Connect with us

Judiciary

COVID 19 : THE ANATHEMA OF A LONG VACATION FOR THE COURTS -Osaro EGBOBAMIEN SAN

Published

on


The world is repositioning on the front foot to begin what is sure to be a long and painful economic recovery from the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries, including Nigeria are teetering on the verge of a recession.  Naturally, our leaders are anxious to get people back to work from the forced 8- week vacation without pay that has put many businesses and even public services in jeopardy. It has been a management of crises, helping to ascertain true leaders, as well as shapely redefining fault lines in politics, law and economics.    Law stands on a special pedestal and has been greatly demeaned in Nigeria principally because of its abstract nature. Perceived not just as a mere set of rules to adjudicate dispute, but a realm through which individuals are connected to one another and to the larger society, it has received its most devastating blow, ironically by those charged with administration of justice at the highest level. As at date, there is yet no indication that the annual vacation in July/August will be suspended, to make for otherwise productive time lost in the period of the COVID-19 induced holiday.     The Justice Reform Project (JRP), like other civil society organisations, has not been silent through the pandemic, and now facing its aftermath. It has called for and recommended the suspension of the annual vacation of the courts to recover time lost to the pandemic response initiative.   A commonsensical step it would seem, given the events of the past 8 weeks, However, in Nigeria, we are often polarised along self interest, while the national interest takes a remote seat in evaluation. As in the call for virtual hearing, the call to suspend the annual vacation is likely to play to a typical stereotype. Annual vacation is statutory, and the various Chief Justices are constitutionally empowered to prescribe vacation dates. So, it may be argued disingenuously that it will be unconstitutional to suspend the annual vacation, just as it is contended it is unconstitutional to access the courts virtually.         This argument falls flat. The response initiative to the contagious nature of the viral disease, the Quarantine Act has necessitated the indirect suspension of the most fundamental part of the Constitution. The right to freedom of movement, right to freedom of association, right to engage in certain contracts and the entire right to liberty have all been impeded.     You need the law to redefine these parameters. Any inhibition in the Constitution, for instance to virtual hearing (although I find it difficult to locate any) or constraints to access justice could easily have been accommodated within Quarantine Act. The failure to have done so, is a lack of appreciation that law constitutes a set of values upon which important part of our society is predicated.To proceed on annual vacation would almost mean we do not appreciate the role of a justice system in the daily life of the people it serves. And the absence of any clarity on the subject as at date, further undermines confidence in a sphere where time, scheduling and preparation is of essence.     COVID-19 seems to reveal a fallacy that in Nigeria we can exist without law. Proceeding on annual leave in the current climate is to compound our misconception and tilt us towards a Hobbesian state of nature where there is no common authority to restrain the arbitrary exercise of power by those who wield it.      In the end, all who seek justice suffer disillusionment, and consequently, resort to self-help. It is a mistaken belief to think that in the absence of a formally sanctioned justice system, society has ground to a halt. Nature abhors a vacuum and so the formal justice system has no doubt been supplanted by a shadow system that has kept ostensible peace and provided remedy.      Illegality has its own structures and appeals to a desperate population who crave certainty in their dealings, and solutions to problems that arise daily. This could be in the form of rogue government agencies and officials who act as mercenaries sworn to the highest bidder Or warlords and ‘area boys’, who though boasting only a crude alternative to formal systems, may be at least capable of some consistency and dependability.   These revelations may tend towards the unfortunate conclusion that even our functional justice system provides no real justice and so is not missed by either those who dispense it, or those who are supposedly served by it, when absent. The parallel system of illegality seems to provide more succour than the rule of law. Other nations around the world have reacted decisively to the forced holiday brought on by the pandemic. Those from which Nigeria borrowed much of its constitution; notably, America, Australia, and India, have taken their justice online by swiftly instituting virtual hearing of matters. The common law upon which our system is modelled is also in this company. So, while their economies have hobbled along, they have at least made some progress to boast of. For us, COVID-19 has painfully exposed our superficial justice system by exercising discretion to stay closed, and considering another 6 weeks holiday, the authorities are painting the rule of law as only an option, among a suite of options for ordering(a disorderly) society. This is exacerbated by their comfortable detailing of all the inhibitions that will not allow for the system to operate, without providing any alternative. Any service that fails to evolve to meet the times, will die of natural causes. We are now providing the palliative care to make the demise of our own justice system more comfortable. Lawyers also earn their living from the courts, and it is better left to the imagination the lengths that necessity will drive otherwise brilliant and hardworking practitioners to. Still, we are not without heroes. Civil society, and the Bar must be commended for taking a charitable stand. Acts of charity and raising awareness of the needs of the most vulnerable among us, are never in danger of becoming outdated. While this charity disposition must be commended, it is certainly not the solution. The Bar must in addition stand up, to ensure that the administration of justice remains effective, efficient, and effectual. It ought to be at the vanguard calling for virtual hearing and a suspension of the annual vacation. We do a disservice to whatever faiths we profess and our collective conscience by treating this crisis as one that can be solved with hand-outs. Africa has never known true development from foreign aid. It is criminal to give only temporary panacea when the means to advance towards a lasting solution lies within our power. Perhaps those who are paid from taxpayer funds, could take a cue from the shop owners, vulcanizers and artisans who know too well that if you do not find a means to provide a service, not only the receiver of the service suffers, you the provider of the service are soon forgotten. If the courts will not use the regularly scheduled annual vacation to recover lost ground and insist on business as usual at the cost of taxpayers, confirmation should at the very least be provided sooner and not later to ensure stakeholders are not taken unawares. Contingencies will need to be out in place. When we look back as a nation after COVID, what lasting innovation, can we say it has brought out of us? Beyond individual acts of charity, I am yet to find a satisfactory answer. Unfamiliarity with technology may be a disincentive to senior judicial officers to move to virtual hearings, however that is no reason to hold the country to ransom over what could be cured by temporarily employing school leavers and undergraduates to guide their Lordship through the process. As we prepare for a post COVID world, with all the uncertainty that portends for domestic and international commerce, those who will succeed are those who are able to come out different from how they went in. Any country, or individual for that matter, who emerges without a new skill or two; a new trick or two to avert or mitigate the impact of future crises, would accurately be described as a failure. Let us rise above our natural proclivity for intellectual debates during times of action. Other nations are finding solutions or at worst, identifying markers for what a new normal could look like and the changes that need to be made. We will have no one to blame but ourselves if we fail to do the same. The annual vacation for 2020 must be suspended immediately!!!

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Malabu Case: EFCC Debunks Allegations of Bribery of Its Official, Mulls Appeal

Published

on

By

 

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has debunked as false, news making the rounds that one of its prosecutors was offered a bribe over the Malabu OPL 245 fraud case leading to the dismissal of the charges against a former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Bello Adoke and others by a Federal Capital Territory High Court.
In statement issued on Friday on its official website and verified social media handles, the anti-corruption agency disclosed that it has commenced a review of developments around the Malabu OPL 245 fraud case, including the dismissal of the charges against Bello Adoke and others by the Court in Abuja.
The review, the EFCC hinted, will entail exploration of the option of appeal and possible change of counsel in view of the Commission’s dissatisfaction with the handling of the case by Offem Uket.
Speaking on the alleged bribing of its official, the EFCC says, its intention to review or appeal the case “has no nexus whatsoever to the spew of speculations imputing compromise by parties to the charge, currently making the rounds in some sections of the media.” It will be recalled that after the decision of the Abuja High Court upholding the no case submission of the defendants in the criminal case, a certain online news outfit had spewed the narrative suggesting that the EFCC accused its prosecutor of compromise by prominent lawyers connected to the case.
In denying the narrative of compromise, the anti-corruption agency further said, the, “EFCC is not obliged to embrace such narratives as it neither accused any of the parties of any unsavoury conduct nor made any conclusive statements about any investigation on the matter.”
The agency also dubbed allegations of compromise as “effusions of mischief makers” and urged the general public to await its next course of actions

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Breach of Contract: Tunji Afolayan gives Kunle Afolayan a seven day ultimatum

Published

on

By

Tunji Afolayan, an award winning Art Director through his legal representatives, Osifowora & Co. has berated the Managing Director of KAP Productions Limited, Kunle Afolayan over what he termed a “breach of contractual terms”.

In the letter signed by the firm’s lead counsel, Olatubosun Osifowora, Tunji accused Mr Kunle Afolayan of making a deliberate attempt to undermine his creative input and relevance on the movie, ‘Ijogbon’.

The letter to KAP Productions and Netflix stated that Mr Tunji was contracted by one Mr. Segun Akintunde, a Line Producer at KAP Productions Limited, to work as Art Director for the movie ‘ljogbon’. His deliverables, and remuneration as Art Director, were well spelt out in the contract. The letter noted that the contract was signed on January 11, 2023 between Mr Tunji and KAP’s Production Executive/Representative in the presence of Kunle Afolayan.
 “Our client stated also that the executed copies of the contractual documents were kept by the management of KAP Productions Limited and his copy was never given to him to date after signing.Upon completion of the project ‘Ijogbon’, the movie was released on Netflix- a streaming platform, and to our Client’s consternation, there was an omission of his name and title as Art Director for the movie ‘Ijogbon’,” the letter reads.

The letter further stated that Mr. Kunle was instead credited as the Art Director for the Movie ‘Ijogbon’m While accusing the management of KAP Productions Limited of deliberately and consciously portraying Mr Tunji as ‘Set Designer’ instead of his role as the Art Director, which he was originally contracted.

“Our client is appalled at this grave omission and therefore regards this as a breach of contractual terms in the contract with KAP Productions Limited. This is further viewed and taken, as a deliberate attempt to undermine our client’s creative work and relevance for the movie titled ‘Ijogbon’.

“In view of the above, it is our client’s demand that his name and role for which he was contracted and worked, be restored and properly credited in the Movie ‘Ijogbon’ as the Art Director,” Osifowora wrote.

He further demanded, on behalf of Mr Tunji Afolayan, that the retraction be done within seven days of receipt of the correspondence before the next line of action is taken.

9 / 100
Continue Reading

Judiciary

Supreme Court Set to Hear PDP, App’s Motion for the Enforcement of its Judgement Disqualifying APC in 2019 Imo Guber Poll

Published

on

By

Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the Supreme Court will hear the motion of the Peoples Democratic Party and Action Peoples Party respectively which applied to the apex Court to give effect to its judgment delivered on December 20, 2019, disqualifying Uche Nwosu from the Imo governorship election on the ground of double nomination on Tuesday, October 31st, 2023.
The apex court had in a judgment delivered on December 20, 2019 found that Nwosu was nominated by both Action Alliance (AA) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) and consequently nullified his nomination.
A political party is not capable of sponsoring two candidates for the same office in the same election.
This informed the decision of the PDP and APP to file different applications at the Supreme Court seeking that the PDP candidate, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha be declared the winner of the election since APC is precluded from sponsoring two candidates in the Imo State governorship election.
In an affidavit filed in support of the application which was deposed to by a legal practitioner, Adedamola Farokun, working in the Legal Department of the PDP, he averred thus: “The third Respondent/Applicant (PDP) is neither in any way seeking a review of the valid, subsisting and well considered judgment of this court delivered in this appeal nor seeking a review of the judgment of this court delivered on 14th January 2020 in SC/462/2019 but humbly seeking that this court give effect to its judgment delivered on 20th December,2019.
“That this court has the constitutional, inherent powers and jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought and give effects to its judgment.“That it is in the interest of justice for this court to exercise its wide discretionary powers in favour of granting this application as prayed.”
In the application, PDP is asking the court to declare that the governor of Imo State, Hope Uzodinma was not the candidate of the APC based on the court’s judgment that Nwosu was nominated by both the APC and the Action Alliance.
PDP is also asking the court for an order enforcing or otherwise directing the enforcement and or giving effect to the judgement of the court in the case delivered on the 20th December 2019 wherein the court held that Nwosu was nominated by both APC and AA and consequently declared his nomination a nullity.
PDP is asking the Supreme Court to hold that “both the Action Alliance (AA) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) did not sponsor and/or field any candidate for the governorship election held in lmo State on 9th March, 2019 in view of the double nomination of the Appellant/Respondent by the two political parties aforesaid, and his subsequent disqualification as their gubernatorial candidate, as found by this honourable court in the judgment delivered on 20th December, 2019.”
The party asked the court for an order sequel to the above that Senator Hope Uzodinma was not a candidate by himself or of any party at the Imo State Governorship election held on 9th March, 2019.
PDP also asked the court for an order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Senator Hope Uzodinma.
It asked the court “for an order further directing the 4th respondent to issue a certificate of return to the gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant, Rt. Hon. Emeka Ehedioha in the lmo state Governorship election held on 9th March. 2019 as the duly elected governor of Imo state, having scored the second highest number of votes in the said election sequel to the judgment of this court in Appeal No SC/1462/2019 Hope Uzodinma & Anor vs Rt. Hon Emeka Ihedioha & Others delivered on 14th January, 2020.”
The party further sought an order sequel to the above, directing that the said gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant in the lmo state Governorship election held on the 9th March 2019 Rt. Hon. Emeka lhedioha be immediately sworn in as the governor of lmo State.
PDP stated the grounds for the application thus: “The court found that the Appellant/Respondent was nominated by both APC and AA as their gubernatorial candidate for the lmo state governorship election and conclusively held that he was disqualified by the provisions of S. 37 of the Electoral Act (as amended), for double nomination.
b. That after the said election, the governorship candidate of the 3d Respondent/Applicant Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha, was returned by the 4th Respondent as the winners of the election and consequently sworn into office.
That subsequently, the return of the governorship candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant was challenged up to this court by one Senator Hope Uzodinma who claimed to be the gubernatorial ‘candidate of the APC.’
That the Supreme Court in its judgement delivered on 14th January, 2020 held that it was the said Senator Hope Uzodinma and not Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha that scored the highest number of votes in the election and ought to be returned as the duly elected governor of lmo State.
That by the clear terms of the judgement in this appeal, neither the AA nor the APC fielded any candidate for the lmo state governorship election held on 9th March 2019 and as such the said Senator Hope Uzodinma could not have been returned as the winner of the lmo State Governorship election as a candidate of the APC.
That APC could not have substituted the appellant with a view to further nominating the said Senator Hope Uzodinma as their candidate because that right was not available to the party under the Electoral Act.
That Senator Hope Uzodinma could not have been a candidate in the election as an independent candidate as such right is not available to him.
That the 3rd respondent Applicant, PDP, as the main beneficiary of the judgment ought to enjoy the fruits of the said judgement.
That Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha, who is the candidate nominated by the 3rd Respondent /Applicant, and who scored the second highest number of votes after Senator Hope Uzodinma, from the judgment of this court ought therefore to be issued a certificate of return by the 4th respondent and sworn in accordingly.
That it will advance the cause of justice to grant this application particularly as none of the parties will be prejudiced by its grant.

11 / 100
Continue Reading

Trending News