BEING TEXT OF A LECTURE DELIVERED AT THE N.B.A. ICLE WORKSHOP ON
ETHICS. RULES OF CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS AT THE NBA IKEJA
BAR CENTER IKEJA HIGH COURT ON FRIDAY THE 30™ OF OCTOBER 2009
BY ADEYINKA OLUMIDE-FUSIKA LLB (HONS) (IFE); B.L; M.A (PHIL) (LAGOS)
MANAGING PARTNER, CITIPOINT (LEGAL PRACTITIONERS)
INTRODUCTION:
I am here to lead the discussion, this being a workshop, on the sub-topic 'The Emergence of Law Firms Websites: Do we have any rules on advertisement?" Inadvertently, for I do not think this was what the facilitators of this workshop intended, this sub-topic actually raises two questions in one. The first raises the question of the propriety or otherwise of law firms' websites, and the second raises the question whether we have any rule on advertisement. However, and I believe this to be the sense in which the facilitators of this workshop intended this sub-topic to be treated, the two questions can be conflated into one, and that is: "How applicable or sufficient to law firms' websites are the existing rules of professional conduct regulating advertisement?"
WHAT IS ADVERTISEMENT?
Simply put, "advertising" is a public promotion of some product or service. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, defines it "a form of communication used to influence individuals to purchase products or services or support political candidates or ideas. Frequently it communicates a message that includes the name of the product or service and how that product or service could potentially benefit the consumer. Advertising often attempts to persuade potential customers to purchase or to consume a particular brand of product or service." It went further to state that "Advertising can be displayed on billboards, newspapers, T.V., websites (my emphasis) movies, and more".
From the above definition, we see that "advertisement" is a form of communication aimed at making known a product or service and to influence the recipients of the information conveyed to purchase the product or patronize the service; and that a "website" is just one, out of many communication media. When therefore used in relation to "advertisement", a "website" is like what a "billboard77 or a "newspaper or 'TV or "Radio" etceteras is in "advertisement"
WHAT THEN IS A WEBSITE?
The above is not a definition of "website". What I have simply done is to connect it with "advertisement", which is really what is of ethical interest or concern, in professional respect, to us. So what is a website? It is a set of interconnected webpages, usually including a homepage, generally located on the same server, and prepared and maintained as a collection of information by a person, group or organization. If it will help your understanding for me to put it graphically, imagine a book. We are all familiar with what a book is. If you call something a book, that means it has certain characteristics which you will find with other books. For instance, a book will have a front cover and a back cover and pages in between bound together into a single unit. Some books are blank (exercise books, for instance). Some contain only texts, some only pictures or illustration, and some both texts and pictures. Some come only in black and white, and others in other varieties of color. Some contain diary entries, some tell fictional stories, some contain scientific texts. I can go on and on, but the point is: it is not the textual content that makes a thing a book, it is the form in which it comes.
Now consider a web site to be something like a book. The difference is that, unlike a book, it has no physical presence, you cannot hold it in your hand. It is virtual, in that it is a collection of information on a computer server. But, like a book, it is used to record, store, preserve and communicate information. It has a cover page (called a homepage), an end page and many other pages (called web pages) in between. And it has the advantage of being simultaneously accessible to many people in different countries across all the continents of the world at any time they chose to visit the site hosting the information on the world wide web.
The world wide web is a recent creation in telecommunication. Before the year 1990, it did not feature in popular means of telecommunication. It was in fact only on or about the 30th day of April 1993 that it became free for use by everyone. The world wide web, is, according to Wikipedia:
... a system of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet. With a web browser, one can view Web pages that may contain text, images, videos, and other multimedia and navigate between them using hyperlinks. Using concepts from earlier hypertext systems, English physicist Tim Bemers-Lee, now the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, wrote a proposal in March 1989 for what would eventually become the World Wide Web. He was later joined by Belgian computer scientist Robert Cailliau while both were working at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1990, they proposed using "HyperText [...] to link and access information of various kinds as a web of nodes in which the user can browse at will", and released that web in December.
Connected by the existing Internet, other websites were created, around the world, adding international standards for domain names and the HTML. Since then, Berners-Lee has played an active role in guiding the development of Web standards (such as the markup languages in which Web pages are composed), and in recent years has advocated his vision of a Semantic Web. The World Wide Web enabled the spread of information over the Internet through an easy-to-use and flexible format. It thus played an important role in popularizing use of the Internet. Although the two terms are sometimes conflated in popular use. World Wide Web is not synonymous with Internet The Web is an application built on top of the Internet
In case you don't understand the above definition, you do of course know what a computer is. If so, the world wide web is the means by which computers are able to communicate with one another, so that the information on one computer server in one corner of the world can be accessed from any other computer in other corners of the world.
WEB SITE AND ADVERTISING - WHAT IS THE CONNECTION?
We have defined what "advertising" is, and what "web site" is. What then is the connection between the two? One of the uses of "web site" as an internet tool is marketing. Internet marketing is using the Internet to do one or more of the following:
(a) communicating message about yourself, your product, or your services;
(b) conduct research as to the nature (demographics, preferences, and need) of your existing and potential customers;
(c) sell your goods, services, or advertising space over the Internet.
A law firm web site is therefore a potent tool of advertisement because through it, the firm communicates information about itself and services to the world at large, which is the same as advertising.
Now, it is because of its relatively recent origin of this scientific and technological breakthrough that the question becomes relevant whether our rules of professional ethics relating to advertisement, which is almost as old as the profession itself, is sufficient for regulating our use of the new technology in the practice of the profession.
I intend in the course of this presentation to look at the origin and rationale of the rule governing advertisement in the legal profession. But suffice to say at this stage in relation to the concept of 'book' which I've used in trying to explain the concept of "web site” that whilst lawyers have authored many books, you will not find any book written by a lawyer anywhere in the world advertising the services of the lawyer or soliciting the patronage of the general public. That would invite instant disbarment in all functional jurisdictions, albeit not in dysfunctional ones with broken-down and ineffective or failed institutions. So if you can't do such a thing in a book form, can you escape doing so in the guise of a web-site?
WHY THE AVERSION TO ADVERTISEMENT IN THE LAW PROFESSION?
From what I have said so far, we have seen that advertisement is a means of popularizing and increasing the patronage of a product or service. Lawyers offer legal services. So if law is a service, it is a proper subject of advertisement. However, as we all know, law is a regulated profession, and everyone admitted into it is by the simple fact of his or her admission deemed to have contracted to be bound by the rules prescribing limits of conduct for all belonging in it. Perhaps, this explain why any challenge to the rules, say against advertisement, on the basis of Sections 39 and 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 may be unavailing notwithstanding that the prohibition or restriction against advertisement may be potentially in conflict with these constitutional stipulations guaranteeing to every citizen (including lawyers) the freedom of expression and the press and from discrimination.
Traditionally, the legal profession, like the medical profession, has always prohibited advertisement, since it is a form of solicitation deemed contrary to the best interest of society. What is this "best interest of society'? There is no better way to answer this question and to put the ethical consideration informing this traditional aversion to advertisement than it was explained in the 1975 Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association which was to the effect that:
The traditional ban against advertising by lawyers, which is subject to certain limited exceptions, is rooted in the public interests. Competitive advertising would encourage extravagant, artful, self-laudatory brashness in seeking business and thus could mislead the layman. Furthermore, it would inevitably produce unrealistic expectations in particular cases and bring about distrust of the law and lawyers. Thus the public confidence in our legal system would be impaired by such advertisements of professional services... History has demonstrated that public confidence in the legal system is best preserved by strict, self-imposed controls over, rather than unlimited, advertising.
Modern societies are ordered by law. Therefore the essential role of practitioners of the law is ensuring orderly perpetuation of the society by minimizing conflict and getting those that arise resolved in an orderly and effective manner. It is not in society's interest to promote conflict. And it was traditionally thought that allowing unbridled advertisement of legal services will only breed a litigious and quarrelsome population. The expression, 'ambulance chaser' is apt in denoting this impression of self-advertisement. An accident occurs. A citizen has been injured. An ambulance has been called to take the citizen to the hospital for medical attention. A lawyer happens to be passing by, and although no one has sought his attention in the matter, he immediately goes around the scene handing out his complementary card and making it known by all around that he is a lawyer and that what has happened was a disaster which must not only be compensated but through his own service. He doesn't end there; he sees the ambulance conveying the victim away and he runs after it to solicit a brief. If lawyering were a trade, there would be nothing wrong with this. But lawyering is not a trade, but a profession; the service of a lawyer is not an article of trade, and the arena of conflict management is not a market place for buying and selling. It was with this tradition in mid that Rule 47(1) stipulates that "A lawyer shall not forment strife or instigate litigation and, except in the case of close relations or of trust, he shall not without being consulted proffer advice or bring a law suit" and Rule 47(2)(b) stipulate that "A lawyer shall not" "seek out claimants in respect of personal injuries or any other cause of action with a view to being employed by the prospective client"
Lawyers are not competitors in the sense that "Coke" and "Pepsi" are competitors in the market place for "colas'. Rather, lawyers are "colleagues" and "learned friends". Otherwise, there would be no reason why a lawyer would not be entitled to engage in any manner of underhand stratagem to attract business to himself and divert it from others by artful self adulation.
WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATE OF THE RULE AGAINST ADVERTISEMENT IN
NIGERIA?
The aim of the rule against advertisement is, in a nutshell, to discourage and punish improper attraction of legal business. J. Olakunle Orojo, in his book "Professional Conduct of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria" identified acts which would constitute improper attraction of business as including "all those acts which tend to give an unfair advantage in obtaining legal business" and which "lower the prestige of the profession and, therefore, amount to unprofessional conduct".
As I have already pointed out, these rules predated the origin of the internet, of which what we call 'website' is like a by-product. But our current rules of professional conduct is the 2007 Rules, which came after the internet had already become a phenomenon. It cannot therefore be suggested that the rules were not intended to encompass law firms web site. In any event, as I have already explained, advertisement is one thing, the means (whether by newspaper, billboard, radio, T.V. or website) of mass-communicating it to the recipient is another thing. In so far as there is no specific rule separately regulating professional advertisement on any of the other means of mass communication, there can be no reason to believe that the current rule against advertisement is of restricted application to specific means of communication. The rule is of general application, and it applies to all the means of mass-communicating ideas. If you cannot do certain thing as a professional using a book, a billboard, or a radio, or a T.V. or any other similar means of communication, you cannot also do that thing using the web site of your firm.
It is now left for us to look at the current state of the rules, which as we shall, reflect many years of watering down from the era of complete prohibition to the current era which is tending towards a more liberal approach.
Rule 39(1) of the 2007 Rules provides generally that:
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of this rule, a lawyer may engage in any advertising or promotion in connection with his practice of the law, provided:
(a) it is fair and proper in all circumstances
(b) it complies with the provisions of these rules; and
(c) it is for the purpose of reaching clients or potential clients located where such advertising or promotion is permitted, and its communication elsewhere is incidental
Clearly, from the above provision, although it doth appear that many lawyers are not yet conscious of it, the age-long prohibition of advertisement has been removed. Every lawyer is by this rule now permitted to advertise his services, whether on television or on radio or in newspaper or on his or her website. It is the content, the purpose and the extent of the advertisement that determines whether it is proper or amount to unprofessional conduct. Whatever the medium of advertisement, the content must be "fair and proper", not offensive against other provisions of the rules, and limited in circulation to where the potential clients of the lawyer-advertiser is located.
It is in this last bit (sub-clause (c) of Rule 39(1)) that we may meet with some difficulty vis-a-vis law the web sites of law firms. For instance, whilst my law firm is in Nigeria, I have clients from outside Nigeria. In fact most modern law firms are cross-border in their clientele. This is where a web site is particularly useful. The location of web site is virtual and not territorial. It is this that makes it possible for an Australian businessman, for instance, looking to do some business in Nigeria for which he would require legal services, to simply go on the web and search out a Nigerian law firm to patronize. Unless you have cross-border qualification to practice law in both Nigeria and Australia, you certainly would not be entitled to go into Australia to advertise your services in that country. Doing so would have offended against Rule 39(l)(c), but that is precisely what a web site allows you to do without risking accusations of infracting the rule.
Rule 39(l)(a) talks of permission of advertisement that is "fair and proper in all circumstances". Whilst the rules did not define "fair" and "proper". Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 39 give a fair idea of the sense in which these words were intended to be understood.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 39 stipulates that:
A lawyer shall not engage or be involved in any advertising or promotion of his practice of law which:
(a) is inaccurate or likely to mislead;
(b) is likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession, or the administration of justice, or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute;
(c) makes comparison with or criticizes other lawyers or other professions;
(d) includes statement about the quality of the lawyer's work, the size of the success of his practice or his success rate;
(e) is so frequent or obtrusive as to cause annoyance to those to whom it is directed.
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 39 went on further to stipulate that a lawyer shall not solicit professional employment either directly or indirectly in any of the following ways:
(a) by circular, handbills, advertisement, through touts or by personal communication or interview;
(b) by furnishing, permitting or inspiring newspaper, radio or television comments in relation to his practice of law;
(c) by procuring his photograph to be published in connection with matters in which he has been or is engaged, or concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved or the importance of the lawyer's position;
(d) by permitting or inspiring sound recordings in relation to his practice of law; or
(e) by such similar self-aggrandizement
Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 39 tells us the kind of advertisement we cannot engage in, no matter the medium of communication we are using, that is notwithstanding, for instance, that the medium is a web site; but for us to know the kind of advertisement we may engage in, we will have to take a cue from sub-rule 4 of the same Rule 39 as well as all the other rules dealing with advertisement, including rules 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46. For instance Rule 39(4) stipulates that:
Nothing in this rule shall preclude a lawyer from publishing in a reputable Law List or Law Directory, a brief biographical or informative data of himself, including all or any of the following matters:
(a) his name or name of his professional association
(b) his address, telephone number, telex number, email address etc.,
(c) the schools, colleges or other institutions attended with dates of graduation, degree and other
educational or academic qualifications or distinctions;
(d) date and place of birth and admission to practice law;
(e) any public or quasi-public office, post of honour, legal authorship, etc;
(f) any legal teaching positions;
(g) any National Honours;
(h) membership and office in the Bar Association and duties thereon; and
(i) any position held in legal or scientific societies.
When you look at all the paragraphs of the rules touching directly on advertisements, you will see that it specifically mentioned some means or mode of advertisement. These include law list and law directories (Rule 39(4)); note papers, envelopes and visiting cards (Rule 40); signage or name plate (Rule 41); book (Rule 42); newspaper advertisement (Rule 43); solicitous circulars within professional circle (Rule 44); authorship of newspaper articles and participation in radio or newspaper programs (Rule 46). Nowhere in the rules was any specific reference made to web site. Does this then mean that web site are prohibited. I think not. You can even see from the reference to email address in paragraph (b) of sub-rule 39(4) that the rules were not oblivious of the internet civilization. Most effective law lists and law directories are online (or internet) publications. Ditto other forms of publication including newspapers, books and periodicals. Even, many radio and television exist on-line. So, the internet is derivative in its uses, meaning that its content does not have to be original, but derivable from other sources. If you want to understand what I mean, just 'google' your own name, and you will be surprised at the extent of information available on you on the Internet, even though these were not consciously put there by yourself.
A law firm web site is therefore not against the present state of the rules of professional conduct on advertising and solicitation. In the absence of any rule prohibiting its existence, the general provision regarding advertisement in Rule 39(1) of the 2007 rules is good enough cover for your law firm web sites provided the content of the web site is consistent with the degree of advertisement applicable to other means of communication specifically mentioned in other provisions of the rules. In other words, it is the content of the web site that determines its compliance with the rules. Appendix IA and 1B are samples of two Nigerian law firm websites which we may use for case study. Appendix 1A is that of Afe Babalola, SAN & Co (www.afebabalola.com) Appendix 1B is that of A.O.S. Practice (A.A. Aribisala, SAN) (www.aospractise.com). You will see that Appendix 1A contains essentially the information that our rule 39(4) permit us to put in the public domain; whereas Appendix 1B went overboard in many respects. Both are websites, but we see that one is careful and essentially compliant in content, whist the other is not.
SOME FACTUAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF COMPLIANT AND NON-COMPLIANT CONTENT
Let us now go into a case study session to apply what we have been talking about.
It is unfortunate that our rules of professional conduct are observed more in breach. Indeed, many, including not a few of the rank of senior advocate of Nigeria, would have been sent out of the profession but for the weakness in our enforcement mechanism.
Let us look at the rule relating to newspaper advertisement. Rule 39(3)(e) prohibits us from engaging in any act of self-aggrandizement. Rule 43 stipulates the only occasion when we may carry out newspaper advertisement. It says "On a change of address, telephone number or other circumstances relating to his practice^ a lawyer may send to his clients notice of the change and may insert an advertisement of such change in a newspaper or journal". For the avoidance of doubt. Rule 46(2) stipulates that a lawyer shall not "take steps to procure the publication of his photograph as a lawyer to the press or any periodical".
If for instance, a lawyer previously belonging in the outer bar is elevated to the rank of senior advocate, this development may qualify as a change in circumstance under rule 43, of which the lawyer may cause or permit an advertisement to be placed in the newspaper or journal, to announce his arrival in the inner bar. But Rule 46(2) prohibits such newspaper advertisement to include the photograph of the lawyer.
I have circulated to you as Appendix II to this presentation, photocopies of 9 newspaper advertisement of such a change in the circumstance of some lawyers in the year 2008.
If you look at all the nine sample advertisements, you will see that only one of them complied with the rules. And that is the copy of the advertisement in This Day newspaper of December 16, 2008 on Njemanze Ken Chukwuma Ohir and Eyitayo Jegede by the University of Lagos Faculty of Law Class of 1980-1983.
If you look further, you will also notice that the infringement in the others go beyond the issue of photographs. If you discountenance the issue of photographs, you will notice that of the remaining eight, only three do not infringe on the more serious rule against self-aggrandizement, viz (1) the advert in ThisDay of December 16, 2008, concerning Babajide Olatokunbo Koku (2) that of ThisDay of December 16, 2008 on Eyitayo Jegede, and © that of Thisday of December 16, 2008 of Donald Chika Denwigwe.
All the other five in our sample portfolio constitute very serious infraction of the rules. Look at the one of Dipo Okpeseyi in ThisDay of December 16, 2009 where the subject permitted himself to be introduced with the phrase "The sky has ceased to be your limit". Worse to follow was that of Chief Eze Duruiheoma in ThisDay of December 16, 2008, where the subject permitted himself to be described as "simply the best" (in the profession, of course). Next to that is the one on Aondoakaa Anthony Ijohor in ThisDay of December 16, 2008 where the subject permitted himself to be described as "Advocate Extraordinaire".
But the most ethically worrisome of them all were the two samples on the "emmanuelites" (Alhaji Lasun Sanusi and Olu Daramola). The one directly by the Emmanuelite (a firm of very accomplished lawyers, having produced no less than 14 senior advocates of Nigeria, and still counting) is the first in your sample pack which was carried in The Guardian of December 16, 2008. There you will see the pictures of the two 'emmanuelites' being congratulated by the other 'emmanuelites' with the words "We rejoice with you today as you join the rank of the best and noblest practitioners of Law in Nigeria". In the second one, also in the same Guardian of December 16, 2008, the subject was congratulated for being "gloriously crowned" with the title of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (apparently, all other lawyers, including his fellow Senior Advocates, are like his subjects in the practice of law).
Assuming therefore that these adverts had been carried on the web sites of the different law firms concerned, it is their content, not the medium that would determine whether there had been compliance with the specifications of the rules of professional conduct regulating advertisement.
From the samples given, you see how easy it is to still advertise without necessarily touting, even through the website medium.
CONCLUSION
You see how easily we could have changed the focus of this session of the workshop from the question "The emergence of law firm websites: Do we have any rules of advertisement?" to the question "Do we obey any rules of advertisement?"
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
LASTMA'S ILLEGAL CAR IMPOUNDMENT, ASSAULT, EXTORTION, AND STEALING AGAINST ME
On October 16 2008, I was going from our office to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Centre in Ikeja to collect my NBA payments receipts and those of a senior colleague. When I got to Olowu Street, an open pick-up vehicle, with the plate number LAGOS XM 856 KTU, was reversing towards my car as it (the pick-up) was trying to come out of a complex in the front of which it had parked before. I blew my horn, but still the accident that I was trying to forestall happened as the man hit and damaged my car. In line with my principle that is against the common attitude of some people to remain at the spot of minor accidents in which the erring/other parties have damaged their vehicles ( but I have always maintained that this is unjust and immoral), I drove forward and past the pick-up vehicle so that it was now behind me (whereas it was at the right side of my front when the accident happened) while the pick-up vehicle too still reversed further backward. Both of us parked neatly off the road traffic lane. (This is even evident from the picture that the LASTMA team leader took at the scene with his camera phone.) I was alone in my car, while the pick-up vehicle had its driver and its apparent owner inside it. The man who caused the accident, his apparent boss and I accordingly alighted and started discussing the accident beside my car and how the pick-up people, who admitted being at fault, would rectify the damage they did to my car.
We were at the scene without causing any traffic hold-up whatsoever and howsoever, when a team of Lagos State Traffic Maintenance Agency (LASTMA) came. Among them were the apparent team leader, Jimoh Babatunde, who was in LASTMA uniform, at least two policemen and other people in mufti. They approached my car which was nearer to the direction from which they came and said they were going to impound it for 'illegal parking'. I pleaded with them not to impound it on the ground that what happened was a case of accident, told them that I was ready to immediately drive my vehicle away without further asking for any remedy from the pick-up people who, by the accident, damaged it, pointed to the other vehicle involved in the accident behind mine and showed them the clear impact of the accident on my car. Still they would not budge. Without ever conceding that I committed 'illegal parking', I resorted to begging them not to tow my vehicle because of the urgent missions that I was pursuing. To my shock and to the shock of on-Iookers and passers-by, they still said they would tow my car. Jomoh Bamidele then began to swear that he must tow the car. He later told me pointblank that he would not mind the consequence because, according to him, "even though I (Babatunde) am not a lawyer, I myself am a graduate like you and my wife also is a lawyer". (He made this arrogant statement, which smacks of abuse of office, because he discovered from the NBA/lawyer's sticker pasted on my car's front windscreen that I am a lawyer.) Many
onlookers and passers-by also intervened and told Jimoh Bamidele to leave me alone and explained to him and his team members that it would be unlawful, unjust, immoral and ungodly for them to impound the vehicle of a man whose vehicle had been damaged and who was not causing any obstruction. But the gun-wielding policemen in the team threatened the onlookers and passers-by and asked them to leave the scene, explaining that nothing concerned them in the matter. Some of the
onlookers and passers-by are still ready to testify to the truthfulness of all these facts.
After Jimoh Babatunde had repeatedly sworn, touching the ground with his fingers while swearing, that nothing would prevent him from impounding my vehicle, I said if they would impound the vehicle of a man that was damaged, what would then happen to that one that damaged mine. They replied and wondered whether I was the person who would be teaching them their Job because I was a lawyer. (All along I had seen some of their team members chatting with the apparent owner of the pick- up vehicle; I wondered whether bribe was exchanging hands.) They further responded by asking the pick-up people to go scot-free. All my pleas that they should allow me to drive my car to their office were rebuffed, as they rather preferred that I should suffer the payment of towing fee. Despite appeals by on-lookers and passers-by, they also forcefully prevented me from removing the money that they themselves later discovered at their office that I had in the car.
We were at the scene without causing any traffic hold-up whatsoever and howsoever, when a team of Lagos State Traffic Maintenance Agency (LASTMA) came. Among them were the apparent team leader, Jimoh Babatunde, who was in LASTMA uniform, at least two policemen and other people in mufti. They approached my car which was nearer to the direction from which they came and said they were going to impound it for 'illegal parking'. I pleaded with them not to impound it on the ground that what happened was a case of accident, told them that I was ready to immediately drive my vehicle away without further asking for any remedy from the pick-up people who, by the accident, damaged it, pointed to the other vehicle involved in the accident behind mine and showed them the clear impact of the accident on my car. Still they would not budge. Without ever conceding that I committed 'illegal parking', I resorted to begging them not to tow my vehicle because of the urgent missions that I was pursuing. To my shock and to the shock of on-Iookers and passers-by, they still said they would tow my car. Jomoh Bamidele then began to swear that he must tow the car. He later told me pointblank that he would not mind the consequence because, according to him, "even though I (Babatunde) am not a lawyer, I myself am a graduate like you and my wife also is a lawyer". (He made this arrogant statement, which smacks of abuse of office, because he discovered from the NBA/lawyer's sticker pasted on my car's front windscreen that I am a lawyer.) Many
onlookers and passers-by also intervened and told Jimoh Bamidele to leave me alone and explained to him and his team members that it would be unlawful, unjust, immoral and ungodly for them to impound the vehicle of a man whose vehicle had been damaged and who was not causing any obstruction. But the gun-wielding policemen in the team threatened the onlookers and passers-by and asked them to leave the scene, explaining that nothing concerned them in the matter. Some of the
onlookers and passers-by are still ready to testify to the truthfulness of all these facts.
After Jimoh Babatunde had repeatedly sworn, touching the ground with his fingers while swearing, that nothing would prevent him from impounding my vehicle, I said if they would impound the vehicle of a man that was damaged, what would then happen to that one that damaged mine. They replied and wondered whether I was the person who would be teaching them their Job because I was a lawyer. (All along I had seen some of their team members chatting with the apparent owner of the pick- up vehicle; I wondered whether bribe was exchanging hands.) They further responded by asking the pick-up people to go scot-free. All my pleas that they should allow me to drive my car to their office were rebuffed, as they rather preferred that I should suffer the payment of towing fee. Despite appeals by on-lookers and passers-by, they also forcefully prevented me from removing the money that they themselves later discovered at their office that I had in the car.
At last, the LASTMA team towed my car with a small, old towing van. As they were leaving, one of the gun-wielding policemen in the team further abused, threatened and assaulted me. The assault was condemned in loud voices by on-lookers and passers-by. On of the passers-by reminded me to run and write the plate number of the towing van. This I did and the number was LAGOS NX 579 KJA.
I later went by a commercial motorcycle to the LASTMA Car Park at Alausa, Ikeja, where I saw my car parked. At the office, one man, O. Odunuga in LASTMA uniform asked me to come and collect fine ticket which totalled -N-60,000:00 (sixty thousand naira N 60,000:00 as fine and =N=10,000:00 as towing charge. I later asked Odunuga why I should pay such high fees. He replied that the 'illegal parking' fine was =N=50,000:00 while any vehicle towed with any of the heavy duty towing vans newly purchased by the State government attracts =N-10,000:00. He admitted the wrongfulness of the =N=10,000:00 towing charge written for me when I told him that my car was toed by a rickety, old towing van but replied that there was nothing he could do since "once ticket is written, it is written". I refused to take the ticket.
I proceeded to the NBA office to report this illegal impoundment, assault, imposition of illegal fees and flagrant abuse of office. Immediately, a team of about five NBA leaders went with me to the LASTMA Car Park.
There, Odunuga told them that ticket had been written and there was nothing he could do again; he advised us to write the Special Assistant (SA) to the State Governor on LASTMA for his intervention. He also told us that I had to take the fine ticket because it had to be attached to the letter to the SA and he gave the NBA team the SA's phone number. So we left after I had taken the fine ticket,
Accordingly, NBA wrote a petition to the LASTMA authority at Oshodi through the SA, demanding the stoppage of the above-stated acts and the release of my car soonest. My car was however continued to be kept in the LASTMA Car Park in the name of 'investigation' into the NBA petition as the letter was moved from the SA's office to that of the LASTMA's Head of Traffic Management and Survey Department (TMSD), Mr. 0. M. Ajayi, then back to the SA's office and finally to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)—all at the LASTMA Headquarters at Oshodi. In the course of the 'investigation', the Jimoh Babatunde showed a picture of my car that he took with a camera phone at the place where they towed my car. I explained to the Head of Traffic Management and Survey Department who was doing the 'investigation' that the picture confirmed my case as it had inside it and behind my car the picture of the pick-up vehicle that caused the accident and damaged my car. But shocking, he said he did not believe that that the pick-up vehicle was the one involved in the accident. Yet he did not go ahead to go to any motor hide authority to confirm. On the assault committed against me by LASTMA through Adekunle Babatunde, he refused to call him to his office to heal from him, even whsn Jimoh Bamidele told him that he (Adekunie Babatunde) was in the premises. He rather preffered to ask him on phone, on which he denied the assault. As the 'investigation' was dragging on and taking days, I asked the TMSD Head what would happen to me on the issue of demurrage which I also heard that LASTMA
collects. He replied that demurrage does not apply during the time that matters were being investigated by them at the Headquarters.
In the course of the 'investigation', Jimoh Bamidele titled Alpha and their overall head at the Alausa Office, E. A. Oki titled Zebra, proceeded to unlawfully and maliciously dismantle and damage my car by removing its four tyres and carting away the tyres and some of their nuts. I was later told that the unnecessary dismantling of the car was done by Zebra and Alpha because NBA dared write a petition.
Apparently agreeing that the impoundment, assault, fines and denial of the use of my vehicle was wrongful, immoral and illegal, the LASTMA authority on November 4, 2008 slashed the fines to =N=7,500:00 =N=5000:00 as fine and -N==2500:00 as towing charge. The total fine would probably have been wiped out but for LASTMA's usual practice not to let slip any precious opportunity by LASTMA to collect revenue by hook or crook/or the State government.
By November 11, 2008, I paid the said -N-5000:00 Tine' and =N==2,500:00 towing charge (both receipted). Both were collected from me by one Mrs. Musa at the LASTMA Car Park at Alausa. This same Mrs. Musa also forced me to pay an unreceipted =N=500:00 as gate pass fee, which pass paper did not reflect the =N=500:00. My explanation that the TMSD Head at the Headquarters said that I would not pay any demurrage was rejected and I was compelled to pay a receipted
demurrage of =N=8000:00 by another woman. This brings all the ungodly amounts that LASTMA forced me to pay to =N^16,000:00.
After all said and done, I told Mrs. Musa that they should release my tyres to me since I had after all paid all the money they imposed. She said I should ask the LASTMA people monitoring the Car Park gate. The gate people said I should go back to the office to ask them. Later Mrs. Musa asked me to ask the vulcaniser. But the vulcaniser said he knew nothing about them and asked me to ask Zebra- Later, Mrs. Musa said Zebra and Alpha removed them. Afterward, somebody told me confidentially that I should keep asking Zebra since he was the one who does not want to surrender them. When I asked him, he said: "Even though you have satisfied all the necessary conditions and paid .the required fees, as for me o, I have not cleared you. You people went to write petition. And you went to court". (Yet nobody had gone to court and no court paper had been served on them. Thereafter, I told a LASTMA official my ordeal and he told me: "At this stage o, you don't need to beg him (Zebra) or
anybody; after all, you have paid all the fees they asked you to pay. Call Mr. Ajayi at the Headquarters".
When I called Mr. Ajayi his number did not go through. So I called one of the NBA executive members who said I should give my phone to Zebra Oki so that he might speak with him. Oki only released the tyres of my car after the said NBA leader had threatened him with the institution of the criminal charge of stealing the tyres against him if he did not release the tyres within 30 minutes. Till today, LASTMA's Zebra Oki has refused to release two nuts (valued at =N=300:00) of the tyres.
I later successfully called the TMSD Head, Mr. Ajayi, and told him about my ordeal in the hands of Zebra E. A. Oki, whom he condemned in strong terms. I equally told him that they still compelled me to pay demurrage at the Alausa office. He equally condemned the taking of the so-called demurrage in strong terms and said I should, instead of paying it, have come to report to the CEO at Oshodi. But I reasoned that that might still have taken weeks again to be conclusively attended to.
Monday, September 15, 2008
SERMON DELIVERED BY VEN. C.O. AYEJOTO AT THE 2008 LEGAL YEAR THANKSGIVING SERVICE
ARCHBISHOP VINING MEMORIAL CHURCH CATHEDRAL. G.R.A.. IKEJA
SERMON DELIVERED BYVEN. C. O. AYEJOTO AT THE YEAR 2008 LEGAL YEAR THANKSGIVING SERVICE ON THURSDAY 4™ SEPTEMBER 2008 AT 10.00 AM
PRAYER:
We pray for those who serve within the Judiciary System - the Barristers, lawyers, judges, magistrates, all court official and all those whose responsibility it is to see that Justice is administered fairly, and to all who are here to dedicate this year to you.
Give them wisdom, integrity, courage and dedication, so that they may discharge their duties faithfully through Jesus Christ our Lord.
TEXT: Ps 19:7-8:
The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes
The fear of the Lord is clear enduring forever
The judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
THEME: JUDICIARY SAVE NIGERIA
The law is a binding decree, a universal principle, governing authority, commands and regulation. It is very important to note that the word Law has its root from God, contained in the Bible as a "rule of life"; moral ethical principles even though some lawyers will say law has nothing to do with morals - that is debatable. The law is meant to guide people to do things right, for good governance to achieve success and peaceful existence in the society. For example, the Decalogue or commandment contained in the book of Exodus chapter 20:1-17 READ.
1. God spake all these words, saying,
2. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4. Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that /s in the water under the earth:
5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9. Six days shall thou labour, and do all thy work:
10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13. Thou shalt not kill.
14. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15. Thou shalt not steal.
16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Ex 20:1-17(KJV)
These rules or laws were given to people that represented us at that time - The Jews. Also, there are other rules outside the commandments contained in the Bible like Torah that covers Agriculture, business, family life, social and moral issues, as well as religion. Efforts of Lawyers in the society however, these rules of the Bible are said to be moral rules and divine laws which ordinarily had no force, because they cannot be enforced ordinarily without making them to be state laws.
The Lawyers by their strong effort either expressively or by implication posited these moral rules or the commandments of God into the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Criminal and Penal Code, Criminal code governing the Southern Nigeria and the Penal code governing the Northern Nigeria. For example, Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on right to life, which provides that nobody should kill another unjustly, is from the book of Exodus 20:13 which say "you shall not commit murder" and this is affirmed in our criminal code and penal code. Also, Section 393 of the Criminal Code on stealing is from Exodus 20:15. Thou shall not commit adultery; the law on sexual offences is also from the Bible. No wonder some judges in some cases base their authority on the Bible. Our lawyers, you have done well! But we need more of your efforts. There is need for you to revisit Chapter 2 of our constitution which is not justifiable and is presently a cosmetic provision. We need laws that will revive our society from corruption, make us wise as we have in our text that will bring joy to our hearts that will give light to the eyes and warn us and be more rewarding.
This is because God's law and guidelines are light for our path rather than chains on our hands and feet. The law of the Lord points to danger and warns us, points to successes and guides our conduct and order to promote unity.
Permit me to briefly link the legal profession with the priesthood vocation. Lawyers in the early years were called to the Bar at the Church Chancel by the servants of God. Both therefore have related duties towards humanity. While Lawyers keep on defending human rights (i.e. the last hope of the down-trodden citizen), the priests in their vocation (though not profession) are supposed to save lives spiritually especially as CURATES.
One can therefore argue that both lawyers and priests are partners in progress in every human society. Hence there is need for integrity and all possible Justifiable character demonstrated in all ramifications.
PROBLEM OF ENFORCEMENT
Nevertheless, Nigeria state has good laws legislated against misconducts of citizens and the state officials in our criminal codes. I.C.P.C. LAWS, E.F.C.C. LAWS, F.E.P.A., Money Laundering Acts e.t.c. but people are violating all these laws day in day out with very little arrest and punishment. What are the reasons? JUDICIARY SAVE US
Someone might say that the Law Enforcement Agents are not serious because they are corrupt too. Some were arrested and later released after inappropriate settlement, may be money changed hands. Take a look at our elections; good candidates are always marginalized out of favour for corrupt candidates either to cover up the loots of former leaders or to continue the corruption for the interest of the godfathers. The Electoral System that allows impostors and fraudsters to retain possession of political positions and power in spite of Judiciary pronouncement to the contrary should be looked into.
There is no justice in the land. The Bible says in the book of Isaiah 61:8 "For, I, the Lord, love justice, I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth and will make them an everlasting covenant". In this verse, God emphasized the importance of justice in the land. What is justice? Justice means free the innocent and punish the offender particularly an unrepentant offender - Isaiah 3:10-11.
I want to personally appreciate the wonderful role of the lawyers in participating fully in the on-going process of constitutional and electoral reforms which I believe they will continue until democracy is fully enshrined and imbibed by all individuals and corporate bodies. Justice is the administration of law that determines what is right, based on principles of equity and correctness.
BUILD PEOPLE, NOT THINGS, BEAUTIFY PEOPLE, NOT FLOWERS By Julius Akinlaja
1. That I had reflected on Governance in Lagos State recently and I have decided to write this piece of my mind to his Excellency, Mr. Raji Babatunde Fashola, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. I am compelled to write tills article because the adage says that the morning shows the days. My learned brother is 14 months Old as" a Governor of Lagos State. He was sworn for 48 months tenure implying that we have 34 months left.
2. That I admire Mr. Governor for his youthfulness, his erudition and soundness of mind but 1 have to cast gate him for misplaced priorities.
3. That I am showing him a yellow card now because his half time is only l0 months away and he has not come up with any meaningful development to the people of the State. I learnt he is building roads and he is not building our children. He is taxing people and amassing money to be shared among the political elites and he is following the footsteps of a political horse, Alhaji Bola Tinubu and not administrators. Like Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Chief Michael Adekunle Ajasin and Alhaji Lateef Kayode Jakande.
4. Chief Awolowo had laid the foundation of what a sound Government should be and no other foundation can be laid by any other progressive westerner, and that is my personal opinion and not minding the position or theory of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, Chief Meredith Adisa Akinloye and the disciples of their school of thoughts who believe that you only build things and not people and you use people to trade and made profits from them, and this is the gravamen of slave trade. Human beings are things or article of trade and should be exploited for profit
purpose despite their humanity.
5. Thai in Lagos State presently, 1 flunk it is only in Ikeja that street lights works, it is only in Ikeja and Lagos that we have the concentration of court rooms. It is only Ikeja and Lagos that the Roads are –being upgraded and repaired constantly: Ikeja and Lagos had General Hospitals. In Ojo where E lives. I have not seen pipe borne water for the past 15 years. The road from Okokomaiko to Ajangbadi was cut by erosion into two, we boarded bus and stop at Olopomeji Bus-Stop, and from there, you either request, for a canoe or you walk on the culvert to Ajangbadi. It is that bad and yet you claim we have a local Government and a State Government -operating in Lagos State. In Ojo Local Government, the federal monthly allocation is matcheated on the table and the political leaders and the Executive Administrator takes their share to their respective homes. Yet you did not deem it fit to effect a change in leadership at OJo despite numerous petitions to that effect.
Ojo Local Government with a population of One Million has no General Hospital, no post- Office, no millennium school, no good roads except, federal Express road which is always congested.
did not fall. You are training these Street urchins to become future robbers if you did not stop them and divert their attention to lawful and legitimate occupation. It will be difficult for them torevert to "normal occupation" after getting easy money to build
their family foundation. As a senior brother, you owe this youngsters that duty.
F. The Creation of State police Is a policy that must be accomplish. You cannot depend on the federal police to sanitise the polity. Most policemen serving in Lagos State came from their different State of origin and their personal purpose of coming to Lagos is to make money either through corruption or offering protection and assistance to law breakers and that is why we have selective application of Laws in Lagos State; and in all my Year of practice; I have not seen any Police Officer charged for an offence under S.I 30 of the criminal code thought it is a prevalent
offence in all our Police Station.
G. Section 130 of the criminal procedure law, state as follows: Delay to take person arrested before a court; Any person who, having arrested another upon a charge of an offence, willfully delays to take him before a court to be dealt with according to law is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years. .
And as an interim measure the KAT Brigade can be enlarged in population and jurisdiction to prosecute offenders against state Laws and Local Government Bye laws and that means you have to abandon your government stances of "milking or cashing" on every situation by fixing reasonable fine or jail term for offences committed within
Lagos State.
II. Finally, the Government should build peasant hostels, lodging or accommodation, where indigent citizens can rent by paying a maximum rents of six months. Presently, in Lagos State, you cannot rent a shop or a room without paying two years rents, agreement and Agency fees to the prospective Landlord. This procedure constitute a veritable block to indigent citizen who wanted to take to honest living but has little capital. The Rent Control Edict is not working because you cannot fix a price on something you do not own. This Government owes us that duty.
I have spoken to your Excellency through the squib Magazine because I believed as a lawyer, you will probably be a subscriber to Squib Magazine and if not Mr. Opeyemi Bamidele and the learned Attorney- General will come across this piece. I will conclude this piece in April 2011 (if 1 am still alive) by withdrawing my yellow card or flashing you a red-card. I have spoken my mind and sorry o, if have not spoken well.
SERMON DELIVERED BYVEN. C. O. AYEJOTO AT THE YEAR 2008 LEGAL YEAR THANKSGIVING SERVICE ON THURSDAY 4™ SEPTEMBER 2008 AT 10.00 AM
PRAYER:
We pray for those who serve within the Judiciary System - the Barristers, lawyers, judges, magistrates, all court official and all those whose responsibility it is to see that Justice is administered fairly, and to all who are here to dedicate this year to you.
Give them wisdom, integrity, courage and dedication, so that they may discharge their duties faithfully through Jesus Christ our Lord.
TEXT: Ps 19:7-8:
The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes
The fear of the Lord is clear enduring forever
The judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
THEME: JUDICIARY SAVE NIGERIA
The law is a binding decree, a universal principle, governing authority, commands and regulation. It is very important to note that the word Law has its root from God, contained in the Bible as a "rule of life"; moral ethical principles even though some lawyers will say law has nothing to do with morals - that is debatable. The law is meant to guide people to do things right, for good governance to achieve success and peaceful existence in the society. For example, the Decalogue or commandment contained in the book of Exodus chapter 20:1-17 READ.
1. God spake all these words, saying,
2. I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4. Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that /s in the water under the earth:
5. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9. Six days shall thou labour, and do all thy work:
10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13. Thou shalt not kill.
14. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15. Thou shalt not steal.
16. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Ex 20:1-17(KJV)
These rules or laws were given to people that represented us at that time - The Jews. Also, there are other rules outside the commandments contained in the Bible like Torah that covers Agriculture, business, family life, social and moral issues, as well as religion. Efforts of Lawyers in the society however, these rules of the Bible are said to be moral rules and divine laws which ordinarily had no force, because they cannot be enforced ordinarily without making them to be state laws.
The Lawyers by their strong effort either expressively or by implication posited these moral rules or the commandments of God into the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Criminal and Penal Code, Criminal code governing the Southern Nigeria and the Penal code governing the Northern Nigeria. For example, Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on right to life, which provides that nobody should kill another unjustly, is from the book of Exodus 20:13 which say "you shall not commit murder" and this is affirmed in our criminal code and penal code. Also, Section 393 of the Criminal Code on stealing is from Exodus 20:15. Thou shall not commit adultery; the law on sexual offences is also from the Bible. No wonder some judges in some cases base their authority on the Bible. Our lawyers, you have done well! But we need more of your efforts. There is need for you to revisit Chapter 2 of our constitution which is not justifiable and is presently a cosmetic provision. We need laws that will revive our society from corruption, make us wise as we have in our text that will bring joy to our hearts that will give light to the eyes and warn us and be more rewarding.
This is because God's law and guidelines are light for our path rather than chains on our hands and feet. The law of the Lord points to danger and warns us, points to successes and guides our conduct and order to promote unity.
Permit me to briefly link the legal profession with the priesthood vocation. Lawyers in the early years were called to the Bar at the Church Chancel by the servants of God. Both therefore have related duties towards humanity. While Lawyers keep on defending human rights (i.e. the last hope of the down-trodden citizen), the priests in their vocation (though not profession) are supposed to save lives spiritually especially as CURATES.
One can therefore argue that both lawyers and priests are partners in progress in every human society. Hence there is need for integrity and all possible Justifiable character demonstrated in all ramifications.
PROBLEM OF ENFORCEMENT
Nevertheless, Nigeria state has good laws legislated against misconducts of citizens and the state officials in our criminal codes. I.C.P.C. LAWS, E.F.C.C. LAWS, F.E.P.A., Money Laundering Acts e.t.c. but people are violating all these laws day in day out with very little arrest and punishment. What are the reasons? JUDICIARY SAVE US
Someone might say that the Law Enforcement Agents are not serious because they are corrupt too. Some were arrested and later released after inappropriate settlement, may be money changed hands. Take a look at our elections; good candidates are always marginalized out of favour for corrupt candidates either to cover up the loots of former leaders or to continue the corruption for the interest of the godfathers. The Electoral System that allows impostors and fraudsters to retain possession of political positions and power in spite of Judiciary pronouncement to the contrary should be looked into.
There is no justice in the land. The Bible says in the book of Isaiah 61:8 "For, I, the Lord, love justice, I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth and will make them an everlasting covenant". In this verse, God emphasized the importance of justice in the land. What is justice? Justice means free the innocent and punish the offender particularly an unrepentant offender - Isaiah 3:10-11.
I want to personally appreciate the wonderful role of the lawyers in participating fully in the on-going process of constitutional and electoral reforms which I believe they will continue until democracy is fully enshrined and imbibed by all individuals and corporate bodies. Justice is the administration of law that determines what is right, based on principles of equity and correctness.
BUILD PEOPLE, NOT THINGS, BEAUTIFY PEOPLE, NOT FLOWERS By Julius Akinlaja
1. That I had reflected on Governance in Lagos State recently and I have decided to write this piece of my mind to his Excellency, Mr. Raji Babatunde Fashola, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. I am compelled to write tills article because the adage says that the morning shows the days. My learned brother is 14 months Old as" a Governor of Lagos State. He was sworn for 48 months tenure implying that we have 34 months left.
2. That I admire Mr. Governor for his youthfulness, his erudition and soundness of mind but 1 have to cast gate him for misplaced priorities.
3. That I am showing him a yellow card now because his half time is only l0 months away and he has not come up with any meaningful development to the people of the State. I learnt he is building roads and he is not building our children. He is taxing people and amassing money to be shared among the political elites and he is following the footsteps of a political horse, Alhaji Bola Tinubu and not administrators. Like Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Chief Michael Adekunle Ajasin and Alhaji Lateef Kayode Jakande.
4. Chief Awolowo had laid the foundation of what a sound Government should be and no other foundation can be laid by any other progressive westerner, and that is my personal opinion and not minding the position or theory of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, Chief Meredith Adisa Akinloye and the disciples of their school of thoughts who believe that you only build things and not people and you use people to trade and made profits from them, and this is the gravamen of slave trade. Human beings are things or article of trade and should be exploited for profit
purpose despite their humanity.
5. Thai in Lagos State presently, 1 flunk it is only in Ikeja that street lights works, it is only in Ikeja and Lagos that we have the concentration of court rooms. It is only Ikeja and Lagos that the Roads are –being upgraded and repaired constantly: Ikeja and Lagos had General Hospitals. In Ojo where E lives. I have not seen pipe borne water for the past 15 years. The road from Okokomaiko to Ajangbadi was cut by erosion into two, we boarded bus and stop at Olopomeji Bus-Stop, and from there, you either request, for a canoe or you walk on the culvert to Ajangbadi. It is that bad and yet you claim we have a local Government and a State Government -operating in Lagos State. In Ojo Local Government, the federal monthly allocation is matcheated on the table and the political leaders and the Executive Administrator takes their share to their respective homes. Yet you did not deem it fit to effect a change in leadership at OJo despite numerous petitions to that effect.
Ojo Local Government with a population of One Million has no General Hospital, no post- Office, no millennium school, no good roads except, federal Express road which is always congested.
did not fall. You are training these Street urchins to become future robbers if you did not stop them and divert their attention to lawful and legitimate occupation. It will be difficult for them torevert to "normal occupation" after getting easy money to build
their family foundation. As a senior brother, you owe this youngsters that duty.
F. The Creation of State police Is a policy that must be accomplish. You cannot depend on the federal police to sanitise the polity. Most policemen serving in Lagos State came from their different State of origin and their personal purpose of coming to Lagos is to make money either through corruption or offering protection and assistance to law breakers and that is why we have selective application of Laws in Lagos State; and in all my Year of practice; I have not seen any Police Officer charged for an offence under S.I 30 of the criminal code thought it is a prevalent
offence in all our Police Station.
G. Section 130 of the criminal procedure law, state as follows: Delay to take person arrested before a court; Any person who, having arrested another upon a charge of an offence, willfully delays to take him before a court to be dealt with according to law is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years. .
And as an interim measure the KAT Brigade can be enlarged in population and jurisdiction to prosecute offenders against state Laws and Local Government Bye laws and that means you have to abandon your government stances of "milking or cashing" on every situation by fixing reasonable fine or jail term for offences committed within
Lagos State.
II. Finally, the Government should build peasant hostels, lodging or accommodation, where indigent citizens can rent by paying a maximum rents of six months. Presently, in Lagos State, you cannot rent a shop or a room without paying two years rents, agreement and Agency fees to the prospective Landlord. This procedure constitute a veritable block to indigent citizen who wanted to take to honest living but has little capital. The Rent Control Edict is not working because you cannot fix a price on something you do not own. This Government owes us that duty.
I have spoken to your Excellency through the squib Magazine because I believed as a lawyer, you will probably be a subscriber to Squib Magazine and if not Mr. Opeyemi Bamidele and the learned Attorney- General will come across this piece. I will conclude this piece in April 2011 (if 1 am still alive) by withdrawing my yellow card or flashing you a red-card. I have spoken my mind and sorry o, if have not spoken well.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
DOCTORS AT WAR OVER CORONER'S SYSTEM LAW
SQUIB FEATURE
Full text of the position of the Lagos State NMA on enactment of the Corona’s Systems Law
THAT (i) The State Coroner’s System commenced or came into force on the 18th of May 2007 on Assent to at Ikeja by the Governor of Lagos Chief Bola Ahmed Tinubu. (ii) That the Coroner’s Law Cap C16 of 2003 is repealed. (iii) That under sub-heading “General Provisions”, there are 25 sections (“1 -25”). (iv) That under sub-heading “Post-Mortem Examination”, there are 5 section(“26 - 30”). (v) That under sub-heading “Procedure at Inquest” there are 16 sections (“31- 46”). (vi) That under sub-heading “Miscellaneous”, there are 7 sections (“47-53”). (vii) That there 3 schedules, one for section “8” one for section “17”, and one for section “49”.
(viii) That under the second (2nd) schedule, there are 10 (ten) forms (“A - J”). (ix) That under the third (3rd) schedule, there are 6 (six) forms (“A - F”). (x) That there is appended a subsidiary legislation, described as directions given by the Chief Judge under section 5 of the Coroner’s System Law, “a declaration of Coroner’s Districts” as well as “a ‘Citation”. However, without being exhaustive, we would like to draw your attention to certain vexatious sections of the enactment and the arguments, we are making as the basis of our inferences. (I) Under Sub-heading General Provisions Sections 7 (subsections) (1,2,3) 8,9 (1(a), (b), 2) we wish to make the following arguments: It is a gross abuse of discretion for an Attorney-General of a city, state or federation to be seen as appointing the Chief Medical Examiner within his jurisdiction. The legislation empowering his office to do so, is in the same veingrossly defective. We consider this an affront to the medical community in Lagos. The requirements for the post of Chief Medical Examiner of the state as herein spelt out are self-conceited, self-serving and spurious. Again, they constitute an affront to the medical community in Lagos, particularly the body of pathologists.
“Forensic Pathology” is only a sub-specialty of the whole body of pathology. It is not the supreme branch of pathology in itself. Also any two opinions in Forensic pathology may not be the same. The enactment under section 10(e) is grossly defective in that it seeks to make synonymous the office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Forensic Institute of Lagos State.
This attempt to put this structure on ground is totally misplaced and is considered a “BACKDOOR ACTIVITY”. All in all, it is our sincere belief that the language of “Forensic” as used so profusely, in this enactment, in all matters of death in Lagos State is the sole diabolical, handiwork of the “self-acclaimed sole forensic pathologist” of the state. We consider this again a gross abuse of language because not all deaths are “criminal investigable”, which this enactment is forcing us and every one else to so believe. Lagos State must remain “AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER” at all times. A “Forensic Institute” or “Forensic Pathologist” cannot “play God” as the final and sole determinant of the “cause of death”. It or he can only be contributory, as a part, to a whole. Again a “Forensic Institute” must defer to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria for purposes of accreditation, otherwise all its activities shall be deemed irregular and unlawful (II). Sub-heading “General Provisions” Sections 14 (b,d,h,q) 15 (4,8), 17 “A Report of death” shall be made to any of the agencies for the report of death (vis-a-vis Police, Local Government Authority, Office of the Medical Examiner) or the office of the Coroner.
Herein it is not spelt out in what form is a Report of Death to be. Phone call? Personal (verbal) visitation? Piece of writing from anybody? It must be noted that this legislation precludes or does away with, entirely, the old practice of issuing a “physician endorsed Death Certificate” wherein the latter’s impression as to be cause of death to the best of his knowledge is solicited for, which by and large should constitute a portion of the originations of the Reasoning of the Coroner as to have cause to subject the death to post-Mortem examination in the office of the medical examiner.
We would also like to bring to the fore that the listing under “reasonable causes” to subject the death to post-mortem examination is not only exhaustive but speculative, vindictive, grievous and burdensome. By this listing “all deaths” are not only Reportable but subject to post-mortem examination.
A review of section 14 subsections 1 and 2 reveals that on one hand a registered medical practitioner is precluded from issuing a medical certificate of the cause of death and on the other hand a funeral director is being requested to procure same from him. This is a great contradiction. Section 15 further affirms that all reportable deaths are subject to the “holding of an inquest” in addition to a post-mortem examination because again the listing is exhaustive, speculative, vindictive, grievous and burdensome. Section 17 reveals that also in compelling compliance of the citizenry, the Coroner is further empowered to issue warrants for exhumation of bodies, notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary— i.e religious or otherwise.The medical community herein stands to be re-informed as to the followings: What death is Natural? Old age or prolonged illness? What or who determines negligent medical interventions under this enactment? The state or the Medical Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) a federal body? What constitutes: (i) Unnatural still birth? (ii) Intra-uterine death?
Why should an inquest be held because a Coroner is informed that a death within his district has occurred “as a result of” medical intervention? This by itself is an action initiated with prejudice because it is a conclusion before a conviction. It could be better re-phrased as “whilst on” or “during” medical therapy (“intervention”) which in these instances may not warrant an inquest because a “status of innocence” is presumed until proof of incompetence or negligence is made by the appropriate practice regulating authority, the MDCN.
What constitutes any maternal death desirous of an inquest? Permit us to draw a picture between a client, who is accusing his lawyer of negligence (non-diligent) practice of law and is referred to the Judicial Council for redress, and another client who is accusing his doctor of negligence (non-diligent) in the practice of medicine and is referred to court of law for redress as being prescribed by this enactment, instead of the Medical Council.
(III) Sub-heading “General Provisions” Section 25 Subsections 1,2,3. Herein again the rights of the practising physician are not protected. The relatives of the patient-client can take advantage of this defect in enactment by facilitating the removal of their deceased by merely reporting to any of the agencies without attempting to first settle the Bills of CARE. The fears of the practitioner-physician are herein founded on experience. (IV) Sub-heading “Procedure at Inquest”, Section 32 Subsection 1: A Coroner is empowered to exercise his power in and compelling the attendance of witnesses, etc.Here again we see the rights of the practicing physician as not being protected.
We are therefore advising, that with regards to the instance of the physician-surgeon, deference should be made to the MDCN with regards to summoning and compelling of witness. (V) Sub-heading “Miscellaneous” Section 48 lays emphasis on offences and penalties and itself is an expatiation of the General Provisions. Particularly worrisome to the medical community is the word “custody” as applicable to hospital, clinics, and hospices. The scenario is (a) “any death occurs in any “custody” (any place of confinement including Prison, Police State, hospital premises, asylum, rehabilitation centre etc). Here again the rights of the practitioner physician are grossly violated in that all deaths in hospitals are subject to the holding of an inquest.
It is herein advised that Section 18 and 48 of the law should exclude/exempt hospital premises and hospices which by convention, care for the sick and dying. Again in this instance deference should be made to the MDCN which has always had jurisdiction over such practice. Section 48 subsection 6 gives hint of power of accreditation of mortuaries, private or public, solely to the office of the Chief Medical Examiner, therein precluding the oversight of the Health Facilities Monitoring and Accreditation Agency HEFAMAA of the State Ministry of Health which hitherto had jurisdiction. Herein, with regards to the issuing of death certificates, the medical practitioner is wholly precluded because he stands liable on all the grounds of this enactment.
This is very demoralizing and very emasculating. (VI) Under whatever schedule or System Law, there is no provision for any forms in which a practitioner-physician can safely and in writing, notify the appropriate authorities of a death without being culpable. This is very emasculating.
Full text of the position of the Lagos State NMA on enactment of the Corona’s Systems Law
THAT (i) The State Coroner’s System commenced or came into force on the 18th of May 2007 on Assent to at Ikeja by the Governor of Lagos Chief Bola Ahmed Tinubu. (ii) That the Coroner’s Law Cap C16 of 2003 is repealed. (iii) That under sub-heading “General Provisions”, there are 25 sections (“1 -25”). (iv) That under sub-heading “Post-Mortem Examination”, there are 5 section(“26 - 30”). (v) That under sub-heading “Procedure at Inquest” there are 16 sections (“31- 46”). (vi) That under sub-heading “Miscellaneous”, there are 7 sections (“47-53”). (vii) That there 3 schedules, one for section “8” one for section “17”, and one for section “49”.
(viii) That under the second (2nd) schedule, there are 10 (ten) forms (“A - J”). (ix) That under the third (3rd) schedule, there are 6 (six) forms (“A - F”). (x) That there is appended a subsidiary legislation, described as directions given by the Chief Judge under section 5 of the Coroner’s System Law, “a declaration of Coroner’s Districts” as well as “a ‘Citation”. However, without being exhaustive, we would like to draw your attention to certain vexatious sections of the enactment and the arguments, we are making as the basis of our inferences. (I) Under Sub-heading General Provisions Sections 7 (subsections) (1,2,3) 8,9 (1(a), (b), 2) we wish to make the following arguments: It is a gross abuse of discretion for an Attorney-General of a city, state or federation to be seen as appointing the Chief Medical Examiner within his jurisdiction. The legislation empowering his office to do so, is in the same veingrossly defective. We consider this an affront to the medical community in Lagos. The requirements for the post of Chief Medical Examiner of the state as herein spelt out are self-conceited, self-serving and spurious. Again, they constitute an affront to the medical community in Lagos, particularly the body of pathologists.
“Forensic Pathology” is only a sub-specialty of the whole body of pathology. It is not the supreme branch of pathology in itself. Also any two opinions in Forensic pathology may not be the same. The enactment under section 10(e) is grossly defective in that it seeks to make synonymous the office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the Forensic Institute of Lagos State.
This attempt to put this structure on ground is totally misplaced and is considered a “BACKDOOR ACTIVITY”. All in all, it is our sincere belief that the language of “Forensic” as used so profusely, in this enactment, in all matters of death in Lagos State is the sole diabolical, handiwork of the “self-acclaimed sole forensic pathologist” of the state. We consider this again a gross abuse of language because not all deaths are “criminal investigable”, which this enactment is forcing us and every one else to so believe. Lagos State must remain “AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER” at all times. A “Forensic Institute” or “Forensic Pathologist” cannot “play God” as the final and sole determinant of the “cause of death”. It or he can only be contributory, as a part, to a whole. Again a “Forensic Institute” must defer to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria for purposes of accreditation, otherwise all its activities shall be deemed irregular and unlawful (II). Sub-heading “General Provisions” Sections 14 (b,d,h,q) 15 (4,8), 17 “A Report of death” shall be made to any of the agencies for the report of death (vis-a-vis Police, Local Government Authority, Office of the Medical Examiner) or the office of the Coroner.
Herein it is not spelt out in what form is a Report of Death to be. Phone call? Personal (verbal) visitation? Piece of writing from anybody? It must be noted that this legislation precludes or does away with, entirely, the old practice of issuing a “physician endorsed Death Certificate” wherein the latter’s impression as to be cause of death to the best of his knowledge is solicited for, which by and large should constitute a portion of the originations of the Reasoning of the Coroner as to have cause to subject the death to post-Mortem examination in the office of the medical examiner.
We would also like to bring to the fore that the listing under “reasonable causes” to subject the death to post-mortem examination is not only exhaustive but speculative, vindictive, grievous and burdensome. By this listing “all deaths” are not only Reportable but subject to post-mortem examination.
A review of section 14 subsections 1 and 2 reveals that on one hand a registered medical practitioner is precluded from issuing a medical certificate of the cause of death and on the other hand a funeral director is being requested to procure same from him. This is a great contradiction. Section 15 further affirms that all reportable deaths are subject to the “holding of an inquest” in addition to a post-mortem examination because again the listing is exhaustive, speculative, vindictive, grievous and burdensome. Section 17 reveals that also in compelling compliance of the citizenry, the Coroner is further empowered to issue warrants for exhumation of bodies, notwithstanding any law or custom to the contrary— i.e religious or otherwise.The medical community herein stands to be re-informed as to the followings: What death is Natural? Old age or prolonged illness? What or who determines negligent medical interventions under this enactment? The state or the Medical Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) a federal body? What constitutes: (i) Unnatural still birth? (ii) Intra-uterine death?
Why should an inquest be held because a Coroner is informed that a death within his district has occurred “as a result of” medical intervention? This by itself is an action initiated with prejudice because it is a conclusion before a conviction. It could be better re-phrased as “whilst on” or “during” medical therapy (“intervention”) which in these instances may not warrant an inquest because a “status of innocence” is presumed until proof of incompetence or negligence is made by the appropriate practice regulating authority, the MDCN.
What constitutes any maternal death desirous of an inquest? Permit us to draw a picture between a client, who is accusing his lawyer of negligence (non-diligent) practice of law and is referred to the Judicial Council for redress, and another client who is accusing his doctor of negligence (non-diligent) in the practice of medicine and is referred to court of law for redress as being prescribed by this enactment, instead of the Medical Council.
(III) Sub-heading “General Provisions” Section 25 Subsections 1,2,3. Herein again the rights of the practising physician are not protected. The relatives of the patient-client can take advantage of this defect in enactment by facilitating the removal of their deceased by merely reporting to any of the agencies without attempting to first settle the Bills of CARE. The fears of the practitioner-physician are herein founded on experience. (IV) Sub-heading “Procedure at Inquest”, Section 32 Subsection 1: A Coroner is empowered to exercise his power in and compelling the attendance of witnesses, etc.Here again we see the rights of the practicing physician as not being protected.
We are therefore advising, that with regards to the instance of the physician-surgeon, deference should be made to the MDCN with regards to summoning and compelling of witness. (V) Sub-heading “Miscellaneous” Section 48 lays emphasis on offences and penalties and itself is an expatiation of the General Provisions. Particularly worrisome to the medical community is the word “custody” as applicable to hospital, clinics, and hospices. The scenario is (a) “any death occurs in any “custody” (any place of confinement including Prison, Police State, hospital premises, asylum, rehabilitation centre etc). Here again the rights of the practitioner physician are grossly violated in that all deaths in hospitals are subject to the holding of an inquest.
It is herein advised that Section 18 and 48 of the law should exclude/exempt hospital premises and hospices which by convention, care for the sick and dying. Again in this instance deference should be made to the MDCN which has always had jurisdiction over such practice. Section 48 subsection 6 gives hint of power of accreditation of mortuaries, private or public, solely to the office of the Chief Medical Examiner, therein precluding the oversight of the Health Facilities Monitoring and Accreditation Agency HEFAMAA of the State Ministry of Health which hitherto had jurisdiction. Herein, with regards to the issuing of death certificates, the medical practitioner is wholly precluded because he stands liable on all the grounds of this enactment.
This is very demoralizing and very emasculating. (VI) Under whatever schedule or System Law, there is no provision for any forms in which a practitioner-physician can safely and in writing, notify the appropriate authorities of a death without being culpable. This is very emasculating.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Vol 8 No 17 2008
SQUIB FEATURE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
IN THE IKEJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT COURT 31
BEFORE HON. JUSTICE M. O. OBADINA (MRS.)
TODAY WEDNESDAY THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2007
SUIT NO:ID/908/2003
BETWEEN:
MOROOF AYINDE LATEEF CLAIMANT
AND
1. CHIEF JUDGE OF LAGOS STATE DEFENDANTS
2. MISS S.O.NWAKA(IN HER CAPACITY
AS CHIEF MAGISTRATE 1, COURT 5,
EBUTE-METTA)
RULING
The contemnor is the claimant in this action. He is claiming among other reliefs a declaration that he has legitimate and constitutional right to practice and consult commercial law as a means of livelihood. He elected to prosecute his action in person. This is his constitutional right and he has been doing so since the inception of this case in 2003,
In view of the many procedural lapses and inappropriate legal arguments he has been filing, the court wanted to know the extent to which a private citizen can defend himself in person, whether it includes filing motions bringing forth legal arguments, citing authorities and so on. On the 13th of June 2007, the court directed parties to file written submissions on this issue so as to guide the court.
The claimant filed his written submission dated 27th June 2007. The written submission was full of personal abuse and insults on the court. When the case came up for hearing on the 11th of July 2007, the court pointed his attention to certain paragraphs of the said written address and asked if in his view those paragraphs were not contemptuous. He read out the paragraphs and instead of withdrawing them and
apologizing to the court, he stood his ground and said he was provoked.
One of such paragraphs i.e second to last paragraph at page 1 of the address reads:
"Obviously your Lordship is being biased for asking me to come and address the issues that were not brought your Lordship by the defendant. It is glaring that your Lordship wants to witch-hunt and make me a scape goat for the inept, of the counsel and for filing preliminary objection challenging the counsel's motion paper which your Lordship wants to favour.
Your Lordship seems to be the brain behind the inept practices of the counsel. I have my rights to oppose any application or motion for your Lordship's determination. If dissenting with the decision, upper court will intervene. That's what I said my Lord. With all due respect my Lord, if LL.B, call to bar and membership of
Nigerian Bar Association are paramount in the business of the Honourable Court and reason behind your Lordship telling me to come and address the court for claiming self commercial law practitioner without license, I am equivocally informing your Lordship to resign now. I repeat resign now and vacate the exalted & held in trust for the public and go and seek employment at the vicinity of the N.B.A's office. Law school or Lawyers chambers where your Lordship would be proper to defend and protect call to bar,. LL.B or N. B. A otherwise your Lordship will be held violating Section 1, 9 and 10, 5th Schedule Part I 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria"
Similar abuse and inventives are on pages 2 and 3 of the address. The claimant was to show cause by the 11th of September 2007 why he should not be committed to prison for contempt. He did not file any process in this court. Rather, he wrote petitions to the Hon. Chief Judge and to the National Judicial Council using such language to describe the Judge as inept, intransigent etc.
In fact, on page 4 of his petition to the National Judicial Council, he showed his contempt not only for this court but for the entire Lagos State Judiciary. I quote him. He said in paragraph 2:
"The moment most of the Judges at Lagos State Judiciary sees litigant coming to conduct own cases, they developed headache, they move all round to find excuse to discourage him. They engage in intimidation, harassment, humiliation with conspiracy becoming stronger in their insensitivity towards justice dispensation. Provisions of the Nigerian Constitution become irrelevant and of no value for justice administration. They lack honour and integrity. Some of them will write nonsense and call it justice. Such Judges are Justice Marsh, Olokoba, Adesanya, Shitta-bey and
Obadina. We have enough evidence to prove these claims....."
The contemnor says that he has filed a process at the Court of Appeal. That is within his personal knowledge. There is no process before this court and no order of stay of proceedings of this contempt proceeding.
For the past two adjournments the claimant stayed away from the court. The court had to issue a Bench Warrant for his arrest. Up till this moment, he has shown absolutely no remorse.
The inherent power to punish for contempt is a necessary incident to every court. The power is created and retained for the purpose of preserving the honour and dignity of the court and so the Judge holds the power for the court and for the judicial system.
It is the duty of this court not because it is the object of the insults of the litigant but to preserve the due administration of justice to punish this assault on the court.
I therefore find the claimant liable for contempt of court.
I commit him to Kirikiri Prison for 60 days to purge his contempt. He shall be produced in this court on the 4th of December 2007.
I so order.
HON. JUSTICE M. O.
OBADINA (MRS.)
JUDGE
3/10/07
Counsel: Claimant appears in person Bola Folarin Williams (Mrs.) with Tayo Adedeji
(Mrs.) for the defendants
Procedure) Rules 2004, and ordered that the Counsel should pay N2,500.00 to us. We dissented with the order given on 8/2/07 and filed an Appeal against it. Copy of the court proceeding of 8/2/07 and Appeal Notice dated 27/2/07 respectively are herein attached.
8. The Notice of Appeal dated 27/2/07 was duly served on the Counsel, one Mrs. Bola Folarin-Williams and subsequently filed a Motion of 12/5/07 for stay of proceeding before the court pending determination. Copy each of the Motion and Appeal Notice is herein attached.
9. Two months after filing Motion for stay of proceeding, the Counsel filed a Counter-Affidavit dated 15/5/07 against the Motion for stay of proceeding contrary to Order 59 Rule 1(5) of the Court Rules supra.
10. We filed, a Further Affidavit and a Reply in Point of law each dated 21/5/07 each opposing the Counsel's Counter Affidavit and served same on the Counsel representing the defendants.
11. Upon service, the Counsel went and filed another Motion to correct the errors spotted to the court by us in the Further Affidavit and Reply in point of Law filed by us. We equally opposed the Motion of the defendants filed "by their Counsel vide Preliminary Objection dated 5/7/07 as no provision for such Motion under Order 59 rules.
12. This is where the learned Justice Obadina formed own Motion at the proceeding of 15/6/07 that the -undersigned should come and address the court for claiming self Commercial Law Practitioner if licence to practice as Lawyer.
15. We replied the learned Judge through our Written Address dated 27/6/07. Copy is herein attached for your perusal and will urge you to published the full text.
14. The Court Contempt threat followed as project by Justice Obadina. We reported the threat to the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Hon. Justice Ade Alabi, Court of Appeal in a Motion dated 17/8/07 and Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman, NJC, vide copy of letter dated 10/8/07 attached.
15. Justice Obadina defied the Court of Appeal standing orders despite awareness and went ahead with the court contempt project and subsequently pre-empted NJC decision and insubordinated superior authorities. Copy each of the Motion dated 17/8/07 filed at Appeal Court and query issued to Justice Obadina by Chairman, NJC vide letter- ref: NJC/S.949/1/25 of 4/9/07 are herein attached. Please publish them.
Facts against insinuations carved in the Ruling of 3/10/07 by Justice Obadina showing our side are:
(a) The Ruling of 3/10/07 delivered by Justice Obadina was not only a dissension but abuse of power and malice.
(b) She Ruling was abruptly and hurriedly drafted on 3/10/07 out of malice for receiving query from the Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman, NJC letter ref. NJC/S.949/I/23 dated 4/9/07 by Justice Obadina. This conspiracy led the committal of the undersigned to prison unjustly.
(c) The Ruling was delivered in opposition and as revenge against Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman, NJC, Justice Idris L. Kutigi CON per his letter supra after Obadina J. received same in September 2007.
(d) That the alleged court contempt by Justice Obadina was without any filed Charge against the undersigned for record purposes. In ENWERE V. COP (1995) 6 MiR (299) 555 at 542, parag, D-E per Onu JCA. It was held that “a situation where one is detained under a purported charge without any information filed against him before any law court constitutes improper use of power or flagrant abuse of power.... which stands condemned." Squib publication copy is attached.
(e) Justice Obadina was the Complainant, Prosecutor and Judge of the Court Contempt alleged in the Ruling which contravened the Maxim of "Nemo Judex in Causa Sua" i,e you cannot be a judge in your own cause. Judicial Oath of Office was contravened where her Lordship said:
"... I will not allow my personal interest influence my official conduct and official decision ...,"
(f) That the alleged court contempt without charge ought to have been directed to another Judge to decide but Morenike Obadina J, became the alpha and omega and decided the Ruling of 5/10/07 at whims and caprices. In REX V. OTUBU (1945)9 WACA 20 at pp 21 and 60, it was decided that while any contempt committed out of court can only be dealt with by prefering a charge or filing an information and the crt or judge affected should not try the contemnor so as to keep within the tenor of the maxim which states Nemo Judex in Causa Sua.
(g) That our claim as Commercial law Practitioner being challenged in the Ruling by Morenike Obadina J. was not the business of the court as no application was tabled before the court to opposing our claim. Defendants to suit ID/908/03 have not even file their defences to date talkless of any challenge against our Writ of Summons. No application was brought before the co-art but Obadina J, was only ridicling the Court on issue outside its jurisdiction.
(h) Morenike Obadina J. alleged that there are many procedural lapses and inappropriate legal arguments, we have been filing, as reported. in the Ruling against us. Was this Court Contempt? As Judge who know the court Rules with other discretions at disposal, why can't her Lordship strike out or dismiss our processes if the claims in the Ruling are genuined? Her Lordship further claimed that she wanted to know the extent to which a private citizen can defend himself in person, whether it includes filing Motions, bringing forth legal arguments, citing authorities and so on.
(I) Our position to the insinuations of Justice Obadina in the foregoing statement carved in the Ruling was that the learned Judge did not understand her essence at the exalted seat. The High Court Rules supra under Order 13 Rule 34 mandated thus:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
IN THE IKEJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT COURT 31
BEFORE HON. JUSTICE M. O. OBADINA (MRS.)
TODAY WEDNESDAY THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2007
SUIT NO:ID/908/2003
BETWEEN:
MOROOF AYINDE LATEEF CLAIMANT
AND
1. CHIEF JUDGE OF LAGOS STATE DEFENDANTS
2. MISS S.O.NWAKA(IN HER CAPACITY
AS CHIEF MAGISTRATE 1, COURT 5,
EBUTE-METTA)
RULING
The contemnor is the claimant in this action. He is claiming among other reliefs a declaration that he has legitimate and constitutional right to practice and consult commercial law as a means of livelihood. He elected to prosecute his action in person. This is his constitutional right and he has been doing so since the inception of this case in 2003,
In view of the many procedural lapses and inappropriate legal arguments he has been filing, the court wanted to know the extent to which a private citizen can defend himself in person, whether it includes filing motions bringing forth legal arguments, citing authorities and so on. On the 13th of June 2007, the court directed parties to file written submissions on this issue so as to guide the court.
The claimant filed his written submission dated 27th June 2007. The written submission was full of personal abuse and insults on the court. When the case came up for hearing on the 11th of July 2007, the court pointed his attention to certain paragraphs of the said written address and asked if in his view those paragraphs were not contemptuous. He read out the paragraphs and instead of withdrawing them and
apologizing to the court, he stood his ground and said he was provoked.
One of such paragraphs i.e second to last paragraph at page 1 of the address reads:
"Obviously your Lordship is being biased for asking me to come and address the issues that were not brought your Lordship by the defendant. It is glaring that your Lordship wants to witch-hunt and make me a scape goat for the inept, of the counsel and for filing preliminary objection challenging the counsel's motion paper which your Lordship wants to favour.
Your Lordship seems to be the brain behind the inept practices of the counsel. I have my rights to oppose any application or motion for your Lordship's determination. If dissenting with the decision, upper court will intervene. That's what I said my Lord. With all due respect my Lord, if LL.B, call to bar and membership of
Nigerian Bar Association are paramount in the business of the Honourable Court and reason behind your Lordship telling me to come and address the court for claiming self commercial law practitioner without license, I am equivocally informing your Lordship to resign now. I repeat resign now and vacate the exalted & held in trust for the public and go and seek employment at the vicinity of the N.B.A's office. Law school or Lawyers chambers where your Lordship would be proper to defend and protect call to bar,. LL.B or N. B. A otherwise your Lordship will be held violating Section 1, 9 and 10, 5th Schedule Part I 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria"
Similar abuse and inventives are on pages 2 and 3 of the address. The claimant was to show cause by the 11th of September 2007 why he should not be committed to prison for contempt. He did not file any process in this court. Rather, he wrote petitions to the Hon. Chief Judge and to the National Judicial Council using such language to describe the Judge as inept, intransigent etc.
In fact, on page 4 of his petition to the National Judicial Council, he showed his contempt not only for this court but for the entire Lagos State Judiciary. I quote him. He said in paragraph 2:
"The moment most of the Judges at Lagos State Judiciary sees litigant coming to conduct own cases, they developed headache, they move all round to find excuse to discourage him. They engage in intimidation, harassment, humiliation with conspiracy becoming stronger in their insensitivity towards justice dispensation. Provisions of the Nigerian Constitution become irrelevant and of no value for justice administration. They lack honour and integrity. Some of them will write nonsense and call it justice. Such Judges are Justice Marsh, Olokoba, Adesanya, Shitta-bey and
Obadina. We have enough evidence to prove these claims....."
The contemnor says that he has filed a process at the Court of Appeal. That is within his personal knowledge. There is no process before this court and no order of stay of proceedings of this contempt proceeding.
For the past two adjournments the claimant stayed away from the court. The court had to issue a Bench Warrant for his arrest. Up till this moment, he has shown absolutely no remorse.
The inherent power to punish for contempt is a necessary incident to every court. The power is created and retained for the purpose of preserving the honour and dignity of the court and so the Judge holds the power for the court and for the judicial system.
It is the duty of this court not because it is the object of the insults of the litigant but to preserve the due administration of justice to punish this assault on the court.
I therefore find the claimant liable for contempt of court.
I commit him to Kirikiri Prison for 60 days to purge his contempt. He shall be produced in this court on the 4th of December 2007.
I so order.
HON. JUSTICE M. O.
OBADINA (MRS.)
JUDGE
3/10/07
Counsel: Claimant appears in person Bola Folarin Williams (Mrs.) with Tayo Adedeji
(Mrs.) for the defendants
Procedure) Rules 2004, and ordered that the Counsel should pay N2,500.00 to us. We dissented with the order given on 8/2/07 and filed an Appeal against it. Copy of the court proceeding of 8/2/07 and Appeal Notice dated 27/2/07 respectively are herein attached.
8. The Notice of Appeal dated 27/2/07 was duly served on the Counsel, one Mrs. Bola Folarin-Williams and subsequently filed a Motion of 12/5/07 for stay of proceeding before the court pending determination. Copy each of the Motion and Appeal Notice is herein attached.
9. Two months after filing Motion for stay of proceeding, the Counsel filed a Counter-Affidavit dated 15/5/07 against the Motion for stay of proceeding contrary to Order 59 Rule 1(5) of the Court Rules supra.
10. We filed, a Further Affidavit and a Reply in Point of law each dated 21/5/07 each opposing the Counsel's Counter Affidavit and served same on the Counsel representing the defendants.
11. Upon service, the Counsel went and filed another Motion to correct the errors spotted to the court by us in the Further Affidavit and Reply in point of Law filed by us. We equally opposed the Motion of the defendants filed "by their Counsel vide Preliminary Objection dated 5/7/07 as no provision for such Motion under Order 59 rules.
12. This is where the learned Justice Obadina formed own Motion at the proceeding of 15/6/07 that the -undersigned should come and address the court for claiming self Commercial Law Practitioner if licence to practice as Lawyer.
15. We replied the learned Judge through our Written Address dated 27/6/07. Copy is herein attached for your perusal and will urge you to published the full text.
14. The Court Contempt threat followed as project by Justice Obadina. We reported the threat to the Chief Judge of Lagos State, Hon. Justice Ade Alabi, Court of Appeal in a Motion dated 17/8/07 and Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman, NJC, vide copy of letter dated 10/8/07 attached.
15. Justice Obadina defied the Court of Appeal standing orders despite awareness and went ahead with the court contempt project and subsequently pre-empted NJC decision and insubordinated superior authorities. Copy each of the Motion dated 17/8/07 filed at Appeal Court and query issued to Justice Obadina by Chairman, NJC vide letter- ref: NJC/S.949/1/25 of 4/9/07 are herein attached. Please publish them.
Facts against insinuations carved in the Ruling of 3/10/07 by Justice Obadina showing our side are:
(a) The Ruling of 3/10/07 delivered by Justice Obadina was not only a dissension but abuse of power and malice.
(b) She Ruling was abruptly and hurriedly drafted on 3/10/07 out of malice for receiving query from the Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman, NJC letter ref. NJC/S.949/I/23 dated 4/9/07 by Justice Obadina. This conspiracy led the committal of the undersigned to prison unjustly.
(c) The Ruling was delivered in opposition and as revenge against Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman, NJC, Justice Idris L. Kutigi CON per his letter supra after Obadina J. received same in September 2007.
(d) That the alleged court contempt by Justice Obadina was without any filed Charge against the undersigned for record purposes. In ENWERE V. COP (1995) 6 MiR (299) 555 at 542, parag, D-E per Onu JCA. It was held that “a situation where one is detained under a purported charge without any information filed against him before any law court constitutes improper use of power or flagrant abuse of power.... which stands condemned." Squib publication copy is attached.
(e) Justice Obadina was the Complainant, Prosecutor and Judge of the Court Contempt alleged in the Ruling which contravened the Maxim of "Nemo Judex in Causa Sua" i,e you cannot be a judge in your own cause. Judicial Oath of Office was contravened where her Lordship said:
"... I will not allow my personal interest influence my official conduct and official decision ...,"
(f) That the alleged court contempt without charge ought to have been directed to another Judge to decide but Morenike Obadina J, became the alpha and omega and decided the Ruling of 5/10/07 at whims and caprices. In REX V. OTUBU (1945)9 WACA 20 at pp 21 and 60, it was decided that while any contempt committed out of court can only be dealt with by prefering a charge or filing an information and the crt or judge affected should not try the contemnor so as to keep within the tenor of the maxim which states Nemo Judex in Causa Sua.
(g) That our claim as Commercial law Practitioner being challenged in the Ruling by Morenike Obadina J. was not the business of the court as no application was tabled before the court to opposing our claim. Defendants to suit ID/908/03 have not even file their defences to date talkless of any challenge against our Writ of Summons. No application was brought before the co-art but Obadina J, was only ridicling the Court on issue outside its jurisdiction.
(h) Morenike Obadina J. alleged that there are many procedural lapses and inappropriate legal arguments, we have been filing, as reported. in the Ruling against us. Was this Court Contempt? As Judge who know the court Rules with other discretions at disposal, why can't her Lordship strike out or dismiss our processes if the claims in the Ruling are genuined? Her Lordship further claimed that she wanted to know the extent to which a private citizen can defend himself in person, whether it includes filing Motions, bringing forth legal arguments, citing authorities and so on.
(I) Our position to the insinuations of Justice Obadina in the foregoing statement carved in the Ruling was that the learned Judge did not understand her essence at the exalted seat. The High Court Rules supra under Order 13 Rule 34 mandated thus:
'Where by these rules any act may be done by any party in any proceedings, such act may be done either by the party in person,…’
See Order 50 Rule 1 of the Court Rules supra and Sections 16(l)d (2)c, 17(2)a, (2)e and (5)a of 1999 Constitution of federal Republic of Nigeria for further guidance. Justice Obadina is under Judicial Oath of Office where she pledge that she will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution supra. If the undersigned as Claimant in Suit ID/908/05 before the court, filed Motions, bringing forth Legal arguments, citing authorities and so on, were these called Court Contempt under the rule of law and authorities cited supra? Citing from public documents such as Constitution supra. High Court Rules supra. Evidence Act, Dictonary, Law Reports etc are rights belong to the people in general to guide and protect orderliness in public life. Public documents are free for public consumption.
Morenike Obadina J. said in the Ruling that we wrote petitions to the Hon. Chief Judge and to the National Judicial Council using such language to diseribe the Judge. We confirm having written petitions against her Lordship to the Superior authorities? Was her lordship too big to be reported to Superior authorities? Was Obadina J. directed by the Chief Judge and National Judicial Council (NJC) to take control and decide for them? Is she above the law of the land? Why can(t her allow the Chief Judge and NJC take their decisions for themselves? Obviously, the Ruling of Obadina J. amounts to contempt of authority and the learned Judge ought to be charged accordingly. Whatever we wrote in letters addressed to the Chief Judge and NJC are for their decisions and not for Justice Obadina to insubordinate and treated as Court Contempt against the undersigned. Morenike Obadina J. is too junior to Chief Judge and NJC in her far away Court No, 51 in Lagos Judiciary. The Ruling was unethical to unseat superiors.
(k) The committal of the undersigned to prison by Justice, Obadina was a symbol representing the Chief Justice of Nigeria/Chairman, NJC, Justice Idris L. Kutigi CON at the prison and suffered the brunt for his Lordship -as consequence to his letter addressed to her lordship,
(l) That Justice Obadina was claiming that the undersigned stay away from some past court adjournments but failed to mentioned the date(s) in the Ruling. Her lordship was not saying the truth at all. She went further that she ordered parties in suit ID/908/03 to file addresses before the court on calling self Commercial Law Practitioner. She Mentioned d&te of filing our written address of 27/6/07 but failed to mention date of Written Address filed by the defendants in the Ruling. Were these not dishonesty of a Judge?
Finally, Justice Morenike Obadina is currently facing two Suits ID/797M/07 and ID/68/08. Her Lordship is facing ID/797M/07 along with her Court Registrars while the latter was against her and 3 Ors filed by us to show that nobody is above the law. Justice Obadina will not go with her lordship heinous crimes at the exalted seat against us. Judiciary is not a royal family house. It is own by the public not by Lawyers, Law School or Call to Bar or Membership of NBA. Justice Obadina is operating Bank account, nobody demand her Lordship if she is CIBN member or hold B.Sc (Banking and Finance). Her Lordship go to hospitals to treat ailments. Doctors will not ask if her Lordship is a member of Nigerian Medical Association before being given necessary care. Governor of Lagos State was notknown as Politician but contested No. 1 position in Lagos State and won. INEC did not drive him away for not holding B.Sc (Political Science) or B.Sc (Public Admin.) It is some judges in Lagos Judiciary who formed the habit of insulting public with LL.B Call to Bar etc and terrorised us for not being an NBA member. It is Shameful under the rule of law! No regret or apology about our actions against Obadina J.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
for: MORAY KONSULT
MOROOF A. LATEEF
PRINCIPAL PARTNER
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
'Fighting Corruption Legally' The Critical Balance Between Institutions & Individuals
By: Ademola A. Adewale
Legal Practitioner
The war against corruption in Nigeria has recently taken a new turn, with the re-assignment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC’s helmsman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu to the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategies Studies, NIPSS, Kuru near Jos, Plateau State which effectively signals his removal as EFCC’s Chairman.
Ribadu’s going off to school has once again renewed the age-old debate between the role of the individual and the state in nation (organisational) building.
Some of the more popular axioms even expressed as cliches are: it is better to build institutions and not individuals, no individual is indispensable; institutions even nations, have (or at least have the potential) to exist in perpetuity. Individuals being mere mortals are in the words of the Holy Books like vapour which this moment is and the next no more or in the words of the English Bard Williams Shakespeare in Macbeth
“Like an actor that struts and frets his time upon the stage and then is heard no more.”
“It is like a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” So this school of life concludes that it is a waste of time, an exercise in vain when important institutions of state are woven round the activities even foibles of an individual.
Yet like most things in life, there is a second side to this matter. Institutions, even nations do not have a life of their own outside the individuals and personalities who run them. And usually at various times in history these institutions and nations are manned by certain personalities who not only distinguish themselves but leave enduring footprints in the sands of time that affect society even the whole humanity for generations. The Americans have about 43 presidents but a handful stand out from the crowd - Abraham Lincoln, F.D Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton etc.
The British Monarchy is more than a thousand years old but only a few kings or queens stand out - King James I, King Henry VIII, Queen Victoria and now Queen Elizabeth II. The same for the institution of the British Prime Minister; of the scores of the occupants over the ages, the readily remembered ones are: Sir Winston Churchill and Mrs. Margaret Thatcher.
And in the not too distant past, we recall round the globe for good or evil, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mahatma Ghandi and Indira Ghandi of India, Martin Luther King Jnr. of U.S.A.
The recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Bill Gates of U.S.A are of course part of our present realities. Thus, if life is all about institutions and nations and never about individuals where do we locate the achievements of these larger-than-life personalities.
As already said, so much heat and hot air has been generated by the recent tactical removal of Nuhu Ribadu from EFCC by whatever name called. Some have argued that it sounds the death knell on the anti-corruption crusade, while others counter by arguing that the anti-corruption war under Ribadu was not only selectively fought but depended too much on the whims and caprices of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu who took maximum advantage of the undue publicity to play to the gallery. We are thus reminded that it is a great insult to the intelligence of over 140 million Nigerians that only one individual can successfully wage the war against corruption.
Amidst these stormy debates, the war against corruption must not only continue but with greater vigour. But for these objectives to be achieved, it is submitted that there must be a critical balance between the perpetuity offered by institutions such as EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices (ICPC) and the individual brilliance, charisma and genius of the human beings who man these bodies. Without prejudice to the faults of Mallam Ribadu, the fact remains that no public officer has fought corruption passionately like Ribadu has. Evidence:- yahoo yahoo boys who brought the nation to disrepute by their 419 and internet scams were put on the run. A number of them were tried, convicted and sentenced to jail.
* Then serving Minister, Late Chief Michael Afolabi put on the trial for corrupt practices, but unfortunately died in detention.
* A serving Inspector General of Police put on trial, convicted and jailed.
* A governor, although hastily impeached, put on trial convicted and jailed.
* Several former governors, arrested, detained and put on trial, Ibori, Orji Kalu, Turaki, Fayose and now Igbinedion on trial.
This work rate, comparatively with past records of no indictment and no conviction of a past public officer in Nigeria for corrupt practices is remarkable and makes Mallam Ribadu a ‘genius’ by Nigerian standards. Further, Mallam Ribadu at any forum leaves no one in doubt about his determination to fight corruption to a stand still in Nigeria. Nor can any one question his passion or zeal for the anti-corruption crusade. In the context of the zero-record of anti-corruption crusade pre-Ribadu, his modest achievement stands him out as an icon upon whose achievement further success can be built. Thus his removal at a time when the anti-corruption crusade was heating up was bound to raise much suspicion and generate much public outcry. His greatest critics cannot deny him a place in the terse roll of honour of genuine Nigerian patriots inspite of his many faults and failings. After all, being humans the best of us have feet of clay.
General Murtala Mohammed (late) is regarded as the nation’s best leader till date. Yet his mass sack of civil servants in 1975/76 is believed to have laid the foundation for insecurity and corruption in the civil service. Since it is natural that civil servants who might be booted out anytime will try to lay up something by hook or crook for the rainy day. And if that sack was inspired by the desire to rid the civil service of corruption, was the highly respected Dr. T.O Elias, former Chief Justice of Nigeria who was a victim of the sack, corrupt or incompetent? Since, if he were any of the two he would not have later become the President of the International Court of Justice, ICJ. The duo of Buhari/Idiagbon were also respected for their stance on discipline, yet they could only look the other way while the late Emir of Gwandu escaped the shores of Nigeria with 53 suit cases of Nigerian money for conversion into foreign currency while lesser mortals dared not be seen with more than N50,000. And was it not under these Lords of Discipline that Decree 4 was enacted making the publication of truth an offence as experienced by Messrs Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor of the then “THE GUARDIAN’ newspaper?
The crucial point is that in the assessment of an individual’s achievement for public service it is his general outlook and not his weaknesses and faults that should be the focus. And from that perspective Mallam Nuhu Ribadu Ahmed is a fearless and passionate anti-corruption crusader and a big asset to the EFCC under him. Herein lies the critical balance that must exist between an organisation and indeed a nation on one hand and the individual on the other. Both sides of the equation need to be fully developed and at their best for a nation to achieve her greatest potentials.
Putting it most graphically, to a soccer crazy nation, how many of us have been to Argentina? Yet, do we not know or have heard of Diego Maradona? Same for Pele and Brazil. So let us strengthen institutions while encouraging individuals to excel.
Legal Practitioner
The war against corruption in Nigeria has recently taken a new turn, with the re-assignment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC’s helmsman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu to the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategies Studies, NIPSS, Kuru near Jos, Plateau State which effectively signals his removal as EFCC’s Chairman.
Ribadu’s going off to school has once again renewed the age-old debate between the role of the individual and the state in nation (organisational) building.
Some of the more popular axioms even expressed as cliches are: it is better to build institutions and not individuals, no individual is indispensable; institutions even nations, have (or at least have the potential) to exist in perpetuity. Individuals being mere mortals are in the words of the Holy Books like vapour which this moment is and the next no more or in the words of the English Bard Williams Shakespeare in Macbeth
“Like an actor that struts and frets his time upon the stage and then is heard no more.”
“It is like a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” So this school of life concludes that it is a waste of time, an exercise in vain when important institutions of state are woven round the activities even foibles of an individual.
Yet like most things in life, there is a second side to this matter. Institutions, even nations do not have a life of their own outside the individuals and personalities who run them. And usually at various times in history these institutions and nations are manned by certain personalities who not only distinguish themselves but leave enduring footprints in the sands of time that affect society even the whole humanity for generations. The Americans have about 43 presidents but a handful stand out from the crowd - Abraham Lincoln, F.D Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton etc.
The British Monarchy is more than a thousand years old but only a few kings or queens stand out - King James I, King Henry VIII, Queen Victoria and now Queen Elizabeth II. The same for the institution of the British Prime Minister; of the scores of the occupants over the ages, the readily remembered ones are: Sir Winston Churchill and Mrs. Margaret Thatcher.
And in the not too distant past, we recall round the globe for good or evil, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mahatma Ghandi and Indira Ghandi of India, Martin Luther King Jnr. of U.S.A.
The recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Bill Gates of U.S.A are of course part of our present realities. Thus, if life is all about institutions and nations and never about individuals where do we locate the achievements of these larger-than-life personalities.
As already said, so much heat and hot air has been generated by the recent tactical removal of Nuhu Ribadu from EFCC by whatever name called. Some have argued that it sounds the death knell on the anti-corruption crusade, while others counter by arguing that the anti-corruption war under Ribadu was not only selectively fought but depended too much on the whims and caprices of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu who took maximum advantage of the undue publicity to play to the gallery. We are thus reminded that it is a great insult to the intelligence of over 140 million Nigerians that only one individual can successfully wage the war against corruption.
Amidst these stormy debates, the war against corruption must not only continue but with greater vigour. But for these objectives to be achieved, it is submitted that there must be a critical balance between the perpetuity offered by institutions such as EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices (ICPC) and the individual brilliance, charisma and genius of the human beings who man these bodies. Without prejudice to the faults of Mallam Ribadu, the fact remains that no public officer has fought corruption passionately like Ribadu has. Evidence:- yahoo yahoo boys who brought the nation to disrepute by their 419 and internet scams were put on the run. A number of them were tried, convicted and sentenced to jail.
* Then serving Minister, Late Chief Michael Afolabi put on the trial for corrupt practices, but unfortunately died in detention.
* A serving Inspector General of Police put on trial, convicted and jailed.
* A governor, although hastily impeached, put on trial convicted and jailed.
* Several former governors, arrested, detained and put on trial, Ibori, Orji Kalu, Turaki, Fayose and now Igbinedion on trial.
This work rate, comparatively with past records of no indictment and no conviction of a past public officer in Nigeria for corrupt practices is remarkable and makes Mallam Ribadu a ‘genius’ by Nigerian standards. Further, Mallam Ribadu at any forum leaves no one in doubt about his determination to fight corruption to a stand still in Nigeria. Nor can any one question his passion or zeal for the anti-corruption crusade. In the context of the zero-record of anti-corruption crusade pre-Ribadu, his modest achievement stands him out as an icon upon whose achievement further success can be built. Thus his removal at a time when the anti-corruption crusade was heating up was bound to raise much suspicion and generate much public outcry. His greatest critics cannot deny him a place in the terse roll of honour of genuine Nigerian patriots inspite of his many faults and failings. After all, being humans the best of us have feet of clay.
General Murtala Mohammed (late) is regarded as the nation’s best leader till date. Yet his mass sack of civil servants in 1975/76 is believed to have laid the foundation for insecurity and corruption in the civil service. Since it is natural that civil servants who might be booted out anytime will try to lay up something by hook or crook for the rainy day. And if that sack was inspired by the desire to rid the civil service of corruption, was the highly respected Dr. T.O Elias, former Chief Justice of Nigeria who was a victim of the sack, corrupt or incompetent? Since, if he were any of the two he would not have later become the President of the International Court of Justice, ICJ. The duo of Buhari/Idiagbon were also respected for their stance on discipline, yet they could only look the other way while the late Emir of Gwandu escaped the shores of Nigeria with 53 suit cases of Nigerian money for conversion into foreign currency while lesser mortals dared not be seen with more than N50,000. And was it not under these Lords of Discipline that Decree 4 was enacted making the publication of truth an offence as experienced by Messrs Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor of the then “THE GUARDIAN’ newspaper?
The crucial point is that in the assessment of an individual’s achievement for public service it is his general outlook and not his weaknesses and faults that should be the focus. And from that perspective Mallam Nuhu Ribadu Ahmed is a fearless and passionate anti-corruption crusader and a big asset to the EFCC under him. Herein lies the critical balance that must exist between an organisation and indeed a nation on one hand and the individual on the other. Both sides of the equation need to be fully developed and at their best for a nation to achieve her greatest potentials.
Putting it most graphically, to a soccer crazy nation, how many of us have been to Argentina? Yet, do we not know or have heard of Diego Maradona? Same for Pele and Brazil. So let us strengthen institutions while encouraging individuals to excel.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Vol 8 No 13 14th January 2008-'What Do You Know About Magistrates?
SQUIB FEATURE
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT “MAGISTRATES”? BY www.pinheiro-law.com
1. The term "MAGISTRATE" from Old French is derived from
Middle English word "magistrate" known since c.1374, "civil officer in charge of administering laws", magistrate from Latin "magistratus", from magister "master", itself from contrastive adjective from the adverb ma^ "more", itself a comparative degree of magnus ("great").
2. ORIGINAL MEANING
In Roman antiquity, the word magistratus was created to indicate the highest offices of state.
The term was maintained in most feudal successor states to the western Roman Empire, mainly Germanic kingdoms, especially in city-states, where the term magistrate was also used as an abstract generic term, denoting the highest office, regardless of the formal titles (e.g., Consul, Mayor, Doge), even when that was actually a council. The term "chief magistrate" applied to the highest official, in sovereign entities the head of state and/or head of government.
3. CONTINENTAL EUROPE AND ITS FORMER COLONIES
Under the civil law systems of European countries such as Italy, Spain, Belgium and France, "magistrate" is a generic term which comprises both prosecutors and judges (distinguished as 'standing' versus 'sitting' magistrature).
4. FINLAND
A magistrate is a state-appointed local administrative officer whose responsibilities include population information, public registers, acting as a public notary and conducting civil marriages and same-sex unions.
5. MEXICO
In Mexico a Magistrado, or magistrate, is a superior judge just below the Supreme Court Justices (Ministros de la Corte Suprema in Mexico) in Mexico) in the Federal Law System and the highest ranking judge of any State. They review the cases seen by a judge in a second term if any of the parties does not agree with the verdict. In some special cases, there are Superior Magistrates that review the verdicts of other magistrates in special Courts or Tribunals.
6. AUSTRALIA
STATE MAGISTRATE
In some states such as Queensland and NSW, the Magistrate may appear robed, although some Magistrates are known to prefer a business suit.
Historically, Magistrates in Australia have been referred to as "Your Worship". (From Old English weorthscipe, meaning being worthy of respect.) However, members of the magistracy are now addressed as "Your Honour" in all states. This was partly to recognize the increasing role magistrates play in the administration of justice, but also to recognise the archaic nature of "Your Worship" and the tendency for witnesses and defendants to incorrectly use "Your Honour" in any event. It is also acceptable to address a magistrate simply as Sir or Madam.
7. INDIA
There are categories of magistrates in India. This classification is given in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It stipulates that in each session's district, there shall be:
• A Chief Judicial Magistrate
• Judicial Magistrates First Class;
• Judicial Magistrates Second Class; and
• Executive Magistrates
• District Magistrate (DM)
8. NEW ZEALAND
The position of stipendiary magistrate in New Zealand was renamed in 1980 to that of district court judge. The position was often known simply as magistrate, or the post nominal initials SM after a magistrate's name in newspapers' court reports.
9. UNITED STATES
The terms "magistrate" or "chief magistrate" was sometimes used in the early days of the republic to refer to the President of the United States, as in President John Adams's message to the U.S. Senate upon the death of George Washington: "His example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read" (December 19, 1799).
The office of United States magistrate judge was established by the Federal Magistrates Act of -1968 [Pub. L. No. 90-378,82 Stat. 1107 (1968), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 604, 631-639 and 18 U.S.C. 3401-3402].
Magistrates are referred to by the litigants and lawyers that appear before them as "Judge" or "Your Honor."
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT “MAGISTRATES”? BY www.pinheiro-law.com
1. The term "MAGISTRATE" from Old French is derived from
Middle English word "magistrate" known since c.1374, "civil officer in charge of administering laws", magistrate from Latin "magistratus", from magister "master", itself from contrastive adjective from the adverb ma^ "more", itself a comparative degree of magnus ("great").
2. ORIGINAL MEANING
In Roman antiquity, the word magistratus was created to indicate the highest offices of state.
The term was maintained in most feudal successor states to the western Roman Empire, mainly Germanic kingdoms, especially in city-states, where the term magistrate was also used as an abstract generic term, denoting the highest office, regardless of the formal titles (e.g., Consul, Mayor, Doge), even when that was actually a council. The term "chief magistrate" applied to the highest official, in sovereign entities the head of state and/or head of government.
3. CONTINENTAL EUROPE AND ITS FORMER COLONIES
Under the civil law systems of European countries such as Italy, Spain, Belgium and France, "magistrate" is a generic term which comprises both prosecutors and judges (distinguished as 'standing' versus 'sitting' magistrature).
4. FINLAND
A magistrate is a state-appointed local administrative officer whose responsibilities include population information, public registers, acting as a public notary and conducting civil marriages and same-sex unions.
5. MEXICO
In Mexico a Magistrado, or magistrate, is a superior judge just below the Supreme Court Justices (Ministros de la Corte Suprema in Mexico) in Mexico) in the Federal Law System and the highest ranking judge of any State. They review the cases seen by a judge in a second term if any of the parties does not agree with the verdict. In some special cases, there are Superior Magistrates that review the verdicts of other magistrates in special Courts or Tribunals.
6. AUSTRALIA
STATE MAGISTRATE
In some states such as Queensland and NSW, the Magistrate may appear robed, although some Magistrates are known to prefer a business suit.
Historically, Magistrates in Australia have been referred to as "Your Worship". (From Old English weorthscipe, meaning being worthy of respect.) However, members of the magistracy are now addressed as "Your Honour" in all states. This was partly to recognize the increasing role magistrates play in the administration of justice, but also to recognise the archaic nature of "Your Worship" and the tendency for witnesses and defendants to incorrectly use "Your Honour" in any event. It is also acceptable to address a magistrate simply as Sir or Madam.
7. INDIA
There are categories of magistrates in India. This classification is given in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It stipulates that in each session's district, there shall be:
• A Chief Judicial Magistrate
• Judicial Magistrates First Class;
• Judicial Magistrates Second Class; and
• Executive Magistrates
• District Magistrate (DM)
8. NEW ZEALAND
The position of stipendiary magistrate in New Zealand was renamed in 1980 to that of district court judge. The position was often known simply as magistrate, or the post nominal initials SM after a magistrate's name in newspapers' court reports.
9. UNITED STATES
The terms "magistrate" or "chief magistrate" was sometimes used in the early days of the republic to refer to the President of the United States, as in President John Adams's message to the U.S. Senate upon the death of George Washington: "His example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read" (December 19, 1799).
The office of United States magistrate judge was established by the Federal Magistrates Act of -1968 [Pub. L. No. 90-378,82 Stat. 1107 (1968), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 604, 631-639 and 18 U.S.C. 3401-3402].
Magistrates are referred to by the litigants and lawyers that appear before them as "Judge" or "Your Honor."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)