“The Embassy of the United States is deeply concerned by the impact of the executive branch’s decision to suspend and replace the Chief Justice and head of the judicial branch without the support of the legislative branch on the eve of national and state elections.

We note widespread Nigerian criticism that this decision is unconstitutional and that it undermines the independence of the judicial branch. That undercuts the stated determination of government, candidates, and political party leaders to ensure that the elections proceed in a way that is free, fair, transparent, and peaceful – leading to a credible result.

We urge that the issues raised by this decision be resolved swiftly and peacefully in accordance with due process, full respect for the rule of law, and the spirit of the Constitution of Nigeria. Such action is needed urgently now to ensure that this decision does not cast a pall over the electoral process.”

President Muhammadu Buhari has suspended the Chief Justice of the Federation (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen.

In his place, he has sworn in Justice Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed in an acting capacity.

He performed the ceremony at the presidential villa, Abuja on Friday.

President’s Special Assistant on New Media, Mr Bashir Ahmad.

In his place, Ahmad said through his twitter handle, @BashirAhmaad, that Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammed, was named by the President.

SUSPENSION OF THE HON. CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA:

 The Bar resolved the following in a motion moved and seconded by Chief C.C. Onyeagbakor and L.U.N. Nwakaeti, Esq respectively

1. That Owerri Bar rejects in its entirety the purported and unconstitutional suspension of the Hon. CJN by the President of FRN.
2. That Owerri Bar hereby empowers the chairman and executive members of the Bar to attend the NEC meeting of the NBA on Monday 28/01/2019 and insist on the branch position that all legal process must be followed to ensure that this Constitutional breach is reversed.
3. That in addition to (2) above, Owerri Bar resolved that NBA should take all other steps including but not limited to the total boycott of Courts and if the need arises the shutting down of the polity in collaboration with Civil Society Groups.
4. That the Attorney General of the Federation and the Vice President be called upon to resign for being complicit in the Constitutional breach.
5. That in addition to (4), the Attorney General of the Federation and the Vice President should face disciplinary committee of the Bar for disciplinary actions; and
6. That in line with the precedent laid in Abia State, that the NJC should dismiss the purported Acting CJN who presented himself to be sworn in, in circumstances that they are in pari material with Abia State case.

THE IRREGULARITIES ON THE ORDER OF THE CCT MOTION EXPARTE
The face of the Order clearly shows that it was not moved by a counsel. In other words, the Application was moved suo motu by the court and on its volition. This is indeed strange.
DID THE PRESIDENT EVEN COMPLY WITH THE ALLEGED ORDER BY THE CCT?
The answer is in the negative. 
The President made heavy weather about complying with an Order from the CCT.
The President violated the alleged Order made by the CCT. A careful study of the enrolled Order shows that the Order only directed the CJN to STEP ASIDE as the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the Chairman of the National Judicial Council. Consequent upon the CJN stepping aside, then the second Order follows which is the order that the President swear in the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court.
But the President in paragraph 16, of his address stated thus “It is against this background that I have received the Order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal DIRECTING ME TO SUSPEND pending the final determination of the cases against him. It also explains why I am complying immediately… ”
Two things are glaring.
One, the President said he was directed to SUSPEND the CJN. The wordings of the alleged Order are clear and unambiguous. There is no such order directing the president to suspend the CJN!. 
Two, the President stated that the Order from the CCT directed him to suspend the CJN “pending the final determination OF THE CASES AGAINST HIM”.  A glance at the Order will again reveal that the President did not comply with the Order he alleged he was complying with.
The Order from the CCT asked that the most senior Justice be sworn in pending the determination the determination OF THE MOTION ON NOTICE.
There is a clear difference between an Order made pending the determination of Motion on Notice and an Order Pending the final determination of the cases against him. While the former abates when the Motion on Notice is taken and determined, the latter enures till the conclusion of the entire trial.
In any case, a Motion Exparte cannot be made “Pending the final determination of the case”.
The above inconsistencies clearly reveal the intent of the president and the desperation of the Government to REMOVE the CJN.
CAN THE PRESIDENT ADD OR VARY THE ALLEGED ORDER OF COURT?
The answer is in the negative.
The President while pretending to be complying with the Order of the CCT cannot add to, remove or vary the order. That is the law.
IS IT PROPER TO ORDER THE CJN TO STEP ASIDE VIA AN EXPARTE ORDER.?
This again is in the negative
Exparte Orders are sparingly made and in situation of extreme urgency, compelling enough as to leave the court with no other alternative in preventing an anticipated injury of a grave nature. See Group Danone & Anor v. Voltic (Nig.) Ltd. (2008) 3-4 S. C. 32 
One is tempted to ask, what is the irretrievable damage or urgency involved that cannot wait till Monday, 28, 2019 being the next adjourned to warrant the grant of the Order?
In view of the nature of the Order, is it not deserving that the respondent be put on Notice, rather than via Exparte Order that are made without hearing the other party?
IS THE TRIBUNAL CLOTHED WITH THE REQUISITE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORDER?
The answer is in the negative.
This is owing to the fact that the jurisdiction of the tribunal has been contested. In the circumstance, the only jurisdiction it has is to first decide whether it has jurisdiction and nothing more!
Authorities are legion that jurisdiction is the very basis on which any court tries a case; it is the lifeline of all trials. It is trite that the issue of jurisdiction is a threshold and is paramount and of great importance in the adjudication of any matter. Jurisdiction of a court has to do with the competence of the court to entertain and determine a matter.
Interestingly, the CCT had adjourned to January 28, 2019 to consider the application challenging its jurisdiction.

It is the law that where a court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine a matter before it, any step taken in relation to the matter is a nullity and void.” See also the case of NCC v. MTN (Nig) Comm. Ltd. (2008) 7 NWLR (Part 1086) 229 at 260 paras. A-B.

MYSTERY ON DATES:
The Petition against the CJN by the Anti- Corruption and Research Based Data Initiative (ACRBDI) was received by the Code of Conduct Bureau on the Wednesday 9th of January, 2019. The Charge was drafted on Thursday 10th January, 2019 and the Application to commence trial was filed on Friday 11th January, 2019. And the matter fixed for arraignment on Monday, January 14, 2019
It leaves one to wonder why the speed to put the CJN on trial, and how all steps towards his arraignment was concluded within a space of 2 working days.
Quite shockingly, even the purported Motion Exparte was dated 9th of January, 2019, the day the petition was received, even before the Charge was drafted.
HAS THE CJN’S RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING NOT BEEN SERIALLY VIOLATED.
The twin pillars of natural justice which are –
(1) let the other side be heard and
(2) one cannot be a judge in his own cause which are summed up in the Latin maxim

It is the duty of the court to create the environment for fair hearing in an egalitarian   manner for the benefit of the parties. Most especially in a criminal charge.

IS IT PROPER FOR THE TRIBUNAL NOT TO OBEY ORDER OF COURTS?

The answer is in the negative.
There are 3 subsisting Orders against the CCT. Also, there is an Order of the Court of Appeal. All restraining the tribunal from proceeding with matter.
It is trite that matters appertaining to judicial orders or judgments, for that matter, are not generally treated with arrogance or levity.  It is rather officious and treading on a perilous path for one to arrogate to oneself the right to choose and pick between court orders in terms of whether they are valid or null and void. In fact, since there is a strong presumption in favour of the validity of a court's order, it behoves everyone to keep faith with the order of the court. It makes no difference that ex-facie it appears that the court that made the order is without jurisdiction because at the end of the day an order of the court subsists and must be obeyed until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
To, therefore, disobey an order of the court on the fancied belief that the said order is null for any reason whatsoever - even if it subsequently turns out that the order in fact is proved to be null - is a risky and unadvisable decision because until the said order is finally determined to be null and void by the court. the order subsists with the string attaching to it unmitigated." See Babatunde v. Olatunji (2000) LPELR-SC.148/1995 Per ACHIKE J.S.C. (P.23, paras. A-F).

IS THE PRESIDENT CONSTITUTIONALLY EMPOWERED TO SUSPEND THE CJN WITH OR WITHOUT AN ORDER FROM THE CCT?
The Legislature is the custodian of a country's Constitution in the same way that the Executive is the custodian of the policy of Government and its execution, and also in the same way that the Judiciary is the custodian of the construction or interpretation of the Constitution.
This makes the 3 Arms separate. The Judiciary is not an appendage of the Executive.
There is no provision in our Constitution, the grund norm that authorises the President to suspend the CJN, in like manner, the CCT cannot make an order, asking the CJN to “step aside”, without any recourse to the Senate or the NJC.
It is also a principle of interpretation that the language of the Constitution where clear and unambiguous, must be given its plain evident meaning and that a Constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose. See Hon. Michael Dapianlong & Ors v. Chief (Dr.) Joshua Chibi Dariye & Anor (2007) 4 S. C.  (Pt. III) 18
It is good law that where the Constitution or a statute provides for a pre¬condition to the attainment of a particular situation, the pre-condition must be fulfilled or satisfied before the particular situation will be said to have been attained or reached. Our common and popular expression is "condition precedent" See Inakoju & Ors v. Adeleke & Ors. (2007) 4 NWLR (Part 1025) 423, Per Niki Tobi JSC (as he then was) (of blessed memory)
From the above, it goes even without saying that the purported suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honorable Justice Walter Onnoghen by President Muhammadu Buhari is unconstitutional illegal, undemocratic, null and void and has no legal footing whatsoever.
SEPREBOFA M. OYEGHE ESQ

The Executive Governor of Rivers State, His Excellency, Governor Ezenwo Nyesom Wike, was today, 24th January, 2019 appointed a Life Bencher by the Body of Benchers.
The ceremony took place at the Supreme Court Complex Abuja.

The Governor who was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1998, joins a list of distinguished lawyers who have been so appointed as Life Benchers.

                     Okechukwu Orisakwe Esq

I’ve been reading some comments by highly revered Senior Advocates, trying to justify President Buhari’s absence and indict Atiku’s. These SANs have, with due respect, become notorious for unguarded comments that tend to turn the law upside down in some circumstances or heat up the polity at other times. While the CJN saga was fresh, I even heard one of them dishing out all manner of bad words to the Honourable Justices that decided the much hyped Ngajinwa’s case, saying, inter alia, that their Lordships reached an “illegal and unconstitutional decision”.
My colleagues can recall that in addition to the several provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act provides that a Lawyer should not be found guilty of “infamous conducts” or engage in acts “unbecoming of a Legal Practitioner”. I am mindful that a breach of any or all of these provisions could bring down the sledge hammer of the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Commitee... Now I ask, do we agree that the calamitous and political statements of these Senior Advocates that heat up our polity constitute “infamous conducts” as well as conducts “unbecoming of a Legal Practitioner”? My humble answer is in the affirmative.
If our collective answers are in the affirmative (which I believe they should), has the LPDC become a toothless dog? Or rather, that kind of dog that can only intimidate other domestic animals but nothing more? What about the LPPC that conferred the tank of SAN upon them, is it not high time they stripped them off of that hallowed silk? I recall what happened to Michael Andoaaka, former AGF who was stripped off his silk for political comments that weren’t as heavy as what we hear from the people under reference in this post. What is sauce for the goose, they say, is sauce for the gander. The nobility and integrity of this profession is being daily ridiculed.
And if that doesn’t stop, I am afraid the profession will ultimately find obscurity as it’s terminus...

                     Prof. Nnamdi Obiaraeri

It is a well known legal aphorism that you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand but APC National seems hell bent on doing the legally impossible in its Imo State Chapter.

The Adams Oshiomole led APC NWC has acquired the uncommon notoriety of being outlaws, compromised, incompetent, corrupt, inept and reckless party officials.

Sadly, this has led to heavy casualties in the electoral fortunes of the party with the dreary prospect that APC may not field candidates in the around the corner general elections in Zamfara, Rivers, Osun and even Enugu States.

The foundation of any democratic enterprise is obedience to rule of law and robust party politics revolves around obedience to party constitution but these ideals📌 sound strange or alien to the APC National Chairman.

Needless to say that the numb and impolitic leadership style of Adams Oshiomole has taken a great toll on the membership of the otherwise flourishing party in government .

Contrary to the express provisions of APC Constitution plus a valid and subsisting judgement (including order of perpetual injunction) of the Federal High Court Abuja recognising the Hon Chief Dan Nwafor led Imo APC Executive as the authentic officers of APC down to the Local Government and ward levels, the hard nosed Adams Oshiomole unilaterally purported to dissolve the elected Imo Exco and appointed a Chief Marcon Nlemigbo "Caretaker Committee".

In the eyes of the law, this dissolution of a democratically elected Imo APC Executive and the subsequent composition of an undemocratic "Caretaker Committee" is illegal, null, void and of no effect.

To add salt to injury, and as practical demonstration of the continuing drama of the absurd, the said Chief Marcon Nlemigbo led "Caretaker Committee" composed a Kangaroo "Disciplinary Committee" which allegedly tried in absentia some duly nominated APC National Assembly candidates in the next month's election and purportedly "suspended" these candidates from the party.

What a charade or huge joke taken too far.

📌Who gifts away six or seven national assembly positions out of thirteen (three Senate and ten House of Representatives) to the opposition before balĺots are cast except a man determined to shoot himself on the hip? 

Without fear of contradiction,  Chief Marcon Nlemigbo ought reasonably to know, at least as a lawyer (although a very new wig), that an illegal action can not give rise to a legal claim.

You can not give what you do not have- *nemo dat quod non habet.*

Chief Nlemigbo had no powers to convoke a "Disciplinary Committee" as he is merely a pretender to the office of State Chairman of APC and those egging him on are liable to be committed for contempt of court. 

Going by the judgement of the Federal High Court, the only valid and subsisting APC Executive in Imo State is that led by Hon Chief Dan Nwafor.

In view of the foregoing, the Caretaker Committee led by Chief Nlemigbo lacks the requisite *locus standi* to operate as officers of the party not to talk of setting up a "Disciplinary Committee" to try any person or duly nominated candidates of the party in a general election.

Even as this mockery or travesty of a recommendation of suspension is said to have been sent to APC NWC for consideration, the national officers need to be reminded that *"ex dolo malo non oritur actio",* meaning that a person who grounds his cause of action on an immoral or an illegal act can never be assisted.

Put succinctly, the Chief Nlemigbo led "Caretaker Committee" is unknown to law and his so called "Disciplinary Committee" is a hogwash, pooh pooh and tommyrot.

Inexorably, his "Disciplinary Commitee" remains a Kangaroo Committee whose mandate or terms of reference arose *ex turpi causa*📌 or in transgression of a judgement of a Court of Superior Records and positive laws of this country.

If not for purposes of irritation and political jaywalking, that Kangaroo "Disciplinary Committee" ought to know that their assignment was dead on arrival and their purported recommendation of the suspension of duly nominated national assembly candidates is illegal and ultra vires.

It is a complete waste of time and a monumental exercise in futility because going by irrevocable INEC timelines for the 2019 general election, the window for substitution of candidates by political parties has closed and the names of all national assembly candidates eligible to contest the general election published.

So how do you put something on nothing and expect it to stand?

Certainly, illegality cannot beget legality.

At this stage, only the death of a candidate can remove him or her from the ballot and certainly not the perverse findings of a Kangaroo Disciplinary Committee set up by an otherwise illegal Caretaker Committee.

Nigerians were expecting that after the Adams Oshiomole led NWC auctioned mandates and arbitrarily doled out undemocratic📌 automatic tickets in Imo APC, that the party will deploy strong post-primaries ADR techniques to calm frayed nerves of its members to no avail.

The APC National should immediately retrace its odious missteps and reverse the barage of calculated and premeditated undemocratic onslaughts on Imo APC.

Needless to say that the cocktail of ilegalities already recorded suggest clearly that the APC National does not wish the party well in Imo State but there is still a fighting chance because 24 Hours is a long time in politics. 

A word is usually not enough for the unwise.


A new normal is possible!


*Prof Obiaraeri is my name, the ☆☆☆☆☆ 5-Star Civilian General etc.*

Word on the street is that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Walter Onnoghen admitted guilt to the Code of Conduct investigators and tried to excuse it by pleading mistake. The next line of argument is that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I heard it from a layman like Fisayo Soyombo who said that the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria has already been convicted in the court of public opinion. Then I heard it from Prof. Oyebode on national television and then from a radical young lawyer I admire so much Mr. Umar Sa’ad. The question really is who is ignorant of the law?

According to the reports in the news, Chief Justice Onnoghen was visited by operatives of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) on 10/1/19 and he admitted in writing that a Standard Chartered Bank Account declared by him in 2016 for the first time was opened sometime in 2011. Going by a strict interpretation of Section 15 of the Code of Conduct Act it ought to have been declared at least 4 years before in 2012 or thereabouts, it is implied. It is this admission in writing that emboldened the CCB and Attorney General in filing charges to file an application for the CJN to resign from office together with the charge. I don’t know how a court can grant a request for a defendant to resign. Maybe it is the defendant that will grant the prayers of the prosecutor? But that is by the way side.

The real question is this; did the CJN’s admission prove that he is guilty of a crime? The law is that he is not guilty of anything and in fact under the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act his admission in writing rather than being proof of guilt is in fact a defence – perhaps, the strongest possible defence under the law. Yes, you heard me right!

The Chief Justice’s hasty investigation and botched arraignment made his traducers overlook the law. They were in a hurry to bag their prey, but they got the wrong one. Speed is nothing if you are travelling in the wrong direction. Especially if you are travelling in the opposite direction to the law.

On the 9th of January 2019 the Code of Conduct Bureau received a petition from President Buhari’s sidekick and former party publicity secretary, one Dennis Aghanye. The CCB investigated the petition on the 10th of January 2019 and charged the Chief Justice of Nigeria to the Code of Conduct Tribunal on the 11th. Not to be outdone the CCT fixed the arraignment for the very next working day, the 14th of January 2019. Talk of a rush to an extrajudicial lynching!

I submit that the there is absolutely no basis in law for the charge before the CCT.

Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, Chapter C15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 provides as follows;

The functions of the Bureau shall be to –

Receive assets declarations by public officers in accordance with the provisions of this Act;Examine the assets declarations and ensure that they comply with the requirements of this Act and of any laws for the time being in force;Take and retain custody of such asset declarations; andReceive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of this Act and where the Bureau considers it necessary to do so, refer such complaints to the Code of Conduct Tribunal established by Section 20 of this Act in accordance with the provisions of sections 20 to 25 of this Act;

Provided that where the person concerned makes a written admission of such breach or non-compliance, no reference to the Tribunal shall be necessary.

Lawyers know what a proviso is. That last part of the section where it says, “provided that where…” is a proviso in law.  You can call it a condition precedent or an exception, as the case may be. Black’s Law Dictionary says a proviso is (1) a limitation, condition or stipulation upon whose compliance a legal or formal document’s validity or application may depend. (2) in drafting, a provision that begins with the words provided that and supplies a condition, exception or addition.

If you look at entire Act, you would see that Section 3(d) is the only provision that gives the CCB power to refer cases of investigation to the CCT.  And if you look closer, you would also see that the power of the Bureau to refer a person under investigation to the Tribunal for trial is subject to the proviso.  But what the proviso clearly says is that once the person under investigation makes a written admission of the breach or non-compliance of which he is accused, the Bureau no longer has power to refer the matter to the Tribunal. The word used is SHALL, a word which lawyers know is mandatory and cannot be interpreted as permissive in this context.

So when commentators like Prof. Oyebode gloat on prime time television that the CJN admitted non-compliance and thereby he finished himself. You can now see why he is the CJN and they are not!

Too many lawyers have started thinking like President Buhari – that you can select what part of the law you want to apply depending on whether your friends or your enemy is concerned.

There are at least three implications of the proviso to Section 3 of the Code of Conduct Act I want to draw attention to. First, that the Bureau has no power to refer the CJN or any person to the tribunal for trial if indeed such a person has admitted to certain non-compliance in writing. Second, without the Bureau’s reference/referral the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the CJN for any act of non-compliance. If you look at the legislative scheme, you would notice that there is no independent power of the Tribunal to originate cases. That is to say all cases must come from the Bureau on the condition that the person sought to be tried has denied the non-compliance or breach of the law. Finally, it means that the Bureau failed in its responsibilities to act in line with the provisions of the Act only and violated Section 5 of the Act which obligates a public officer not to allow conflict between his personal interests and his duties and responsibilities.

By virtue of Section 24(2) only the Attorney General of the Federation or his delegate can prosecute. Thus the Bureau’s power of reference can only be exercised through the office of the Attorney General. My question is did the CCB or the Attorney General read the proviso to Section 3(d). it is the same Attorney General that has now instructed the NFIU to freeze the CJN’s accounts. Under what law?

It is clear that the true intention of the Code of Conduct Act is to enforce disclosure of the assets of public officers. It does not only punish false disclosure and non-disclosure it positively rewards truthfully disclosure even if done late. It is thus clear that Section 3 overrides Section 15 of the Act.

Section 15 of the Act provides,

A public officer shall, within fifteen months after the coming into force of this Act or immediately after taking office and thereafter –At the end of every four years;At the end of his term of office; andIn the case of a serving officer, within 30 days of the receipt of the form from the Bureau or at such other intervals as Bureau may specify

Submit to the Bureau a written declaration in the Form prescribed in the First Schedule to this Act or, in such form as the Bureau may, from time to time, specify all his properties, assets and liabilities and those of his spouse or unmarried children under the age of twenty one years.

It is this section that is relied upon to say that the CJN ought to have declared his Standard Chartered Account opened in 2011 at least in 2012 and hence his admission that he did not do so until 2016 is proof that he breached the Act.

Assuming that his non-declaration in 2012 is a breach of the Act, the proviso to Section 3(d) provides that if he admits as much in writing, the Bureau SHALL not refer his case to the Tribunal.

What the CCB and Attorney General of Federation has done is to divorce Section 15 from Section 3 and treat the categories of offences created by Section 15 as strict liability offences. I submit that it is impossible to do so without doing violence to the law, unless an exception can be found to the proviso to Section 3(d).

By standing the law on its head, the CCB and the Attorney General maybe encouraging public officers to break the law. A public officer who declares an asset after the due date (going by Section 15) instead of making an additional declaration and admitting in writing this non-compliance, will be encouraged to retrieve his early declaration and retrospectively declare.

Anyone familiar with the process of filing assets declaration forms, know that it is signed before a high court judge. A corrupt senior judge who makes a mistake would have retrieved the earlier one and destroyed it and commissioned another one. Which high court judge would not jump at the opportunity to be of assistance to MiLord, the Chief Justice of Nigeria? If the CJN had done this in 2016 when he realized his error and removed the earlier ones, no one would have embarrassed him today. But he did the right thing.

Section 3(b) of the Act says the Bureau’s functions include examining the assets declarations and ensuring they comply with the requirements of law. Read together with the proviso, it follows that if in the course of examining the assets declaration forms the Bureau finds any lapse it can draw the attention of the declarant to the fact and if he admits in writing that the observation is true, that is the end of the matter. That was how the law was meant to function.

Until President Buhari came along, that is. Nowadays, those parts of the law which are exculpatory are ignored and the entire legislative scheme distorted. Isn’t it interesting that we have yet to see a single serious anti-corruption legislation made by the Buhari Presidency? Maybe they will do something before May 29, 2019.

The essence of the Code of Conduct Act is to ensure that public officers declare their assets and not to punish them for doing so (even if late, since that is a non-compliance with the time frame requirements). The proviso to Section 3 is a breakwater that the Bureau cannot pass over, unless the person being investigated denies the act of non-compliance. Section 15(2) buttresses that point, when it provides that “any statement in any declaration that is found to be false by any authority or person authorized in that that behalf to verify it, shall be deemed to be a breach of this Act.”

For a statement in a declaration to be actionable it must have been found to be false by the authority or person authorized to verify it. In other words, after the person has been given opportunity to deny or admit and he denies, the verifying authority (the Bureau) can investigate and prove it was false. It is in such cases and such cases alone that the person is referred to the Tribunal. However in cases like the CJN’s where he has admitted his non-compliance since 2016 the Bureau was wrong to refer his case to the Tribunal.

Why then did the CCB overstep its boundaries in the face of the clear provisions of the law? Politics.

Mr Dennis Aghanya who wrote the petition said it all, in his petition to the Bureau referenced the forthcoming elections and said we are only 30-something days away from the general elections in which the CJN will play an important role. The motive was political. It was a two way gamble, on the one hand if the CJN is stampeded into resigning, he would be removed from office and whoever takes over after him would be made more pliable by the climate of fear created by this unusual event. The biggest beneficiary of such a seismic event would be the sitting President. If on the other hand the CJN refuses to resign but chooses to fight on in court, the Buhari media octopus can then pillory him all over the place. This would impede the smooth functioning of the judicial arm. Every act whether administrative or judicial that he performs as Chief Justice of Nigeria would be considered fair game. In the event that an election petition comes to the Supreme Court and the judicial outcome is not in favour of President Buhari or his party, we are likely to witness massive protests or other acts which will imperil national security.

Having acted in ignorance of the law or in bad faith or both, the entire Bureau ought to resign. The Attorney General who is saddled with the task of commencing prosecutions but did not bother to read the law and proceeded with haste to institute proceedings should equally fall on his dagger. But then, am being carried away, this is Naija. They will not.

Emmanuel Jakpa, a legal practitioner wrote in from Warri, he can be reached on japsmanuel@gmail.com

The decay at the Supreme Court did not start with Hon. Justice Onnoghen but many years ago. Hon Justice Uwaifo in his valedictory party, first drew the nations attention to the rot at the Supreme Court. He accused the CJN then of awarding contracts to his wives. In fact, Justice Wais was accused of awarding balooned contract to his second wife, then a lawyer. The accusation was made by a  group known as Derivative Front believed to be based in South South of Nigeria. Exactly on 21st June 2005, Mr Ephraim Duru had appeared before the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/ 161/2001, THE HONDA PLACE vs. GLOBE MOTORS  to argue his application for transfer of a motion then pending before the Supreme Court from the Supreme Court Panel chaired by Justice Uwais  to another Panel on grounds of likelihood of bias based on corruption. Uwais was accused of ordering for supply of several pieces of honda vehicles from Honda Place even when a dispute of who between Honda Plate and Globe Motors had the sole distributorship right of Honda vehicles in Nigeria. The allegetion also carried the fact that certain pieces of honda vehicles  were supplied to the Supreme Court by Honda plate. Ephraim Duru was haunded by very many senior Advocates of Nigeria and NBA threatened to prosecute Ephraim Duru and also to take him before LPDC. It took the courage of four Aba lawyers; Ukpai Ukairo, O.O.Anyadikw, Victor C. Nwaugo and AGE Nwachukwu to stand to the defence of Ephraim Duru both in court and NBA NEC meeting in Aba. There was a write-up tagged " BEFORE EPHRAIM DURU IS CRUCIFIED" which was well circulated before NEC members who came for meeting in Aba wherein  the role of Ephraim Duru in that case was well explained. Uwais succeeded in intimidating Duru but he failed to impress in our minds that he was innocent. Lord Chancellor of England from where we borrowed our system, Lord Francis Bacon was convicted of corruption, Lord Macclesfied was reputed for his prolific demands for percuniary aggrandizement. Both suffered the consequences of their actions. Our own Justices Onnoghen is facing a charge of breach of Code of Conduct as a public officer and all you hear some lawyers raise is " PDP this way" 'A PC that way', 'son of Niger Delta' etc. Some quote irrelivant case of Ngajiwa vs. FRN  without querrying Onnoghen's innocence in the accusation. The man, Justice  Onnoghen has in the case of Ahmed vs. Ahmed 2014, Vol 231 of LRCN stated the position of the law that any charge bordering on breach of Code of Conduct by a public officer under schedule 5 is exclusively triable by CCT. So, the actions we take today or the things we say today, may hunt us tomorrow. For me, Hon Justice Onnoghen, how do you plead; guilty or not guilty? Only bold step towards this direction will clear your name. Any other thing, be it injunction or directives of 4 Niger Delta governors will end up giving you a permanent tag of a corrupt man in our minds. Thanks.

 Victor C. Nwaugo Esq. Is an Aba based lawyer.

Now that Yusuf Buhari is back, it’s time to ask these questions

Jan 16, 2019

Islamic human rights organization, MURIC has said via a statement signed by its director, Professor Ishaq Akintola, that “Judicial corruption fuels impunity. It is the worst type of corruption because that is where we go when the system is corrupt, he added. The statement reads:

“Any nation whose judicial system is led by corrupt judges is sitting on the precipice. Judicial corruption should not be tolerated in any sane society. It corrodes the rule of law. It is a cancerous tumour in any nation’s anatomy and any surgeon worth the salt will not hesitate to amputate a cancerous part of the body in order to save the rest.


“Judicial corruption enthrones corrupt politicians in political offices. It robs hardworking, honest and credible politicians of well-deserved victory at the polls. Judicial corruption is the deadliest enemy of democracy. It debilitates the rule of law, renders equal rights unattainable and puts asunder any dream of an egalitarian society. Judiciary is the last hope of the common man and a corrupt judge dashes the hope of the ordinary citizen.

“A corrupt judiciary poses the most potent threat to crime fighters like policemen, anti-corruption agencies, anti-graft activists, human rights activists, etc. The efforts of these patriotic elements who put their lives on the line for the sake of society will be in vain if the judiciary is corrupt. Corrupt judges frustrate the efforts of crime fighters. A corrupt judiciary emboldens criminals and corrupt people as they always know that they can bribe their way out in court.

“Nobody can wipe out corruption where the judiciary itself is enmeshed in dirty deals. It is like pouring water inside a basket in an attempt to fill it up. A hundred bucketfuls cannot achieve that. That is why MURIC is sounding this note of warning. Allow FG to handle the case of the CJN now before it infects the whole system.
Image result for muric nigeria

“Something is wrong with us as a people if we want to defend a chief judge who made five different cash deposits of $10,000 each into Standard Chartered Bank Account 1062650 on 8th March 2011; made two separate cash deposits of $5000 each on 7th June 2011 followed by four cash deposits of $10,000 each on the same day. Again on 27th June 2011, Justice Onnoghen made another set of five separate cash deposits of $10,000 each and made four more cash deposits of $10,000 each on the following day, 28th June 2011. Are the rest of us who are poor Nigerians created to shine his shoes and lick his boots?

“MURIC is concerned because Islam abhors materialism. What is a judge doing with so much money when 80 million fellow citizens are wallowing in abject penury? Can we take any accumulated wealth to the grave? Do we know when our time will be up? Where are those before us who stole all the milk and honey in the land?

The Muslim Rights Concern is concerned because even if all public office holders are accumulating wealth unjustly, the chief judge of the land must be above board like Caesar’s wife. The Qur’an says all the wealth in this world cannot make a man live forever (104:1-9; 102:1-. Umar bin Khattab insisted that governors appointed by him must declare their assets immediately they are appointed and immediately after leaving office.

All these are allegations made in the petition written against him by a lawyer human rights activist and instead of the judge to deny them he claims to have forgotten to declare them in his asset declaration. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, what do we call this claim of forgetfulness made by the numero uno lawman of the federation? Justice Onnoghen should resign immediately if there is any decency left in him.

This is definitely not the ideal symbol of justice a nation can be proud of. We are making a mockery of the bench if high-ranking lawyers bend over backwards to defend the indefensible in this case. We seem to be unable to face the truth in this society. Other countries are making progress by punishing corrupt judges. Who did this to Nigeria?


“In China, Huang Songyou, a former Chinese supreme court judge was jailed for life after being convicted of embezzlement and receiving nearly £500,000 in bribes. Another judge, Wang Suyi was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for bribery. Indonesia’s corruption court sentenced one of the country’s top judges to eight years in prison for taking bribes in January 2017.

“In Pakistan, a five-member panel of judges ruled that Justice Patrialis Akbar was guilty of receiving thousands of dollars from a meat importer to influence the outcome of a judicial review of the law on animal husbandry. Mark Ciavarella, a corrupt judge in the United States was sent to 28 years in June 2018 for selling kids to private prisons while Munir Patel, an ordinary British court clerk was sentenced to four years in prison in 2011 for receiving £100,000 bribe because Britain will not stomach corruption in its criminal justice system.

“The choice is ours, whether to deal decisively with corrupt judges in order to instill discipline in the judiciary or to allow tribal jingoism, acrobatic religiousity and articulated political sentiment to override our objectivity.

For the avoidance of doubts, we assert clearly, categorically and unequivocally that MURIC will continue to support this regime not because the president is a Muslim (he is not the only Muslim candidate anyway) or because of his political leaning but because the president has unassailable integrity and because this is the only regime that has made fighting corruption its cardinal focus.

“We are also not unaware of the personal risks involved, they are simply part of the hazards of human rights activism. We are prepared to do even more in the interest of our dear country and in defense of Allah-given fundamental human rights of Nigerian Muslims and the rest of its citizens.

On a last note, we reiterate that Justice Onnoghen is a clog in the wheel of justice. Wailers should allow the law to take its due course. It is most dangerous for Nigeria to approach a general election with a jaundiced judicial system. The Nigerian people have lost confidence in him. He should resign without delay”.

The judiciary is a sacred institution and remains so.

The sanctity of the judiciary is indubitable and unassailable in a thriving and mature democracy.

Unfortunately, Nigeria is a fledgling or struggling democracy and its judiciary is troubled.

Judges who man the judiciary are special breed of homo sapiens taken from among the specially trained minds called lawyers.

By the way, it is not every lawyer that has the qualification, temperament, mien, demeanour, candour and calling for being a judex or properly put, a judge of court of superior record.

Hence, every judge is a lawyer but not every lawyer is a judge and these fine distinctive attributes must not be taken lightly.

Under the ancient doctrine of seperation of powers, the judiciary is the only arm of government vested with interpretative powers of the laws of the state.

Nigeria is a constitutional democracy and the extant 1999 Constitution as amended in its section 6 expressly vests the judicial powers of the federation on the judiciary.

Whatever thing that happens with the judiciary directly affects the polity because the judiciary is an important and indispensable institution in nation building. 

The polity is awash with the unsettling news that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (often abbreviated as "CJN"), the head of the Supreme Court, the apex and final court of law and policy, may be dragged to the Code of Conduct Tribunal for breaching the constitutional requirements over declaration of assets.

Naturally, given the looming general elections and associated political over dramatisation of every issue, this has rankled the troubled nation.

Of a truth, this is unheard of and unprecedented as no CJN has been on trial since 1863 when the coinage "Supreme Court" was first adopted by the colonial masters via the enactment of the Supreme Court Ordinance No. II and or since the  formal establishment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 1963 following the abrogation of the appellate jurisdiction of the judicial committee of the Privy Council which was Nigeria’s apex Court.

Opinions have been rife on the development which has rather developed premature ullage by some dissatisfied lawyers and commentators who "hold unto its droplet to make mountainous and misleading interpretations according to each hold of it they get in bits".

Lawyers and ordinary citizens are entitled to their opinions on any issue but they should not in guise of enlightenment convulse the thoughts of the ordinary man as they may have had theirs in that light.

Therefore and advisedly, those throwing pedestrain innuendos or rushing into political conclusions or unleashing mob mentality through offering unprocessed legal opinions on the very sensitive subject without getting the full facts of the matters are not doing the judiciary or the polity any good.

By any standard, the Chief Justice of the Federation is not a small official of State. He ranks by national protocol.

The  CJN is the head of the judiciary in Nigeria and that is an exalted office with commensurate gargantuan responsibilities and high expectations and it is in that light that the allegations against him must be dispassionately mirrored.

The point must be accentuated very clearly that the requirements for being a judicial officer are usually higher than that required for being a member of any of the other arms or branches of government (being the executive and legislature).

A judge or judicial officer is expected to live admirably and consistently above board like the proverbial Ceaser's wife.

By a community reading of the Judicial Oath in the Seventh Schedule of the 1999 Constitution as amended and the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers, a judicial officer must not be tainted or corrupt or compromisable and having no business with politics or partisanship.

Aside intergrity, impeccability and incorruptibility which are the irreducible minimum standards for a judicial officer, at all times and in all circumstances, a judicial officer must never be in breach of the Constitution or laws of the land.

The allegation before the Code of Conduct Bureau (also called "CCB") is that the CJN, Nigeria’s most senior judicial officer, maintained illegal accounts containing foreign currencies and did not declare them.

By no means is this a trifle or a joke or allegation that can be dismissed with a wave of the hand or sacrificed on the alter of expedience or political jiggery-pokery.

Without prejudice to the right to presumption of innocence, these allegations are direct affronts and breaches of the provisions of the Constitution which judicial officers among other things swore to observe and uphold. 

Sadly, preliminary findings disclose that the deposition or statement of the Learned CJN to the CCB did not completely and satisfactorily rebut these weighty allegations.

That is tacky, tricky, most troubling and disturbing. 

What do you do in the circumstance given that the law must be allowed to take its course?

Conclusively, suspicion is not a ground for criminal responsibility.

Besides, our law is that even an accused person facing trial is presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.

This raises serious dilemmas for all concerned.

Should the suspected erring judicial official (in this case the CJN) be prosecuted for non-declaratipn of assets and maintaing foreign acounts contrary to the Code of Conduct in keeping with the dry letters or the law and in satisfaction of the requirements of equality before the law or should he not be prosecuted based on his exalted office or political or other extrenous considerations?

Our laws do not confer immunity on judicial officers  except in the due discharge of their judicial functions.

Petitions against erring judicial officers must first go to the NJC.

Paradoxically and coincidentally, the CJN is the head of NJC and he is the one whose conduct is in issue.

Too many questions are therefore thrown up at this stage- was the NJC petitioned before this matter came into public domain; can the CJN be a judge in his own cause or matter; when then is the best time to prosecute an erring judicial officer?

To arrive at final conclusions, we must hear both or all sides to this unusual issue, the petioners, the CCB, the NJC, and CJN and even the Attorney-General of the Federation). That is the basis of the time- honoured and ancient doctrine of fair hearing or audi alteram partem.

Nigerians quickly need satisfactory explanations to these questions and many more grey areas surrounding this ugly development.

However this matter is resolved, the point has come out that the judiciary, which is the sentinel of democracy, is on trial one more time.

It is a wake up call for all stakeholders to ensure the independence, impartiality and incorruptiblity of the judiciary.

Unfortunately, the NBA (a major stakeholder) is in coma as the NBA President is currently in court struggling hard to save his name, face, fame, silky wig and gown, earnings and liberty from the proverbial long arm of the law over corruption charges.

That is a big moral burden and whatever NBA under its beleaguered President says now may pass as sheer humbug. Too bad!

Beyond attention seeking comments, analysis and posturings whether by lawyers or laymen, this is the time to comprehensively clean up the judiciary and weed out the few bad eggs among them and save the integrity of the majority who have shown tenacious fidelity to their solemn Oath of office.

There is no more room for pretences and holier than thou attitude. The truth must be told and may the heavens not fall, our judiciary is sick!

We so submit...As the Court Pleases.

A new normal is possible!

Prof Obiaraeri, N.O., Ph.D (Law), B.L., etc.

In a unanimous decision, a full panel of the Supreme Court in MOSES BENJAMIN & ORS. vs. KALIO & KALIO jettisoned the requirement of registration as a precondition for the admissibility of land documents in evidence. It held that as far as they are properly pleaded, land documents are admissible as proof of title.
In it's lead judgment delivered by EKO, JSC, the Supreme Court had course to review the provisions of Section 20 of the Rivers State Land Instruments Law, Sections 4(3), and 5, and Item 23 of the 1999 Constitution. It also considered its previous decisions in OGBIMI vs. NIGER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, OJUGBELE vs. OLASOJI, AKINTOLA & ANOR. vs. SOLANO, EDOKPOLO & CO. LTD. vs. OHENHEN, which had earlier affirmed the provision of the Land Instruments Law and held that an unregistered registrable instrument cannot be pleaded.
The Court came to the conclusion that in view of the inclusion of Evidence in the Exclusive Legislative List, Section 20 of the State Law is an act of legislative trespass into the exclusive legislative terrain. A document that is pleaded and admissible under the Evidence Act cannot be rendered unpleaded and inadmissible by the State Law.
Consequently, unregistered land documents are admissible even as proof of title.
The implications of the decision are:
1. Objections based on non-registration of registrable instruments can no longer be entertained in a court of law;
2. Decisions of the lower courts which run contrary to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on this issue will be overturned on appeal.

According to a police spokesperson, underpants thieves might be charged with attempted murder and not stealing.

In recent months, there has been a spate of theft of underpants rumoured to be used ritual purposes that have led to the death of the owners of the undergarments.

A man was caught on Thursday in Akure, Ondo State, with a bag containing women’s underwear and sanitary pads. The man was almost lynched by a mob after he was caught with the nylon bag containing the items.

Dolapo Badmos, the police spokesperson for Zone 2 command, confirmed in her Instagram post that the thieves caught stealing confess to using the panties for rituals which lead to the premature death of the owner.

According to reports, ritualists often send out errand boys and girls, who help get the panties. Female agents are also used to collect male underwears from men after sex.

“What is the in thing about increase in stealing of underpants?! Learnt the ones caught in the act always confess to be using it for rituals whereof the owner dies prematurely…. Henceforth anyone caught stealing pants might not be charged for stealing but attempted murder. This has to stop,” Badmos posted on Instagram.

However, there is no provision in the Nigerian constitution that will back such a charge in court.

She wrote;

    What is the in thing about increase in stealing of underpants?! Learnt the ones caught in the act always confess to be using it for rituals whereof the owner… https://t.co/CfuBYPMUUs

      Dolapo Badmos (@Opetodolapo) January 5, 2019

The Bar Human Rights Committee conducted a training for the Nigerian Bar Association on Environmental Rights and Alternative Dispute Resolution for lawyers from the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The training took place in Abuja, Nigeria and brought together representatives from every branch in the Niger Delta region as well as lawyers from each state’s attorney general’s office and key government agencies working to address the oil spills and environmental pollution in the Niger Delta.


The training was conducted by BHRC Chair Kirsty Brimelow QC and members Tim Cooke-Hurle, Kemi Ojutiku, and Keven Jon Heller. They were supported by BHRC Executive Officer Amanda June Chadwick in partnership with the Policy and Strategic Planning Advisor for the NBA, Zainab Animashaun.

The training brought nearly 100 lawyers from the Niger Delta region to learn about the domestic, regional and international standards on environmental rights and protections and on available mechanisms of redress, including alternative dispute resolution. The training is part of an ongoing partnership between BHRC and the Nigerian Bar Association to build the working knowledge of lawyers in Nigeria on regional and international standards and mechanisms for human rights. The training was designed to build the capacity of lawyers working in the Niger Delta region representing communities impacted by oil spills and other environmental pollution as a result of extraction industries operating in the region.
 









During the four-day training, the lawyers were introduced to fundamental concepts of regional and international law. Participants were also asked to participate in practical exercises on case management, drafting submissions to international treaty bodies and special rapporteurs, and conducting interviews with vulnerable witnesses.

After the training was complete, 50 of the participants were selected to participate in a fifth day of training on how to conduct the training for others. These lawyers were given guidance from BHRC on how to prepare for and conduct the training and were given the opportunity to present some of the more challenging elements of the regional and international training to their peers. The new trainers will work with the NBA’s Niger Delta Task Force to conduct training on environmental law and alternative dispute resolution to other lawyers in the Niger Delta.

This manual was researched, complied and created by the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales.The pilot training is coordinated in partnership with the Nigerian Bar Association.This training has received financial support from Rule of Law Expertise UK (ROLE UK), UKAid and the Niger Delta Development Commission.

National Identification Number is Mandatory for all lawyers in Filing Court Processes. This is pursuant to the National Identity Management Commission Act, 2007 (Government Notice No. 123) which can be seen in page 5 and 6 of the gazette.

This indicate that for a lawyer to carry out certain transactions he/she must provide his/her National Identification Number.

Below is the Regulation 1 (1) relevant to lawyers transactions provides, inter alia-

1.—(1)“In accordance with provisions of section 27 (1) (1) of the Act , the use of the National Identification Number (NIN) shall be mandatory for the following additional transactions”-

(a)……………….

(oo) executing any contract or business agreement ;

(pp) tenancy agreements;

(qq) obtaining and processing of probate documents ;

(rr) all transactions involving the acquisition, use or transfer of parcel of land or landed properties ;

(ss) any transaction, contract or agreement for a valuable consideration and for the transfer of any interest, tangible or intangible;

(u) filing and registration of criminal and civil actions in courts or other arbitration process;

(2) It shall be *mandatory* for government agencies listed in the First Schedule to these Regulations which offer services listed in sub-regulation (1) of this regulation to-

(a) require any person transacting with them to produce his NIN: and

(b) verify and authenticate the person or NIN so provided in the National Identity Database using the following means of verification or authentication –

(i) real time online verification from the NIMC Verification Service platform.
(ii) Card Acceptance Device (CAD).

(iii) Card Reading Device, or,

(iv) a combination of the means stated in this paragraph.

4.(1)The Commission shall ensure *strict compliance* with the NIN requirements under the Act , the Mandatory Use of NIN Regulations , 2015 , these Regulations and the Nigeria Biometrics Standards Regulations ,2017.

(2) The Commission shall –

(a) ensure that every *agency* with statutory functions that requires identity management maintains a NIN and Biometrics Standards Compliance Register within its agency , which shall record the compliance with the Mandatory Use of the NIN Regulations 2015 , these Regulations and the Nigeria Biometrics Standards Regulations 2017.

In exercising its powers of enforcement and compliance, the Commission shall have power to –
(a) demand for evidence of compliance from persons , *public or private institutions and organizations*;…

(d) institute criminal proceedings against a non -compliant person or entity through the Office of the Honorable Attorney -General of the Federation or by instituting civil action against defaulting person or entity;

(e) obtain a Court warrant or order to seize and detain any book, record, document or other information storage system used for creation of identity or used as an identity database which does not conform with the Act, these Regulations and other relevant Regulations made pursuant to the Act, for such period and on such terms as the Court may consider expedient or necessary to carry out monitoring and enforcement procedure .

The Commission May, in ensuring compliance with the provisions of these Regulations –(a) upon giving written notice of not less than 24 hours , have the right to conduct an audit on the *state of affairs and operations* of transactions or services carried out by applicable persons and entity .
As time evolves, the applicability of these regulations would be put to operation and the enforcement mechanism to test.

PART IV—MISCELLANEOUS

8. In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires—Interpretations.

“Act” means the National Identity Management Commission Act No.23, 2007 ;

“Airline operators” means airline companies licensed to operate locally within Nigeria ;

“Card” includes a document or other article, or a combination of a document and an article, in which information is or may be recorded ;

“Commission” means the National Identity Management Commission established by Act No. 23 of 2007 ;

“Court” means Federal High Court ; “Entity” includes organization, institutions, agencies, industries and authorities ;

“Hospitality Services” means any business operating within the service industry that includes lodging, hotel, event planning, and transportation ;

“MDA” means Ministries, Departments and Agencies of the Federal, State or Local Governments of Nigeria ; “NIN” means National Identification Number ; and

“Person” means a natural individual and legal entity. Steps for enforcement. Noncompliance.

Download the Gazette in PDF Format below:

Download Here