The Defence team answered that since the Defendant was already present in the tribunal, the Defendant’s plea should be taken first.
With due respect, is it not alarming that the CCT Chairman would suddenly beat a retreat in a such a manner by deciding to do the right thing (that is, to hear the applications questioning his jurisdiction), after he had compelled the attendance of the defendant who was now in the dock and set for his own arraignment.  In BAFARAWA V STATE (2014) LPELR-22322 (CA), it was held by the Court of Appeal (Per Awotoye, JCA) as follows:
… determination of jurisdictional issues come before trial and since the presence of the accused is only required when the High Court is ready to commence trial then when jurisdictional issues are yet to be determined, accused’s presence in court is not mandatory. 
Section 266 (b) Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015 provides that the presence of the accused person is mandatory throughout his trial “unless at the hearing of an interlocutory application.” See also EZEZE v. STATE (2004) LPELR-CA/L/370/2003; (2004)14 NWLR (Pt.894)491; and B.B APUGO v. F R N (2017) LPELR-41643(CA). It is trite that issues relating to a court’s jurisdiction are fundamental and lack of jurisdiction is fatal as emphasized in OTUKPO v. JOHN (2000) 8 NWLR (669) 507; BRONIK MOTORS v. WEMA BANK (1983)6 S.C. 158; and OMOKHAFE v. MILITARYT ADMINISTRATOR (2005) 2 MJSC 173. These and more are what the NBA and its Leadership are worried about, and which inform its principled stance in favour of due process, no matter what the outcome would be. Honestly, to me, it really does not matter if CJN Onoghen is in jail or is removed from office, provided due process of law is strictly complied with in either case.
(4) The fourth point to consider is Nemo Judex In Causa Sua. In METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO. (F.G.C.) LTD. v. LENNON (1969) 1 Q.B. 577, 598, Lord Denning, M.R., after reviewing the facts in the case before him, held that “a man may be disqualified from sitting in a judicial capacity on one of two grounds. First, a “direct pecuniary interest” in the subject matter. Second, ‘bias’ in favour of one side or against the other.” It was the same Lord Denning, MR who, in R. v. AMBER VALLEY DC, EX PARTE JACKSON [1985] 1 WLR 298, [1984] 3 All ER 50, gave the following insight into the determining factor regarding the likelihood of bias: 
The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless if right-minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. and if he does sit, his decision cannot stand”. It is irrelevant whether he was in fact biased, because “justice is rooted in [public] confidence.
This rule has been applied in several Nigerian and foreign cases to strike down decisions reached in spite of or in disregard of such reasonable likelihood of bias. See R. v. BOW STREET MAGISTRATE EX PARTE PINOCHET (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, [1999] 1 All ER 577; R. v. Secretary of State ex parte Kirkstall [1996] 3 All ER 304; and ZAMAN v. STATE (2015) LPELR-24595(CA). In OLIVE. v. ENENWALI (1976) 1 NMLR 49 at 50, the Supreme Court of Nigeria (quoting the dictum of Brett, Ag. C.J.N, in the case of Obadara & Ors. v. The President, Ibadan West District Grade “B” Court (1964) 1 All NLR 336) held as follows: 
The principle that a judge must be impartial is accepted in the jurisprudence of any civilized country and there are no grounds for holding that in this respect the law of Nigeria differs from the law of England or for hesitating to follow the English decisions.
It is therefore sad that the CCT Chairman had insisted that CJN Onnoghen must appear before the CCT in spite of the pending application praying that he (CCT Chairman) should recuse (himself) from the case on grounds of breach of nemo judex in causa sua. So, one should not be frightened nor discombobulated that NBA and its Leadership are seriously worried and vigorously complaining and protesting. The protest or complaint is not about the person of Onnoghen himself. NBA knows that CJN Onnoghen is not above the law. NBA’s position, I believe, is that if you must punish CJN Onnoghen or indeed anyone for violation of any extant law, the procedure and processes for meting out such punishment must be in strict compliance with due process of law. NBA’s apprehensions are therefore over the aforesaid, which NBA feels constitute a grave threat to due preservation of the rule of law, separation of powers, constitutionalism, and the independence of the judiciary. Further, as can be gleaned from NBA’s published stand, rule of law and an independent judiciary (free from external influence or unnecessary harassments) are necessary to checkmate abuse of political powers and stop Nigeria from degenerating into a tyrannical State headed by totalitarian leaders evocative of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (the Monster-like leaders), whose personal whims and caprices hold sway as opposed to separation of governmental powers, rule of law and preservation of individual liberty of citizens. 
(5) The fifth issue for consideration is that the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) itself is in gross breach of due process of law when it proceeded to file the current charges against CJN Onnoghen notwithstanding the latter’s written admission in response to the allegations made against him as they relate to late-declaration and non-declaration of some aspects of his assets. A close look at section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act (CCB&T Act), Cap C15 relating to functions of the CCB would help us appreciate this position.  
The functions of the Bureau shall be to receive assets declarations by public officers in accordance with the provisions of this Act; examine the assets declarations and ensure that they comply with the requirements of this Act and of any law for the time being in force; take and retain custody of such assets declarations; and receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers it necessary to do so, refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by section 20 of this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 to 25 of this Act: 
Provided that where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, no reference to the [Code of Conduct] Tribunal shall be necessary. 
The singular question arising from the proviso to section 3 of the CCB&T Act is as to why the CCB, after having received CJN Onnoghen’s written admission in respect of his asset declaration, still proceeded to file charges against the CJN at the CCT. Are there no other processes and procedures put in place for dealing with a situation in which the affected public officer tenders a written admission, as his Lordship, Hon Justice Onnoghen, had done in this instance, since the CCB&T Act leaves no one in doubt in its command that no reference to the [Code of Conduct] Tribunal shall be necessary where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance (proviso to section 3)? With the greatest respect, it leaves much to be desired and gives some justification to the feeling in some quarters that there might be more to all this drama than meets the ordinary eye. One could then understand why the NBA feels bothered.
All in all, the foregoing, and nothing more pretentious, I respectfully believe, is the position of the NBA and its leadership on what they see as a brazen suppression of law and due process. And this, I submit further, is the position each and every certified, responsible and reasonable Nigerian Lawyer ought to take and support. If the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) fails, refuses or neglects to stand up in defence of rule of law and the course of justice, I wonder which other institution in Nigeria we would expect to so do. By the way, it would amount to a gross abdication of its core mandate and primary responsibly for the NBA to be looking elsewhere while Nigeria’s Constitution is being trampled upon and due process of law ditched with impunity. Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners in Nigeria (RPC), 2007, commands all Lawyers in Nigeria to at all times “uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the course of justice.” Or, did we expect the NBA to act when or after things have gone too bad? For no other purposes, other than those of amplifying why NBA’s position or stand is justified and reasonably understandable and defensible, and regarding the role of lawyers in safeguarding respect by all (leaders and the led) for rule of law, I beg to be permitted to humbly draw our attention to John W. Whitehead’s wise, bold admonition in his great book titled, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, published on June 25th 2013. Says he:
The time to act is now, before it’s too late. Indeed, there is power in numbers, but if those numbers will not unite and rise up against their oppressors, there can be no resistance. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state. You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship. You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.
What is more? Leaders and followers in a country would not be able to defend their nation if they are not held accountable to the country’s laws. Ours is governance of limited power under the Constitution. We must learn to work out our problems on the basis of rule of law and respect for the constitution. W. K. Arnold appears to have captured this point more objectively in his book, The Reign in Spain: Fall & Rise of the Spanish Monarchy, published on 23 July 2016. Hear him out:
Civilized existence is one which respects the law, both wise and good laws as well as bad laws, whose constitutional basis is the will of the people. When one does not like a particular law, the remedy resides in modifying it or revoking it by the procedures established for that very purpose. That methodology is the sole means of guaranteeing that popular will cannot be seized and held captive by… with… extreme interpretations.
I rest my case here. May God help Nigeria, my country! Amen!
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue 
(UDEMS)
Become A Legal Expert in Fintech; Take The Career Training For Lawyers

Become A Legal Expert in Fintech; Take The Career Training For Lawyers

Fintech brings together an integrated multipractice to support clients with transactions, disputes and regulatory matters that involve the use of new technologies to deliver financial services in new ways. 

Register for the Corporate Finance Training For Lawyers to get an in-depth understanding of the business, technology and regulation of the financial services industry to help clients build and protect digital platforms, implement digital and data-driven strategies and comply with laws. 

Other Modules include:

Banking And Financial Law Capital Market Regulatory & AdvisoryCorporate Structuring And ComplianceProject FinanceAccounting & Finance

Training Information –

Date – 28th and 29th of March, 2019

Venue – LCCI Conference & Exhibition Centre, Nurudeen Olowopopo

      Drive, Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos

Time :- 9am – 5pm Daily

Registration Details

Fee per delegate                             
N50,000             
                             
Early Bird (Ends February, 28, 2019)    N35,000

For contact, registration and sponsorship details, Please contact Lawlexis on09095635314; 08055424566.

Termination Of Football Contracts: What Is “Just Cause”? (2) |

Termination Of Football Contracts: What Is “Just Cause”? (2) |

INTRODUCTION

As a sequel to the first part of this article which examined “just cause” for unilateral termination as regards clubs, this second part of the article aims to discuss “just cause” for unilateral termination of contracts by footballers. It should be noted that what would amount to just cause for football clubs are different from that of players.

It is thus important to examine circumstances that may, or may not amount to just cause for termination by players.

Outstanding Salaries.

In line with the jurisprudence of both the DRC and CAS, a club’s persistent failure to pay the salary of a contracted player for a certain period can be considered an unjustified breach of an employment contract by a club. In 2018 for instance, former Cameroonian International player, Alex Song, left his former club, Rubin Kazan, after FIFA intervened and his contract terminated due to the club’s inability to pay its players’ wages. It was stated that the player was being owed 7.9 million pounds by Rubin Kazan.
However, it is worthy to note that before a player can validly terminate his contract unilaterally, a number of things must be proven.
First, the club’s inability to fulfil its financial obligation towards the player must be established. This means that the player must prove that his wages have not been paid by the club for a period of time, which is a breach of the club’s obligation towards him. In a DRC Decision, the Chamber held that the club had neglected its financial obligation towards the player, after it was established that the club had not paid the player for over four months and two of the four instalments pertaining to the signing on fee were still unpaid (See DRC 10 June 2004, No. 64133). It must be noted that the period of time which would be regarded as ‘just cause’ matters. For instance, being owed a month’s salary does not constitute ‘just cause’. This was the reasoning of the DRC, where the Chamber decided that the non-payment of one month’s salary was not ‘just cause’ for a player to unilaterally terminate his contract. (See DRC Decision of 23rd March 2006, No. 36460.).  Also, the player must be able to specify the exact amount that is being owed by the club. The DRC in a case, decided that a player’s inability to be precise as to the exact amount, does not speak in favour of the player’s good faith (See DRC Decision of 23th February 2007, No. 27698).
It would also be considered whether or not the player accepted any postponement as regards outstanding payments. The DRC held that a player could not claim ‘just cause’, as it didn’t exist, due to the player accepting the postponement of payments, which was interpreted as consenting to delayed payments (See DRC Decision of 8th June 2007, No. 67770).
Furthermore, the player must also be able to establish that he has warned the club before terminating the contract; usually referred to as “notice of default”. This was the position of the DRC where it stated that even without being stipulated in an employment contract, this was a procedure regularly confirmed and applied by the DRC and the CAS (See DRC 10 August 2007, no. 87745).
It is also important for the player to be able to prove that he offered his services during the period of the contract.
Conclusively, two main conditions which a player must always establish according to the DRC are: that the late payment of the player’s salary is not insubstantial; and that prior to the contract termination, the player had issued the club a warning, drawing the club’s attention to its violation of its contractual obligation (See DRC 24 November 2011, No. 1111796).

Exclusion and Deregistration.

It is a general principle that having a subsisting employment contract with a club does not guarantee that a player must be fielded or train with the first team; as long as his/her salaries are being paid and the club fulfils its other obligations towards the player.  This was the decision of the DRC where the Chamber decided that as long as the player is regularly paid his salary and the club respects all other contractual obligations, a player must accept that he might not be lined up, and that not having the player fielded does not constitute a breach of the contract. It was also stated that the decision to field the player was left to the discretion of the club, which the DRC respects. (See DRC Decision of 9th May 2014, No. 05143281). In such a circumstance, the player would not have just cause for the unilateral termination of the contract.
However, if it is contained in the player’s contract that the player may only train with the first team and/or that the player would always remain in the first team regardless of his performances, a non-fulfilment of that clause by the club would amount to a breach. In that circumstance, the player would have a just cause to unilaterally terminate his/her contract. (See the DRC Decision of 8th June 2007, No. 67229).
In the DRC Decision of 13th December 2013, No. 12131045, a player was excluded from training with neither the first team nor the second team. The DRC considered it important to point out that among a player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract, is not only his right to a timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official matches. The DRC emphasized that the non-registration of a player effectively bars, in an absolute manner, the potential access of a football player to competition and, as such, violates one of his fundamental rights as a football player. It would also constitute just cause where the player is barred from the club’s activities.
Also, in the determination of just cause for a player, the DRC considers the period of time which the player was excluded by the club. The longer it is, the likelier the Chamber is to hold that there is just cause.

Sporting Just Cause

Pursuant to Article 15 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) 2018, a player may also unilaterally terminate his contract where, despite being an established professional, he appeared in fewer than 10% of all the official matches which his club played during a football season. The player may terminate the contract on this basis in the 15 days following the last official match of the season of the club. In such a case, sporting sanction will not be imposed on the player, though compensation may be payable to his/her club. Although the determination of an “established professional” is judged on a case-by-case basis, it has been described in the FIFA Commentary as a player who has terminated and completed his training period, and whose level of footballing skill is at least equal to or even superior to those of his teammates who appear regularly.

CONCLUSION

Having discussed above, circumstances of just cause for players based on established jurisprudence of the DRC & CAS, a player must be certain that a breach of the club is such that amounts to just cause for unilateral termination. However, it must be noted that just cause for players is not limited to those discussed above. A recent example is an incident which occurred in May 2018. The president of Sporting Lisbon (Bruno De Carvalho) heavily criticised the team’s performance against Athletico Madrid. This resulted to about 50 of the toughest ultras of the club forcing their way into the team’s training ground, who assaulted both players and staff members. The assault left the club’s top scorer for the last few seasons – Bas Dost – with a nasty head injury. Consequently, a number of the club’s key players – Rui Patricio (the club’s captain), Bruno Fernandes, William Carvalho and Gelson Martins decided to terminate their contracts and joined respective clubs of their choice.
Thus, other situations which are of an extreme nature which would not be reasonably expected of the player to put up with in the employment relationship, may nevertheless still amount to just cause for unilateral termination even though such have not been decided upon before by the DRC or CAS.
Finally, it should also be noted that parties may also define what would constitute ‘just cause’ in an employment contract. In a DRC Decision of 15th March 2013, No. 03132433, both the club and player had agreed to a clause in the contract wherein the player could terminate the contract if the club defaults in paying his salaries for three months. The player however terminated the contract after only two months of arrears, and the DRC held that there was no just cause because the parties had freely consented to three months defaults as what would constitute just cause.
Written by – Ayomide Eribake.
Source: Sportlicitors 
Termination Of Football Contracts: What Is ‘Just Cause’? (1) | Sportlicitors

Termination Of Football Contracts: What Is ‘Just Cause’? (1) | Sportlicitors

Introduction

The principle of FIFA as contained in Article 13 of the RSTP is that, generally, a football contract cannot be unilaterally terminated by any of the parties. Thus, It can only become terminated when (i) the contract expires, or (ii) when both parties mutually agree to.

Apart from the general principle above, the only exception where a party may unilaterally terminate a contract without consequences is where there is a JUST CAUSE.

What is ‘Just Cause’?

The term ‘Just cause’ refers to the exceptions or circumstances recognised under FIFA Regulations and previous Decisions, that may allow a club or player terminate the employment contract between them, without any punishment or consequence. Any unilateral termination outside of  “just cause” would attract monetary and/or sporting punishments against the defaulting party.
For example, in the DRC Decision of 2nd November 2007 No 31113, it was confirmed that a clause which permitted the club to unilaterally terminate the contract at any point in time and having to pay a compensation, is not valid. According to the DRC, such would create a disproportionate repartition of the rights of the parties to an employment agreement, to the strong detriment of the player. (See also DRC 22nd July 2004, No. 74653.)
In football, ‘just cause’ must involve a cogent reason for the termination of the contract by either party. Article 14 of the RSTP states that either party can choose to terminate a contract without any consequences where there is just cause. It is important to note that “just cause” exists for clubs, as well as Players. The first part of this article however shall be based on termination of contracts based on “just cause” by clubs.

‘Just Cause ’ by Clubs

Clubs may be allowed to unilaterally terminate the contract of their players, only where ‘just cause’ exists. The common circumstances which the issue of ‘just clause’ by clubs have arisen, will be discussed below.
a. Poor performances
In Nigeria, it is common practice that clubs unilaterally terminate players’ contracts based on poor performance; and wrongly use the word “released” in their official statements. However, based on the longstanding jurisprudence of FIFA, poor performances cannot be a just cause for the termination of a player’s contract. For example, on November 26 2004, the Dispute Resolution Chamber of FIFA decided that the clause in an employment contract which stated that the club may terminate the employment contract when the player’s performance no longer meets the club’s requirement, cannot be defined as just cause and is therefore not valid (DRC Decision 26th November 2004, No. 114534.). In that case, the parties signed an employment contract valid from 1st November 2003 until 31st October 2005. In line with Article 2.8 of the contract, the club was entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract upon a 15-day written notification of contract termination for reasons of a disciplinary nature or linked to a decline in the player’s performance which fails to meet the club’s requirements. On 1 April 2004, the player was notified in writing of the premature termination by the club of his employment contract. According to the relevant document exhibited before the DRC , the player’s contract was terminated due to a decline in the player’s performance and his inability to meet the club’s performance requirements. The DRC decided in that case that no just cause existed.

Also, in the DRC Decision of 28th July 2005 No 75975, the DRC also decided that a player’s lack of performance is no just cause for a club to unilaterally terminate an employment contract.
In summary, clubs are not allowed to terminate the contracts of their players based on poor performances. As a footballer, whether you truly have a dip in form during the season and your club eventually gets relegated, or your club makes up an accusation of “poor performance” against you; the club cannot unilaterally terminate your contract as there would be no just cause.
As a club owner or Administrator, it is advisable that the club considers finding an amicable way to agree with the player for a mutual termination of his/her contract where there is poor performance. Alternatively, the Club may offer the player to other football clubs who may be interested in his/her services.
b. Injuries
It is also important to note that a player’s contract cannot be terminated based on the circumstance that the player was injured; most especially where such injury was sustained in the course of offering his/her services to the club. In fact, it does not matter if the injury period is lengthy.

It is widely known and accepted that injures are part of the game of football. Thus, it is the duty of the club to take care of a player who gets injured while the player is under contract with the club. It would be a breach of employment if the player’s contract is terminated based on injuries. As stated by the DRC in the decision of 13th May 2005 No 55230, the DRC decided that the club’s termination of the employment contract of the player because the player was injured, does not amount to a just cause. The DRC noted that the player’s knee injury was in fact suffered in the course of the player’s service to the club, and so the club was to responsible for covering the cost of treatment as well as the costs incurred during the rehabilitation process.
c. Absence
According to the DRC, absence of a player can constitute ‘just cause’ for the termination of his contract by the club. However, the absence must be lengthy for it to be enough to constitute ‘just cause’.

Also, it would be important to establish whether or not official matches were scheduled during the player’s period of absence. In a DRC decision of 10th June 2004, the DRC noted that during the one month when the player stayed away from his employer club, no official matches were scheduled in the national league of his national football federation. Therefore, the absence of the player did not pose a serious problem to the club. In such a circumstance, rather than a termination, what a club should do is to fine or suspend the player. It is in circumstances where such an absence is lengthy or repeated so often that the club cannot be reasonably expected to put up with such behaviour, that the club can then go ahead to unilaterally terminate the contract (after having previously served a notice of absence on the player).
A recent example is the sacking by Sunderland Football Club, two of its players (Papy Djilobodji and Didier Ndong) during the course of 2018. Papy Djilobodi had indicated an interest in leaving the club, and so had an agreement with the club that he be allowed to spend the month of July on a voluntary unpaid leave. After the period elapsed and the player’s proposed transfer had broken down, the player initially refused to return to the club. It took notices of absence written by Sunderland to the player before the player eventually resumed. At that point, the player failed his fitness test and the club terminated his contract for the prolonged absence.

Conclusion

FIFA’s Regulations look to ensure that clubs and players honour the contract between them,  by prohibiting premature termination of such contracts. It is only where there exists a “just cause” that such contracts can be unilaterally terminated before their expiration.
“Just cause” for clubs as discussed above are the most common where disputes have arisen. Thus, the list above is by no means limited to those.  It should be borne in mind that other circumstances where any of the contractual parties cannot be reasonably expected to continue with the employment relationship, would likely be adjudged as “just cause” by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber.
Written by: ERIBAKE AYOMIDE O.
Source: Sportlicitors 
A Short History of the Cruel and Terrible Second Regime of Muhammadu Buhari | by Ayo Sogunro

A Short History of the Cruel and Terrible Second Regime of Muhammadu Buhari | by Ayo Sogunro

The beginning of an autocracy
When Muhammadu Buhari won the 2015 presidential elections, the country was deeply divided between the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). As I remarked then, the results of the elections showed that Buhari was not the will of all Nigerians. Give or take a couple of million votes and PDP could have won. In his admirable inaugural speech, Buhari seemed to be aware of this division, making his now famous assertion: “I belong to everybody and I belong to nobody”. He also reached out to the country’s south-south promising to “invest heavily” in amnesty projects and extending his “hand of fellowship” to them.

But like mobile data on an open hotspot, this availability did not last long. In July 2015, when he was questioned on the Niger Delta amnesty and inclusive development, he answered: “I hope you have a copy of the election results. The constituents, for example, who gave me 97% cannot in all honesty be treated on some issues with constituencies that gave me 5%.”Across Nigeria, politically innocent hearts were broken.
But this was just the beginning of walking back promises and shifting goal posts. The APC media machinery, which had hitherto blitzed Nigerians with promises of paradise commenced a process of hurried denials. One of the first casualties of these repudiation of campaign promises was the infamous “100 Days Covenant”. Once there was nothing to measure, Buhari was able to complete his first hundred days with no targets, no goals, and no problems.
For those who had problems with “the new sheriff in town”, Buhari’s media team had a new label: “wailing wailers”. By September 2015, Femi Adesina was all over the news denouncing all critics of the government. In December 2015, Ibn Na’Allah of the APC would sponsor a bill to legislate a jail term for any person who used social media (including Whatsapp and texts) to make “an abusive statement” against government officials. Fortunately, pressure from civil society killed that attempt. Yet, these were early warning signs of coming intolerance towards Buhari’s critics.
Those who  enabled Buhari’s madness
Less critical Nigerians simply entered a phase of Buhari praise and worship. Politicians and other groups beat a path to Aso Rock to pledge loyalty and assure Buhari of their support in his new fight against corruption. The Nigerian Labour Congress, under Ayuba Waba, strayed from pressure group into partisan fan club and went to pay homage to Buhari, even demanding a death sentence for those convicted for corruption.

In this way, Nigerians gave Buhari a latitude arguably few past leaders have received. When Buhari failed to appoint a cabinet for months, Nigerians defended him. When he appointed alleged corrupt people into his cabinet, Nigerians excused this. When he failed to come up with an economic blueprint for months and then drove the economy into a recession through arbitrary fiscal and monetary policies, Nigerians justified it as a consequence of anti-corruption. “Corruption is fighting back”. When Buhari disappeared for months on medical tourism without any communication, Nigerians supported this. And when the unjustifiable surfaced, like the 2016 budget (so-called Budget of Hope) which was peppered with waste and inconsistencies, everyone was blamed except Buhari.
Nigerians slid into a habit of blaming “16 years of PDP” and Jonathan’s government, blaming Buhari’s ministers, blaming his media team, his advisers, anyone but Buhari. Buhari himself did not volunteer to take responsibility for anything. It was as if Nigeria removed PDP just so that it could excuse APC from working. Brave social critics under Jonathan would timidly criticise Buhari by first affirming their support for his regime and denying any connection with PDP. If Buhari ever believed himself to be a tin god, Nigerians affirmed this between 2016 and 2017.
A regime of sorrow, tears, and blood
And what of the grand fight against corruption? As early as 2016 it was clear, to those who wanted to see, that the government was keener on blackmailing critical or dangerous opposition than on investigating, prosecuting, and trying corrupt public officials across board. The rule of law was not observed. The capacity of federal policing, investigating and prosecuting systems was not improved. The judiciary was not strengthened. Buhari never took unprompted action against corrupt party and cabinet officials. In fact, the Buhari administration embraced former PDP stalwarts, forgiving their sins once they became APC team players. The fight against corruption was dead on arrival.

What of the fight against insecurity? For those who could see, it was clear that the president was keener on maintaining state security in the Niger Delta where oil assets were located, than on safeguarding human security across the country. The government went after the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB), the Niger Delta Avengers, and other similar groups with a passion matched only by the administration’s lukewarm attitude to other security challenges. Boko Haram continues to attack targets at will while the presidency censors information and ambiguously insists that the group has been “technically defeated” yet, as late as 2018, still requests funds to combat the terrorists. Similarly, an escalating decades-long conflict between pastoral herders and farmers over grazing routes is still troubling towns and villages in the country’s middle-belt. A recent attack by herders in November 2018 left up to 1,801 persons killed and 50,212 others displaced in Plateau state.
What of the grand plans for the economy? In May 2016, Buhari’s government raised the pump price of fuel to 145 naira per litre, outdoing the 141 naira suggested by the Jonathan era that sparked the Occupy Nigeria protests. This time, there was just a whimper of protest from a cowed civil society. The NLC tried to switch into role as a pressure group but it was too late: its call for a general strike went flat. By the end of 2016, Nigeria’s economy had gone into a recession and the country is still suffering from the effects of this. Today, the unemployment rate is at 23.1 per cent, increasing from 18.8 per cent in the third quarter of 2017. In 2018, the World Poverty Clock reported that 86.9 million Nigerians lived in extreme poverty, almost 50 per cent of a population of 180 million.
To keep the people docile, Vice President Osinbajo started public relations rounds in 2016, selling dreams of the Promised Land. On one occasion in October 2016, the vice president preached: “We are on our way out of the wilderness. We should not be like the children of Israel when he took them out of Egypt and after a few problems, became grumblers-in-chief”, likening critical Nigerians to rebellious biblical Israelites.
If the people do not constantly criticise the government, the government will start criticising the people. Buhari was good at arraying criticism against Nigerians while refusing to take criticism. He deplored the Nigerian people several times, calling us lazy, fraudulent and entitled, failing to see his own outbursts in front of a foreign press as a reckless lack of self-discipline by a supposed representative of a country. When he got a chance to represent Africa and confront Donald Trump on his “shithole countries” remark, Buhari dodged the issue.
2017 defined Buhari’s disdain for human life. His administration was racking up an increasing mountain of dead bodies. A massacre of members of the Shiite sect in 2015 by the army killed 300 people including children. A 2017 bombing by the air force of an IDP camp in Rann had left 167 people dead; a similar bombing in Numan killed 86 people. Till date, there has been no accountability for these crimes. Meanwhile, the number of dead continued to rise: in Agatu, in Southern Kaduna, in Udeni Ruwa of Nassarawa state, in Demsare, Dikajam and Taboungo areas of Adamawa state, in Buruku of Benue state, in Dori and Mesuma of Taraba state. Nigeria’s towns and villages flowed with the blood of innocents. But Buhari’s administration glibly responded that the body count was not yet as high as those under the PDP.
How to fix a terrible regime
By the end of 2017, it had become clear to admirers who had a conscience that the Buhari administration was unsustainable for the wellbeing of ordinary Nigerians. On social media, previous voters and supporters began a trend of repudiating their decision to align with the APC government. Within the political elite too, there was a perceptible shift in the power blocs. Obasanjo penned a criticism against Buhari in January 2018, officially launching the election season and a rash of elite-sanctioned defections from the APC. But rather than listen to criticism from both ordinary Nigerians and the political elite, Buhari’s government only consolidated its grip on power, favouring nepotism in the staffing of executive positions and attempting to overwhelm the judiciary, the legislature, and critical press and civil society through police intimidation and media trials.

But one day is for the owner. On Saturday, February 16, Nigerians will go to the polls to essentially cast a referendum on this government. In December 2014, at the height of the campaigns, I asked my readers whether the removal of Jonathan’s inefficiencies was worth the risk of a Buhari autocracy. At the time the answer was a toss-up for many people, including myself, who saw no good choice between either men: a dangerous position to be in. But today, only the very stupid or the very sycophantic will claim not to see the nakedness of the current emperor.
In 2015, Nigerians gave Buhari a chance to redeem his dictatorial image and a second chance to commit himself to the equality of all, social justice, and the rule of law. He blew it. Buhari does not deserve a third chance. He deserves nothing more from Nigerians.
Source: www.ayosogunro.com 
Call For Articles For Publication In The Journal Of The Section Of legal Practice

Call For Articles For Publication In The Journal Of The Section Of legal Practice

The Section on Legal
Practice Law Journal (SLPJ) is a high impact peer review publication of the
Section on Legal Practice of the Nigerian Bar Association. The Editorial
Committee calls for well researched articles interrogating topical and
contemporary legal issues or recent developments in the law.

Contributions must be
original, written in the active voice only and should not have been submitted
elsewhere for publication or presentation. The title of every article should be
concise and clear describing what the paper is about. The authors have the
responsibility to ensure that the material submitted does not infringe
copyright, plagiarise other work, is not obscene, defamatory or otherwise
litigious or unlawful.

Contributors are to use
footnotes. Names, addresses, title, telephone and e-mail addresses of
contributors should be provided at the footnote on the first page of the
article after an asterisk before any reference numbering.

Contributions should be
typed on Microsoft word, Times New Roman, font size 12, on A4 paper and not
exceeding 20 pages. Soft copies of contributions shall be forwarded to
info@nba-slp.org.ng or www.nba-slp.org on
or before the 28/03/2019. The Section on Legal Practice Nigerian Bar
Association citation and referencing style shall be adopted for citation and
referencing of contributions for publication.

Papers should be sent by
email attachment in Microsoft Word format to baderemi@nbaslp.org,  info@nba-slp.org,  clearly marked for
the attention of the Editor-in-Chief.

An abstract of not more than
150 words should also be submitted with the contribution. Miannaya Essien, SAN,
CArb.

Chairperson Section on Legal
Practice

1 Examples are provided
below as guides;

Books

Goldface-Irokalibe, I.J.(2007)
Law of Banking In Nigeria. Malthouse Press, Lagos, Nigeria.P.3

Journal

Nwabuoku, M.O.I, (2018)
Unmasking the Big Masquerade Called Ex-parte Injunction In Nigeria: Emergent
Issues and The Law. Section on Legal Practice Law Journal, Vol.4, p. 105.

Case Law

Chief Livinus Ezemegbe vs,
The Nigerian Stock Exchange & 1Or. (2009) 3 NISLR 112.

Statute

Companies and Allied Matters
Act, CAP 124, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. Section 18.

Electronic/Web page

Denwigwe, D.C, Guide to
Fundamental Rights Enforcement in Nigeria. http://www.slp-nba.html 
Retrieved October 21, 2018.

NIGERIAN BAR
ASSOCIATION (NBA)

National Secretariat:

NBA House, Plot 1101
Mohammadu Buhari Way,

Central Business District, Abuja,
F.C.T, Nigeria
Tel: + 234 (0) 810 820 8068

The NBA, Judiciary, Rule Of Law And 20 SANs

The NBA, Judiciary, Rule Of Law And 20 SANs

The Nigerian Judiciary and
by extension the Nigerian Bar Association has always been revered and regarded
with the utmost respect. Looking back at the time when Jurists such as Justice
Kayode Eso and legal titans such as Timi – The – Law practiced in this jurisdiction,
one can say those were the good old days.

However, currently things
are not so good and the tales of woe within the Bar and Bench can be traced to
the political class, who have invaded our honourable chambers with the poisoned
wine.  Of the 3 arms of government, the Judiciary
is the most reserved as our learned justices cannot so powerfully use the media
like their counterparts in the Legislature and the Executive. Moreso, the
Judiciary is guided by a code of ethics and the rule of law, one thing we can
debate is lacking in our political class who make up the Legislature and leadership
in the executive.

Many Nigerians complain
about the slow process of justice and sometimes the inability to get justice.
This is because the Executive made up of past and present Presidents and
Governors have bastardized the process with the intention of keeping the
Judiciary under their thumb. For instance, why have State Governors blatantly
refused to ensure the financial independence of the Judiciary but have been
satisfied to allow their Chief Judges come to them with begging bowls. No
State Judiciary can buy cars for their Judges without approaching the Governor,
this is an intentional whim of politicians and the Executive to silence the
voice of the people.

President Buhari who leads
the current Federal Government is no exception as since he entered power in
2015, his government has waged a war of control over the Judiciary. A war that
began with the invasion of the homes of various Justices, a media trial and no
convictions for lack of evidence. The most recent being the illegal suspension
of the Chief Justice Of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Walter Onnoghen and the rationale
behind the unlawful suspension is exhibited in the speech of His Excellency
where he stated and I quote –

“ It is no secret that this government
is dissastified with the alarming rate in which the Supreme Court of Nigeria under
the oversight of Justice Walter Onnoghen has serially set free, persons accused
of the most dire acts of corruption, often on mere technicalities”.

From the above it can be
seen that the President wants the Chief Justice of Nigeria, not only to give
judgments that are favourable to his government but for the CJN to meddle in
the trials before his court and most importantly to ignore the provisions of
the law and due process by ensuring a conviction by all means. An act which is
in fact an abuse of power. Certainly, one must wonder if with the imposition of
the acting Chief Justice, President Buhari may have found his man.

With this background, one
must salute the 20 Senior Advocates of Nigeria, who have risen to offer
themselves as champions and titans for the rule of law. For in their joint
statement, they have stated theirs is a cause to reform the Bar and Bench by
engaging with relevant stakeholders. Most especially the Nigerian Bar
Association, the body recognized to act on all things bordering on the welfare
of lawyers.

It is believed and hoped
that though a number of the 20 SANs did not support the current NBA President
in his elections, they have put aside all resentment from the loss and are now
willing to work with the NBA President to ensure proper reforms are put in
place, as to do otherwise would be to act like the politicians who have
continued to disguise self interest as national interest and buried the Rule Of
Law under the altar of political expediency.

Furthermore, it is hoped
that they will engage the Judicial Reform Committee, most recently Chaired by
the Learned Silk, Olisa Agbakoba SAN and the Regulation of Legal Profession
Committee chaired by Tony Idigbe SAN. Most importantly, well – meaning
advocates of reforms should key into the programmes of those committees.

Lastly, we must all work
together to remove politics from our judiciary.

Photo – Cross Section of Senior Advocates OF Nigeria
Photo Credit – www.dnllegalandstyle.com 
@Legalnaija 

Capital Market, Corporate Structuring & Finance Training For Lawyers

Capital Market, Corporate Structuring & Finance Training For Lawyers

 
Corporate finance lawyers advise companies on all aspects of the buying and selling of whole businesses or business assets. Whether negotiating a merger agreement, acquisition, rendering a fair opinion, issuing securities or taking an IPO public, Lawyers without the basics of corporate finance are at a disadvantage. This training aims to provide corporate lawyers with the essential tools to work with financial experts and corporate clients. 

Training Overview
Theme:     Creating And Sustaining Wealth Through Legal Expertise
Modules:
  • Banking And Financial Law 
  • Capital Market Regulatory & Advisory
  • Corporate Structuring And Compliance
  • Project Finance
  • Accounting & Finance
  • Fintech Law
Members of Faculty:
  • Dr. Dapo Olanipekun SAN (Partner, Esher & Makarios)
  • Bukola Iji (Partner, S.P.A. Ajibade & Co.)
  • Davidson Oturu (Partner, AELEX)
  • Mrs. Tosin Kalegha (Senior Associate, Perchstone  & Graeys)
  • Adetutu Sanusi (Banwo & Ighodalo)
  • OACO Accounting Services (Chartered Accountants)
Training Information – 
Date – 28th and 29th of March, 2019
Venue – LCCI Conference & Exhibition Centre, Nurudeen Olowopopo
      Drive, Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos
Time :- 9am – 5pm Daily
Registration Details
Fee per delegate                               
N50,000               

Early Bird (Ends February, 28, 2019)                                  
N35,000
For contact, registration and sponsorship details, Please contact Lawlexis on 09095635314; 08055424566
Note that all Payment confirmation and Delegate Information should be sent to lawlexisinternational@gmail.com.