Doctors cannot treat patients without their consent

Doctors cannot treat patients without their consent

Particularly if that treatment is of a radical nature such as surgery or blood transfusion.‬ .

In the above case, the deceased, Mrs. Martha Okorie and her husband belonged to a religious sect known as Jehovah’s witnesses who believe that blood transfusion is contrary to God’s injunction. Mrs Okorie, a 29 year old woman, having had a delivery at a maternity on 29th July, 1991 was admitted as a patient at Kenayo Specialist Hospital for a period of 9 days where the diagnosis disclosed a severe ailment and blood transfusion was recommended. 

The patient and the husband refused to give their consent to blood transfusion. Dr. Okafor of the Hospital consequently discharged the patient on the request of the husband. Upon her discharge from Kenayo Hospital, she was taken to JENO Hospital by her husband where Dr. Okonkwo, the respondent proceeded to treat the patient without transfusing blood.  
Case law via Law Companion (Download in your App Store) 
Learn & Share
#law #legal #medicalnegligence #blawg #blog #legalnaija #lawcompanion #court #medicine #doctors #nigerianlaw #lagos #supremecourt#justice #equality
IP ABC—Printing a LinkedIn Mark on a Book Cover without Permission: Lawful or unlawful? | Infusion Lawyers

IP ABC—Printing a LinkedIn Mark on a Book Cover without Permission: Lawful or unlawful? | Infusion Lawyers


Question of the Week
I am Ola Peters, a
digital-marketing expert. For over 7 years, I have been writing and speaking about
digital marketing to help both organizations and individuals succeed. Last
April, I decided to publish a book titled Connecting to Succeed: How to
Get the Best of LinkedIn
. I used a self-publishing platform, Dotpages. To
my shock, Dotpages has contacted me over a trademark-infringement letter it
received from LinkedIn. According to the letter, by printing the LinkedIn
mark on my book cover without LinkedIn’s due permission, I have allegedly
infringed on LinkedIn’s trademark. They demand I either withdraw my book from
circulation or face legal action! I’m still shocked. Is it really unlawful to
print LinkedIn mark on my book cover?



Answer 
The answer is YES; use of
LinkedIn’s trademark on your book cover without permission is unlawful.
LinkedIn mark is LinkedIn’s
registered trademark. Any person who wishes to use the mark on his or her
work—such as books, film, and other materials—must first seek and obtain
LinkedIn’s permission. Without permission to use the mark, use amounts to trademark
infringement.
‘LinkedIn’ mark and other marks belong to LinkedIn Corporation.


The name ‘LinkedIn’, the LinkedIn logo, the ‘IN’ logo and ‘InMail’ are
registered trademarks or trademarks of LinkedIn Corporation. LinkedIn Corporation’s
affiliates in the United States and other countries also enjoy rights over
these trademarks.


No other person is permitted to use any of these trademarks except in
accordance with LinkedIn Corporation’s guidelines or policy.


Trademark law entitles LinkedIn Corporation to legally stop any unauthorized
use of any of its marks. LinkedIn is entitled to sue you, get damages, and even
apply for an account of profits (You will pay to LinkedIn’s account all the
profits you have made from the book so far. Absolutely!). The illegality of
printing LinkedIn mark on your book cover without permission is not only by the
working of trademark law but also LinkedIn’s policy.


Though trademark law generally entitles LinkedIn to restrict use of its
LinkedIn mark, LinkedIn Corporation reserves the right to allow any person to
use these marks in their publications or other works in accordance with its own
guidelines or policy. By having a policy that controls use of its marks, this
is what LinkedIn has done.


LinkedIn has a policy that expressly prohibits unpermitted use of its mark for
certain purposes.

For the purpose of publication in books or printed materials, LinkedIn has a
special provision that guides this.



According to LinkedIn, it “does not allow the use of its logos or the name
“LinkedIn” in the title or otherwise on the cover of books or other
publications without prior written permission of LinkedIn.”


LinkedIn requires that any person who is “interested in using the LinkedIn
name or logos in a publication” should request permission. Request for
permission can be submitted by using LinkedIn’s Request for Permission Form
(available on its brand-policy website).
Is LinkedIn’s trademark
restriction the standard amongst all social media platforms such as Facebook
and Instagram?


Generally, you are prohibited from using trademarks belonging to these social
media platforms in merchandize. This means you can’t lawfully print them on any
products for commercial purposes.


Apart from the prohibition above, each social media platform has its policy and
guidelines on use of its trademark by third parties.


Facebook, for instance, does not say anything about use of its mark in books or
printed materials, but it warns that when using its ‘F’ logo, you “[d]on’t
make it the most distinctive or prominent feature of what you’re
creating”. But for use in TV and film, you must request permission.


Instagram also has guidelines for use of its logos and name. Regarding use for print,
it restricts this to print larger than A4 size. According to one of the
guidelines on Instagram’s brand-policy page, “[o]nly those planning to use
Instagram’s assets in any broadcast, radio, out-of-home advertising or print
larger than 8.5 x 11 inches (A4 size) need to request permission.


To be on the right side of the law, it is best to carefully read these policies
and guidelines.


When it comes to publications, always consider that you might have infringed on
intellectual property. Do not fail to get help when you still can. This is
vital.


To enable you make the best decision for your book or subsequent books and
avoid demanding love letters from LinkedIn’s lawyers and other lawsuits, you
may consult an IP lawyer or law firm to professionally guide you.


IP ABC wants your book to be a bestseller, not a breadwinner for lawyers when
you find yourself in the box.


 
Best wishes
IP ABC
Follow-up questions, if
any, are welcomed.

Brand protection – why you should not purchase counterfeit luxury goods | Davidson Oturu

Brand protection – why you should not purchase counterfeit luxury goods | Davidson Oturu

The 2018 World Cup is scheduled to come up in June
2018. The Golden State Warriors and the Cleveland Cavaliers are playing the NBA
Playoff Finals in June 2018. Roland Garros, the French Open, is also taking
place in the same month. Due to these significant sporting events, there has
been an upsurge in the sale of jerseys and sporting kits worn by athletes and
teams that are participating in the sporting fiestas.

Sponsors of sporting kits are also not left out from
participating in these events; it is reported that the English national team
secured a sponsorship deal from Nike that is valued at £400m.[1] However, due to the pricey nature of most of the
luxury items such as Gucci, Nike, Adidas and Calvin Klein, amongst others,
there is the tendency for counterfeiters to manufacture counterfeit goods and
sell them to the public who unwittingly purchase them. Statistics from the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows that
Ray-Ban, Rolex, and Louis Vuitton are the most copied brands worldwide with
Nike being the most counterfeited brand globally. Websites have also sprung up
that specialize in the sale of counterfeit goods and consumers have encouraged
their trade by patronizing these inferior rip-offs.

A classical case is the Nigerian football jersey which
is being sold through Nike vendors for $90. However, the knockoffs and
counterfeit jerseys that have proliferated the market are being sold for as
little as $5[2].

What are counterfeit goods?

Counterfeits are goods made or sold under another’s brand name
or trademark without the brand owner’s authorization. It can be a form of
trademark infringement or passing off (depending on if the trademark is
registered) as the manufacturers of the counterfeit goods sells or passes off
similar looking goods bearing the trademark or brand of the original brand
owner.

A trademark will be deemed to have been infringed
where a person, other than the proprietor or owner of the mark, uses an
identical trademark so nearly resembling the registered trademark as to be
likely to deceive or cause confusion in the course of trade in relation to
goods in respect of which it is registered[3]. All that the owner of the trademark would be
required to show is that the trademark has been registered.

However, where the trademark
is unregistered, the counterfeiter will still be liable for passing off his
goods as that of the owner of the trademark/brand. The owner of the brand would
however have to show that there is an already established goodwill and
reputation attached to the brand.

How valuable are counterfeits?

It is estimated that the production of counterfeit
goods has grown by over 10,000% over the last two decades. A study by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) estimated
that the global value of all counterfeit goods reaches over $650 billion every year.
The same study projected that by 2015 the upper bound of the global value of
counterfeit and pirated goods was $1.77 trillion, a number that is roughly equal to
the GDP of Brazil and represents over 2 % of the world’s total economic output
in 2014[4]. In 2016 alone, the U.S. government seized $1.38
billion in counterfeit goods across various industries[5]. The United Arab Emirates has also had its
fair share of counterfeits as it is reported that in 2016, the Department of
Economic Development (DED) in Dubai seized 67.7 million counterfeit items
amounting to Dh1.16 billion. Also in 2017, the Anti-Economic Crimes department
of Dubai Police handled 243 cases involving commercial fraud and piracy – worth
Dh28, 882,985, including cases involving 719,134 counterfeit products[6].

Recent statistics from The Economist shows that counterfeit products make up 5 to 7% of
world trade[7]. As at 2014, it was said to have cost an estimated
2.5 million jobs worldwide[8]. Clearly, counterfeiting of goods appears to be a
lucrative business for the counterfeiters.

What to do where a brand is
being counterfeited

Civil remedies

The likelihood that consumers
will be confused by the goods, which is the standard of trademark infringement,
is evident in counterfeiting as the counterfeiter’s primary purpose is to
confuse or dupe consumers.

Thus although there is no
statutory civil remedy provided for counterfeiting under Nigerian law, the
owner of a brand can institute an action at the Federal High Court for
trademark infringement.

Where the trademark is
unregistered in Nigeria, the owner of the brand can bring an action for passing
off which can be instituted at the High Court.

Where a brand owner is
successful in a civil action, he can get orders of injunction restraining
further acts of infringements, delivery of infringing articles and items as
well as accounts for profits, costs and damages.

Criminal remedies

With regards to criminal remedies, the brand owner can
report the counterfeiting to the government authorities and actions can be
brought under the Merchandise Marks Act[9] and/or the Trade Malpractices (Miscellaneous
Offences) Act.[10]

Section 3 of the Merchandise
Marks Act provides that every person who forges any trade mark, falsely applies
to goods any trade mark or any marks so nearly resembling a trade mark as to be
calculated to deceive or applies any false trade description to goods is guilty
of an offence.

Furthermore, anyone who sells
or has in his possession for sale or any purpose of trade or manufacture, any
goods or things to which any forged trade mark or false trade description is
applied, or to which any trade mark or mark so nearly resembling a trade mark
as to be calculated to deceive is falsely applied is also guilty of an offence
except if he can prove that he acted innocently or had no cause to suspect the
genuineness of the trademark.

Where the counterfeiter or the seller of the
counterfeit goods is found guilty under the Merchandise Marks Act, he will be
sentenced to a term of 2 years or a fine or both imprisonment and a fine.
 The Merchandise Marks Act also prescribes imprisonment for 6 months or a
fine of N100 upon summary conviction by a Magistrate.
In both cases, the offenders are liable to forfeit all chattel, articles or
instruments used in committing the offences.

Regulatory bodies

The brand owner may also lay
complaints before regulatory agencies such as the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS)
and the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON). Although Nigeria does not
presently have a customs recordal system, brand owners can petition the
Comptroller General of the NCS and request for the organization’s involvement
with regards to the prevention of the importation of counterfeit goods at the
ports and borders. Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that anything
is liable to forfeiture, the NCS can seize and detain such counterfeit goods
immediately upon entry into the Nigerian ports or borders.

On the other hand, the SON is the statutory body vested with the
responsibility of standardising and regulating the quality of all products that
are to be used in Nigeria. It has a set of guidelines for exports to Nigeria
called the Standards Organization of Nigeria Conformity Assessment Programme
(SONCAP). SONCAP is used to verify products exported to Nigeria except those
that appear on the Excluded Product List.

A brand owner who has information
about the counterfeiting of his product may make a complaint at the SON office.
SON may then conduct an investigation and depending on the outcome, it may
carry out a raid to confiscate the counterfeit products.

Conclusion

Part of what fuels
counterfeiting is the fact that consumers tend to view buying a counterfeited
luxury good or jersey as being harmless and a good bargain. But consider this:
counterfeits wreak havoc on the economy and cause other financial turmoil for businesses
such as theft of intellectual property rights, low turnover, stolen know-how,
lost jobs, wrongful lawsuits caused by counterfeited products and price hikes.

While the brand owners and
security agencies continue to find ways to stop counterfeiters from profiting
from sale of counterfeited goods, the consumers have their own part to play: do
not buy that counterfeit!

For extensive information on
brand protection and intellectual property rights, you may contact the author
of this article at doturu@aelex.com
.

[1]Football
Association secures new £400m England kit deal (The Guardian, 13 December 2016

[2] Nigeria World
Cup kit sells out in minutes as fakes flood Lagos markets (CNN)

[3] Section 5(2) of
the Trademarks Act

[4] Counterfeiting
& Piracy (BASCAP) (International Chamber of Commerce) <
https://iccwbo.org/global-issues-trends/bascap-counterfeiting-piracy/>

[6]Dubai Police
handle counterfeit cases worth Dh29m in 2017 (Khaleej Times)

[7] Knock-offs catch
on (The Economist

[8]Crackdown on
counterfeiting (International Organisation for
Standardisation)

[9] Chapter M10 Laws
of the Federation of Nigeria 2004

[10] Chapter T12
Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004

Davidson Oturu LL.M
Partner at Aelex/IP, Franchising & Brand Protection I Corporate & Commercial I Dispute Resolution 
Source: LinkedIn 

Election Tribunal Constituted For Taraba by-election

Election Tribunal Constituted For Taraba by-election

In pursuance of paragraph 133 (3) (a) and (b) of the Electoral Act as amended, the President of the Court of Appeal, constituted the Taraba Assembly tribunal for the Takum 1 constituency by- election, parties in the elections are to submit their petitions by 12midnight on the 8th of September, 2018. Garba Ajiya of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was declared winner of the election. 


REJOINDER: Case Review; Dr. Charles D. Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Limited & Ors. | Abayomi Asorobi Esq.

REJOINDER: Case Review; Dr. Charles D. Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Limited & Ors. | Abayomi Asorobi Esq.

A rejoinder to the article
written by Chizaram Uzodinma published on www. lexology.com on August 22 2018
captioned “In applying for stay of proceedings pending arbitration under
section 5(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the applicant does not
have to adduce documentary evidence showing the steps he has taken in respect
of the commencement of the arbitration.
[1]

                                               

I have read with keen interest
the article written by Chizaram Uzodinma which was published on August 22 2018
on www. lexology.com. Whilst the writer had succinctly stated the facts of the
case and accurately summarized the submissions of the parties in the case of Dr. Charles D. Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital
Limited & Ors,
it is apposite for the sake of intellectual acuity to delve
rather briefly to the advent of arbitration in Nigeria.

The principal legislation that
governs arbitration is the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) 1988 (Laws of
the Federation of Nigeria 2004 Cap A18), which is a federal statute. Though, ACA
was enacted since 1988, arbitration as a means of dispute resolution
nonetheless was far from popular in the 90s as most disputes were seen as a
thug of war by the parties who believed the Court of law was the arena for them
to ventilate their grievances and possibly arm twist their opponents.

Some Lawyers who made big gains
from these litigations had also on several cases advised their clients that an
action in court was the best way to seek a redress.

However, as commercial activities
grew and as disputes inevitably arose, the need for a faster and cheaper means
of dispute resolution became pressing, thus recourse to arbitration grew in turn.

Though the ACA provides the
framework of arbitration in Nigeria, the case of NIGERIA LNG LTD. V. AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE CO. LTD (1995) 8 NWLR
(Pt. 416) Page 677, per Uwaifo, J.C.A (as he then was)
listed five
conditions for a resort to arbitration. These are:

“(a) that there is an agreement
between the parties thereto or a statutory provision which compels arbitration
in such mutters;

(b) that the parties before the
Court are parties to the agreement or the transaction which compels
arbitration;

(c) that the arbitration sought
is within the contemplation of the arbitration agreement or circumstances
calling it;

(d) that there is no sufficient
reason why reference to arbitration should not be made; and

(e) that the application for stay
of proceedings pending arbitration was made in time as envisaged under Section
5 of the Arbitration Act”.

At this juncture, it is expedient
to state that Section 5 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is the
legislation upon which the case review of Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Limited
& Ors as articulated by Chizaram
Uzodinma
and this rejoinder is centered.

Section 5 (2) (b) of the
Arbitration Act enjoins a party seeking a Stay of proceedings pending arbitration
to commence or initiate the arbitral process for the conduct of the Arbitration
it craves before making the application for stay to the Court, the failure of
such party to do so would amount to its failure to comply with the condition
precedent for the grant of its application for stay of proceedings. For the
sake of emphasis we shall reproduce the provision of Section 5 of the ACA thus,

“5. (1) If any party to an arbitration agreement commences any action
in any court with respect to any matter which is the subject of an arbitration
agreement any party to the arbitration agreement may, at any time after
appearance and before delivering any pleadings or taking any other steps in the
proceedings, apply to the court to stay the proceedings.

(2) A court to which an application is made under subsection (1) of
this section may, if it is satisfied-

(a) that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be
referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement; and

(b) that the applicant was at the time when the action was commenced
and still remains ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper
conduct of the arbitration, make an order staying the proceedings.”
  (underlining ours)

Section 5 (2) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, as can be seen, gives the court the powers to make an
order of stay of proceedings pending arbitration but clearly placed a condition
precedent which must be met before such power can be exercised in favour of the
applicant.

The failure of an applicant to
comply with Section 5 (2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as
interpreted in the M.V Panorama Bay’s case
and the UBA’s case(Supra), imposes
on the court a mandatory obligation to refuse the applicant’s application for a
Stay of Proceedings pending arbitration.

The Court of Appeal in the case
of UBA v. TRIDENT CONSULTING LIMITED
(2013) 4 CLRN 119
whilst elucidating the provision of Section 5 (2) (b) of
ACA held that for an application for stay of proceedings pending reference to
arbitration to succeed, the Applicant must adduce documentary evidence showing
the steps he has taken in respect of the commencement of the arbitration. The
court further held that the Applicant must exhibit a letter showing that he had
notified the other party of his intention to refer the dispute to arbitration
and proposing the appointment of an arbitrator, per Ikyegh, JCA held thus:

 “Before a stay may be granted pending
arbitration, the party applying for a stay must demonstrate unequivocally by
documentary and/or other visible means that he is willing to arbitrate. He
does it satisfactorily by notifying the other party in writing of his intention
of referring the matter to arbitration and by proposing in writing an
arbitrator or arbitrators for the arbitration.
In the instant case, the
only paragraph of the affidavit evidence of the appellant relevant to the
matter deposed in paragraph 8 thereof that,

‘I was informed by Mr. Ugochukwu
Okwesili, a Legal Officer in the applicant Bank in a meeting in our office at
57 Marina, Lagos on the 13th day of May, 2009 at about 2:30pm while reviewing
this matter and I verily believe him that the parties are unable to resolve the
matter amicably and that the applicant is ready to do everything necessary to the
proper conduct of the Arbitration in respect of the dispute alleged to have
arisen between the parties.’

The deposition above is not
enough. There must be documentary evidence showing the applicant wrote to
the respondent notifying her of the willingness to resort to arbitration over
the dispute and, also, specifying in the letter or correspondence an arbitrator
or arbitrators proposed to be appointed for the arbitration for the
ratification or approval of the party.”
(underling ours).

The Court had earlier held in the
case of M.V Panorama Bay v. Olam(Nig) Plc (2004) 5NWLR PT 865, 1 at
16 C-D
, Galadima JCA stated the law thus:

“It is the party praying for arbitration as an ‘applicant’ that has the
duty to comply with Section 5(2)(b) of the Act by commencing the proceedings.”

One of the issues for
determination before the Court of Appeal in Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Limited
& Ors, was whether the High Court was right to have ignored section 5(2)(b)
of the ACA as interpreted by the cases of M.V Panorama Bay By v.
Olam(Nig) Plc (Supra) and UBA v. TRIDENT CONSULTING LIMITED.

The court of Appeal in Mekwunye
v. Lotus Capital Limited & Ors however disagreed with its earlier decision in
UBA v Trident Consulting Limited (supra) and held that placing the burden of presenting documentary evidence to support an
application for stay of proceedings pending arbitration constitutes a departure
from the plain provisions of section 5(2) of the ACA particularly in cases
where the applicant has deposed to facts in that regard.

The court noted that the purpose of
a deposition in an affidavit is to provide oral or documentary evidence to
support an application filed in court. Thus, the affidavit in itself constitutes
evidence which is deemed admitted where not countered or controverted. The
court further stated that the reasoning in UBA v Trident Consulting Limited
(supra) would only be potent where an applicant’s deposition in the affidavit
in support of an application for stay is challenged and/or contradicted by a
respondent.

It is essential for the sake of
this rejoinder to note that the Court of Appeal in the case of UBA v. TRIDENT
CONSULTING LIMITED made no distinction whatsoever between a challenged and
unchallenged affidavit evidence as it relates to presenting documentary
evidence showing the applicant’s willingness to resort to arbitration over the
dispute. The Court simply held that there must be documentary evidence showing
the applicant’s willingness to resort to arbitration over the dispute and,
also, that the Applicant should specify in a letter or correspondence an
arbitrator or arbitrators proposed to be appointed for the arbitration for the
ratification or approval of the party. One would then wonder the basis upon which
the Court in Mekwunye’s case drew a distinction between a challenged and
unchallenged affidavit evidence when it should have simply followed the clear
decision of UBA v. TRIDENT CONSULTING LIMITED where the court held that “Before a stay may be granted pending
arbitration, the party applying for a stay must demonstrate unequivocally by
documentary and/or other visible means that he is willing to arbitrate”

whether the affidavit evidence was challenged or unchallenged. There was indeed
no basis for this distinction.

In my humble view, the Court of
Appeal in Dr. Charles D. Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Limited & Ors wrongly
relied on the case of ONWARD ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. MV. ‘MV. “MATRIX” & ORS
(2008) LPELR-4789(CA), to depart from the case of M.V Panorms By (Supra). The Court in the Onward’s case simply held
that stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration in a foreign country
could be granted in deserving cases. This decision had absolutely nothing to do
with Section 5(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

It is pertinent to note that the
Court of Appeal in Onward Enterprises Limited v M.V. “Matrix” &
Ors.(supra) and the Supreme Court in the case of M. V. Lupex (Supra), were not
called on to interpret and did not in fact interpret the provisions of Section
5(2)(b) of ACA. Yet, the Court in Mekwunye’s case used these cases as a basis
to depart from the settled interpretation of Section 5(2)(b), clearly expounded
by the Court of Appeal in the cases of M.V Panorama Bay v. Olam(Nig) Plc
(Supra) and UBA v. TRIDENT CONSULTING LIMITED (Supra).

In the author’s view, there is
therefore no conflict as it involves the interpretation of the provision of
Section 5(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act between the Supreme
Court case of M. V. Lupex (Supra), which
never interpreted the said section and the
Court of Appeal cases of M.V Panorama Bay v. Olam (Nig) Plc (Supra)
and UBA v. TRIDENT CONSULTING LIMITED (Supra).
The Supreme Court decision in M.V. Lupex v.N.O.C. & S. Ltd (2003) 15
NWLR (Pt.844) 469 was simply to the effect that where parties have agreed to
refer their dispute to arbitration, it behoves the court to lean towards
ordering a stay of proceedings.

As a corollary to the above, the
Court of Appeal in Mekwunye’s case apparently abandoned the binding cases of M.V
Panorama
Bay v. Olam (Nig) Plc (Supra) and UBA v. TRIDENT CONSULTING
LIMITED (Supra), which were on the point before it to follow inapplicable cases
of ONWARD ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. MV. ‘MV. “MATRIX” & ORS (Supra) and M.V.
Lupex v.N.O.C. & S. Ltd (Supra).

Furthermore, unlike the case of
Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Limited & Ors, where the Respondent neither
commenced arbitration nor provided documentary evidence showing steps it had
taken in that respect, the Respondent in the ONWARD’S case had commenced
arbitration by appointing their arbitrator. The Court in the ONWARD’S case on
the finding of facts in that case noted thus, “The process of arbitration was already triggered/commenced when
respondents appointed their own arbitrator as far back as 22nd July, 2002, 20
days after appellants suit was commenced before the lower court. Learned
counsel urged the court to uphold the findings of the trial Judge appearing at
pages 220 – 222 of the record”.

We must emphasize that the Court
of Appeal in Mekwunye’s case did not overrule the cases of UBA v Trident
Consulting Limited (supra) and M.V Panorama Bay By v. Olam(Nig) Plc. It
only took a different position on the issue of providing documentary evidence
to demonstrate willingness to participate in arbitration, pursuant to section
5(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The decision in Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital
Limited & Ors in this respect thus forms a conflicting decision with the
earlier decisions of the Court in UBA v Trident Consulting Limited (supra) and
of M.V Panorama Bay v. Olam(Nig) Plc.

It is an established principle of
Law that Court of Appeal is bound by its decision. Please see APGA & ORS v. UBA & ORS (2011)
LPELR-9177
. This follows the age long principle of stare decisis which aims
at avoiding judicial anarchy and the quagmire that will be occasioned by
conflicting decisions of the same court on the same issue.

In Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) at
page 1443, stare decisis was defined thus:

“The doctrine of precedent, under which it
is necessary for a court to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same
points arise again in litigation…..” 

That said, it is my view that the
Court of Appeal having failed to properly distinguish the Mekwunye’s case from
the UBA v. TRIDENT CONSULTING LIMITED
(2013) 4 CLRN 119,
is bound by the decision of the Court in the UBA’s case.
Its refusal to follow the UBA’s case especially when it was brought to its
notice by the Appellant amounts to the court flouting the age long principle of
stare decisis and plethora of Supreme Court authorities. The decision of the
court in the UBA’s case is clear and unambiguous and the proper forum to
determine the rightness or wrongness of the said decision is the Supreme Court.

Further, the question before the
court in the Mekwunye’s case was whether the trial court’s decision was right
in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the UBA’s case. The
lower court was not called upon by any of the parties in the Mekwunye’s case to
overrule the decision of UBA v. TRIDENT (Supra). It is a trite principle of
Law, reiterated by Court of Appeal in the case of AGA & ORS. v. ONAH &
ORS (2012) LPELR-22103(CA)
(Pp.
43-44, paras. G-A)
thus, “It is not
for this court to suo motu embark on an unsolicited surgical expedition to
overrule itself”.

In our humble view, the position asserted by Chizaram Uzodinma that the decision in UBA v Trident Consulting
Limited where the Court of Appeal held that “Before a stay may be granted
pending arbitration, the party applying for a stay must demonstrate unequivocally
by documentary and/or other visible means that he is willing to arbitrate”
no longer stands as law is erroneous
and a misconception of the law. It is long settled that where there are two or
more conflicting decisions of a higher court the lower court is free to choose
which of the decision is to follow. See Adegoke
Motors v. Odesanya (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 74).

In the case of OBIAKOR &
ORS v. OKAFOR (2017) LPELR-43309(CA),
the Court in specific words held thus, “there is a principle in jurisprudence that
suggests that where a lower Court is faced with conflicting positions of a
higher Court on an issue with one position having one or two decisions of the
higher Court in its support and the other position is supported by an avalanche
of decisions of the higher Court, it is foolishness for the lower Court to
follow the position with the few decisions as against the other position –
Onuoha v. State (1989) 1 NSCC 411 at 421.” Per ABIRU, J.C.A. (Pp. 11-12,
Paras. E-A).

Against the backdrop of the above case, the cases of UBA v Trident
Consulting Limited (supra)
and
M.V Panorama Bay v. Olam(Nig) Plc wherein the interpretation of Section 5(2)(b)
of ACA had been settled should be given preference over the decision in case of
Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Limited & Ors, which stands alone, until
Section 5(2)(b) is given a definite interpretation by the Supreme Court which
is the Apex Court of the land.

The decision of the Court of
Appeal in Mekwunye v. Lotus Capital Limited & Ors has been appealed and
same is pending at the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court has been called
upon, inter-alia to determine whether the Court of Appeal was right to have
deviated from the established principle of law postulated in the earlier cases
of UBA v Trident Consulting Limited (supra) and of M.V Panorama Bay v.
Olam(Nig) Plc, especially in line with the decision in KASSIM v. STATE (2017)
LPELR-42586(SC)
where the Apex Court held thus, “I agree. The principle is correct and it is in tandem with the
principle of stare decis which is a rule of adherence to judicial precedents.
It postulates that when a point or principle of law has been officially decided
or settled by a ruling or pronouncement of a competent Court in a case in which
it is directly and necessarily involved, it will no longer be considered as
open to examination or to a new ruling by the tribunal”.

Having mentioned the pendency of
the appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Mekwunye’s case,
we are assured that the Supreme Court of Nigeria will lay to rest (as it always
does) the confusion created by the Court of Appeal in the Mekwunye’s case when
it finally determines the appeal before it.

Conclusively, this rejoinder digs
beyond the rightness or wrongness of the interpretation of Section 5(2) of ACA
by the Court of Appeal in the Mekwunye’s case, into the imminent danger of the
incessant failure of the Court of Appeal to be bound by its own decision.
Whilst the Court of Appeal intensely preaches the adherence to the principle of
stare decisis and in fact on several
occasions reprimanded the lower courts for their failure to adhere to the said
principle, the Court of Appeal itself have failed time and time again to
practice what it so passionately preaches.

In my forthcoming article titled “The era of conflicting decisions, the
confusion and the Court of Appeal”,
I shall whilst juxtaposing various Court
of Appeal conflicting decisions in several areas of law, lay bare the imminent
danger of the failure of the Court of Appeal to be bound by its own decision
and/or the adorned principles of stare
decisis
                         


Abayomi Asorobi Esq. Senior Associate at Charles
Mekwunye & Co.

Photo Credit – www.tmc.com.ng

British Nigeria Law Forum Launch of the Family Law Network

British Nigeria Law Forum Launch of the Family Law Network

VENUE:
Tuesday,
11th September 2018
6.00
pm – 9.30 pm
Bircham
Dyson Bell LLP
50
Broadway, London SW1H 0BL

Click here to book:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/launch-of-the-family-law-network-recent-developments-in-family-law-focus-on-uk-and-nigeria-tickets-48992072608?aff=ebdssbdestsearch
Programme
6:00pm
Arrival
& Registration
6:30pm
– 8:30pm
Welcome,
Introduction and Launch of the Family Law Network
Seye
Aina, Chair, British Nigeria Law Forum
Panel
of Speakers
          Her Honour Judge Khatun Sapnara, East
London Family Court – FGM Orders and Forced Marriage Protection Orders.
          Professor Dame Carolyn Hamilton, Coram
International – Family Justice in Nigeria.
          Janet Latinwo, AFRUCA – Modern Slavery
in the UK, the work of AFRUCA.
          Richard Alomo, No 5 Chambers –
Financial provision  following Foreign
Divorce.
          Babs Akinyanju, East London Family
Court & BNLF Coordinator Family Law Network.
8.30pm
– 9.30pm
Networking,
Drinks & Canapés
Event
ends 9.30pm
Event Organiser: British Nigeria Law Forum established in 2001 is a
vibrant professional organisation made up of British and Nigerian Lawyers and
Students. The FLN mission is to promote family justice in the UK and Nigeria by
keeping practitioner members informed of latest developments in family law and
procedure. See the website: www.bnlf.org.uk
Event Host: Bircham Dyson Bell LLP is an award winning top 100
UK law firm with offices in London and Cambridge. Many of the lawyers and
advisers are recognised leaders in their practice areas – their knowledge and
expertise helps the firm to provide a unique, client-centred approach to law.           
Family
Law Network
Free
Event

The Lagos Justice Innovating Conference happening this September

The Lagos Justice Innovating Conference happening this September

The event will see legal and justice sector experts, both within and outside Nigeria, discuss how the
Nigerian justice system can be improved.
The HiiL Justice Accelerator (HJA), a part of the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL), will host the Lagos Justice Innovating Conference on the 21st of September 2018 at the Landmark Centre, Victoria Island, Lagos, to discuss how the justice system could be made more accessible and user-friendly, through the combination of big data, technology and innovations in Nigeria.

This conference is described as the biggest of its kind and caliber to take place in the country, the
conference will combine data and innovation to not only figure out ways to improve Nigeria’s justice
system but also tackle making justice more friendly.
In panel discussions at the conference will be legal and justice sector bigwigs within and
outside Nigeria such as the Hon. Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice for Lagos State – Mr. M.Adeniji Kazeem, Joe Odumakin – President, Women Arise for Change; Anthony Ojukwu – ExecutiveSecretary, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC); James Peters – Vice President, New Market Initiatives, LegalZoom; Michel Deelen – Netherlands Deputy Ambassador, Laure Beaufils – British Deputy High Commissioner to Nigeria, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Lagos State Criminal Intelligence Investigation Department – Yetunde Longe, Lola Vivour Adeniyi – Coordinator, Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Team (DSVRT) and more.
Speaking on the significance of the event, HiiL’s CEO Sam Muller said, “The data we will share at this event on Nigerian justice needs will be a gamechanger for anyone working on justice in this country. What makes it even better: the region’s best justice innovations are there too. This could be a historic moment of a new justice movement in Nigeria.”
Sam Muller and Vice President His Excellency, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo SAN will give the opening remarks at the event while His Excellency Rotimi Akeredolu SAN, Governor of Ondo State will give the welcome address.
Asides the panel discussions, other events lined up during the conference includes the release of the
Justice Needs and Satisfaction Survey (JNS), a first of its kind, massive survey of the justice needs of the average Nigerian. Also, the best Nigerian justice innovators from the 2018 Innovating Justice Challenge will pitch their innovations for a chance to win 20,000 EUR in funding from the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law.
Event Details
Date: 21
st of September, 2018
Time: 9am
Location: Landmark, VI, Lagos State
Registration: www.innovatingjustice.com/lijc
The HiiL Justice Accelerator is a part of the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL) based in the Netherlands. The HJA scouts and supports the best justice innovators around the world in order to create justice for all. Particularly in Africa and the Middle East but also across the world, through local partners and supporters. By offering seed funding as well as follow up funds, HJA funds justice entrepreneurs with cash they need to grow their innovation. Through HJA’s acceleration programmes and business services justice innovators get the right help to scale their innovations.
For more information or questions, please contact:
Olufunbi Falayi
Innovating Justice Agent, West Africa
olufunbi.falayi@hiil.org
+2347033579178

Acceptance Speech By Paul Usoro, San Fciarb, President Of The Nigerian Bar Association

ACCEPTANCE SPEECH BY PAUL USORO, SAN FCIArb, PRESIDENT OF THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION AT THE INAUGURATION  OF THE NBA 2018 ELECTED MEMBERS’ EXECUTIVE

Protocols
I am truly humbled standing before you today as the 29th President of the Nigerian Bar Association, the pre-eminent professional association in Nigeria and the largest and most vibrant Bar Association in Africa.  If I was told when I was admitted into the University of Ife in 1977 to read English Language (before switching over to the Law Faculty in 1978) that I would attain this height, even I would have been most sceptical notwithstanding the inexplicable and record-breaking successes that I had attained as at then.  But then, as all who are remotely familiar with my life history and story would confirm, mine has been a special tapestry woven by God the Almighty Himself.  I’m reminded by friends and relatives quite often that I am God’s covenant child and special project right from birth. My ascendance to the Presidency of the NBA is testimony to this fact and proof positive that the Almighty continues to watch over me, continues to order my steps, continues to protect and is not at all done with me.  I glorify Him, return all thanks to Him and dedicate my ascendance to the NBA Presidency to Him. 


God however used human beings – and plenty of them – to make today possible. None occupies as special a place as my childhood sweetheart, the wife of my youth and my best friend, Mfon.  In general terms, Mfon completes me.  In the specific context of my ascendancy to the Presidency of the NBA, she occupies a special and unique place. I’m not sure even I worked as hard as she did in making today possible.  Yes, I was the face of the campaign and, yes, I was the one who travelled those long distances and traversed the whole country to campaign and convince you, my dear colleagues, of my suitability for election as the President of the Nigerian Bar, but Mfon, at all times, remained the engine room of the campaign.  Not a few have commented on her energy and ubiquitous nature all through the campaigns and up to the night leading to the declaration of the election results.  She was everywhere and on all the WhatsApp platforms of the various groups that campaigned for me, pushing, cajoling, encouraging, motivating, playing, laughing and, when necessary, empathising with all the coordinators of my campaigns
countrywide, particularly, in those moments when some of them were exasperated by my non-communication caused by campaign pressures.  She was there, not only for me, but for all our supporters and my campaign organisation; her organizational skills and verve remained unparalleled.  She had two great and wonderful assistants, our daughter and son, Eno and Paul; these two contributed great ideas, art works and designs for the preparation of our campaign materials.  I can’t thank the three of them and in particular, Mfon, enough. I truly cannot ask for a better family or a set of companions and friends than these three.  I pray that God will continually bless and keep them for me.
If I had to list all my friends and colleagues all over the country who worked tirelessly, day and night, to make our victory at the polls possible, we would perhaps not complete these ceremonies today.  I must however illustratively (and definitely, not exhaustively) mention the Kekemekes, Davids, Limans, Glorias, Safiyas, Temples, Martins, Cordelias, Thannis, Ibros, Ogagas, Victors, Seyis, Lilians, Aminus, Tessys, Nwakwentas, UFOs, DOCs, IBBs, Uches, Idakas, Tolanis, Hafsats, Aishatus, Inimfons, Emems, Blind Bats, Fatimas, Sominas, Obadinas, Nassarawas, Sarahs, all my brothers in Ilorin, my Bauchi, Jalingo, Yola, Kaduna and Gombe families and others too numerous to mention.  Special mention must be made of My Dad, Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim, SAN, CON and the family that he created and bequeathed to us (which includes family members like Funke, Nnamonso, Tunji, Rotimi and Olabisi, all SANs), Kanu Agabi, CON, SAN (our Leader in Cross River and Akwa Ibom State), DDD, Ete Offiong, Garun-Gabbas (who, with the consent of his Governor, abandoned his Attorney-General’s position in Jigawa State and followed me on my several campaign trips to the nooks and crannies of Nigeria), my Alternate, Oladoja (as I fondly call him), my dearest sister, Nella and her husband and my in-law, Lawal-Rabana, Uwemedimo Nwoko, my Akwa Ibom State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, and his Cross River State counterpart, Joe Abang.  Indeed, a number of Attorneys-General believed in and fought our cause in their various States – Bauchi, Taraba, Yobe, Adamawa, Borno, Osun, Lagos – and so did most Law Officers all over Nigeria.   

I must also pay special tribute to the Chairmen of the NBA Branches in Lagos State – all 5 of them and in particular, my Lagos Branch Chairman, Chukwuka, his Vice, Bolatumi and his entire executive – as well as the 4 and 3 respective NBA Branches in Akwa Ibom and Cross River States.  How can I possibly forget my friends, Justice Chukwu, Bada Emmanuel, Mubin, Salami and Babatunde, all living with disabilities. 

but such great and able-bodied enthusiasts of our cause? These gentlemen remind me every day that disability is not necessarily a handicap to success; there are too many able-bodied persons who have not and may never attain the heights of these gentlemen because they do not have the fighting spirit and grit of these gentlemen.  Indeed, these gentlemen remind me every day of my pledge to work for and develop a truly inclusive Bar where we truly could and would have standing room for all without regard to gender, physical disabilities, religion and/or tribe. In summary, my success at the polls was not just a victory for me but a victory for all of you and indeed for all of us.  Our coalition was perhaps the most pan-Nigerian coalition that fought for the NBA Presidency. 

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the significant role of some Bar Leaders and Elders and Past Chairmen of the NBA, notably Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, Chief Felix Fagbohungbe, SAN, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Chief Bayo Ojo, CON SAN and Austin Alegeh, SAN, my elder brother, George Etomi, my beloved brother, Prof Konyinsola Ajayi, SAN and others too numerous to mention.  You all demonstrated complete faith and belief in me and campaigned vigorously for me up to even expending your personal resources and goodwill for my cause.  I thank you all from the bottom of my heart and pray for God’s continuous blessings for you and your families.  
I must also thank the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) as well as the outgone Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud, SAN’s executive and administration for their conduct of the Elections in a free and fair manner.  We truly couldn’t have asked for a better set of men and woman with integrity than the Yadudu-led ECNBA.  Yes, the Elections had their fair share of hitches and glitches, but no one can fault the good intentions and character of the ECNBA members.  In truth, the Elections met the standard of substantial compliance and I must particularly commend the ECNBA for being constantly available at all times to aid and support all the candidates and to address our respective concerns and issues.  I must not fail to pay special tribute to my cocontestants for the office of the NBA President, Prof Ernest Ojukwu, SAN and Chief Arthur Obi Okafor, SAN.  The participation of the three of us in the race greatly enriched the contest and brought out the best in us.  This was a very keenly contested race and any one of us could have ended up, fittingly, as the President of the NBA.  In truth and as I mentioned in my e-mail to Prof Ojukwu and Chief Okafor, all three of us won in this Election and there was no loser.  All three of us are eminent sons of the NBA Eastern Zone and should work together to showcase the unparalleled capabilities and innate. 

strength of the NBA Eastern Zone.  I have already reached out to both of them with an invitation for them to join hands with me in working for the elevation and growth of the NBA and I shall persist, undeterred, in this endeavour until success, by God’s Grace, is achieved. The Task Ahead – NBA
I come into office as the 29th President of the NBA at a time that the Association is riven with and by acrimonious divisions of all sorts not to mention serious scepticism and distrust of the NBA leadership by our members.  Those divisions and rifts did not start with the last Elections; they were simply exacerbated and made worse by these Elections.  It is critical and urgent that we bind, heal wounds and restore unity in our House of Lawyers.  We are strong only when united and together.  Divided, we’re vulnerable and subject to external and devastating attacks – and these are the dangers we face daily.  My immediate task would therefore be to heal these wounds, seal the cracks and unite our family of lawyers. I have already started the process of such integration and healing by extending my hands of fellowship and brotherhood to my cocontestants, Prof Ernest Ojukwu, SAN and Chief Arthur Obi Okafor, SAN.  But I will go beyond them in the days ahead.  I’ll seek to heal the wounds of the 2016 NBA Elections by reaching out to my very good friend and brother, Chief J K Gadzama, SAN and bring him back into the NBA family.  I know that he has plenty to offer to our Association.  There are also several of our Bar Elders who have stayed outside the NBA fold for several years now for one reason or the other, mostly out of disenchantment; we’ll actively work to bring them back into the fold and in the process harvest from their rich repertoire of intellectual resources, experiences and wisdom. These healing processes and integration efforts would extend to the NBA Branches where we’ve had drawn-out strives and contentions – incidents that tend to give the lie to and inhibit and erode the brotherhood and friendship in our common salutation as “Learned Friends”.
Turning to the 2018 NBA National Elections, it is common ground amongst everyone that a review of our electoral systems and values is urgently required. In the coming weeks, I’ll constitute a Committee to review and recommend required reforms for and of our electoral processes. Still on our electoral processes, one significant lacuna that came out from the last elections is our lack of electronic data in respect of our members. The most difficult and tortuous of the processes during the elections was the electronic. 

capturing of our members’ data and the verification of same.  It is rather unfortunate and regrettable that Africa’s pre-eminent Bar Association underwent such pains and pangs as we suffered in the processes of capturing and verifying our membership data. As a matter of urgency, we would set in motion the processes for electronically capturing and preserving our membership data, amongst others, for purposes of preventing a repeat of our very unpleasant data capture and verification experiences in the last Elections. As a complement to the Electoral Review Committee, we’ll also constitute a Constitution Review Committee to look at and recommend required amendments and changes to the NBA Constitution.  I qualify this as complementary to the electoral review process because, it is most likely that the review of our electoral processes would necessitate a corresponding amendment of our Constitution.  Beyond that, however, most of the reform programs which we committed to during our campaigns, would most certainly require matching amendments of our Constitution. 

Talking about reforms, it would be recalled that we campaigned on the platform of required reforms in the running and operations of the NBA. The underpinnings of those reforms, as we pointed out during our campaign, were four key objectives, to wit, reforms that would engender efficiency in the operations of the NBA, rekindle and/or boost the trust and confidence of our members in the Association, create a sustainable institution out of the NBA or strengthen the NBA as an institution and, finally, shore up our moral equity thereby emboldening us to speak out against maladministration and societal ills.  The bedrock for these reforms would be the institution of corporate governance in the running and operations of the NBA.  Post the Elections, I’ve been asked, and I’ve consistently assured our members that we intend to keep to these our campaign promises and indeed all our campaign commitments.  One of such illustrative and auditable reforms on which platform we campaigned is our plan to be financially transparent and accountable in our management of the NBA affairs by, amongst others, preparing and publishing to our members, every quarter, the NBA’s quarterly financial statements – a step that has never been taken – complete with full financial disclosures, which would inform our members on the financial health and status of the NBA.  A couple of days ago, I had a meeting with my fellow elected NBA members and they all, without exception, lustily agreed with me for the implementation of this commitment from our first quarter in office.  That promise, by God’s Grace, we shall definitely keep
– and this is only illustrative of the several other reforms that we would be initiating in the operations of our Association in the coming days and weeks. 

I congratulate the Mahmoud-led administration for the successes of the recently concluded Annual General Conference.  The Conference had a rich harvest of intellectual materials and showcased African talents and eminent personalities such as our President and Commander in Chief, President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR, the Ghanaian President, President Nana Akufo-Addo, our most distinguished colleague and the Vice President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, HE Prof Yemi Osinbajo, GCON and our most respected Chief Justice of the Federation, His Lordship Walter Onnoghen, GCON.  Without intending howsoever to denigrate the astute and formidable endeavours of the Conference organizers and planners, let me assure you, my dear colleagues, that we have listened carefully and attentively to, heard and take to heart your various pleas for improvements in the planning of our future Annual General Conference both in terms of costs and the quality thereof.  We commit to work on this and promise that our next AGC would be unparalleled in all respects.  Of course, we would be building on the foundations that are already provided by the planners of previous AGCs.   

For one, we would commence preparations therefor earlier than usual and would testrun the enhanced use of the Sections and Fora of the NBA as engine-rooms for distilling the programs for the Conference.  Not only would this make the conference planning participatory in nature for most of our members who are members of the various committees of the Sections and Fora, it would harvest for us the most topical issues in our professional practise as well as the best speakers thereon seeing as the committees and Fora are modelled after specialised fields and areas of practice.  At the macro level, we would be meeting with the executives of these various Sections and Fora to discuss and fashion out ways of improving on their performances and outputs intending as we do to turn these Sections and Fora into our sustainable intellectual powerhouse and as our Continuing Legal Education hubs.  As a corollary to this, we would at all times place emphasis on improving the quality of our skills, knowledge and practice through continuing legal education. 

That leads me to mentorship, a program which I believe should be for lawyers of all ages, but mostly for young lawyers.  Mentorship for young lawyers in particular is a program that is very dear to my heart.  In demographic terms, the young lawyers far outnumber the rest of us, older lawyers.  These young lawyers, with their boundless energies, constitute the future of our profession and their energies need to be properly, productively and positively channelled.  We need to collaborate with and listen to them and we commit to consistently and constantly do these.  We commit to institute mentorship programs that would help in moulding them into successful legal practitioners and persons.  Their welfare, in truth, is tied intrinsically to the welfare of the rest of us.  Without taking care of them, our future and indeed the future of our profession cannot be assured.  From a different prism, their compensation package cannot be improved except we protect and expand the legal market for all practitioners and make it possible for all of us to earn decent income.  The future and sustainability of our respective firms and practices cannot be assured except we motivate and take care of these young lawyers.  These are lessons and facts that are sometimes lost on the rest of us.  Continuous education of the older lawyers on these basic facts and principles is therefore required and would be complemented by my executive with the push for the regulation of the Nigerian legal market in a manner that protects and does not howsoever disadvantage or prejudice the interest of Nigerian legal practitioners.
Our various programs, including but not limited to the reform programs, would be anchored by various Committees the details of which we would work out and publish in the coming days and weeks.  Ahead of such publication, we would review and where necessary rationalize the existing Committees of the Association.  To facilitate such review and rationalisation, it is necessary that I dissolve forthwith the membership of all the existing Committees of the NBA excluding the Sections and such other Committees as I may expressly indicate.  I thank all our members who served on these Committees for their unstinting services to the Association and count on their willingness to serve the Association further when called upon to so serve.  For the avoidance of doubt, some of the members of these Committees may be called upon to serve on the same or other Committees pursuant to the planned review and rationalization of the Committees and I’m requesting you to please stand ready to provide such services when and if called upon to do so. The Task Ahead – Justice Subsector and Nigeria The lead motif or sine qua non of Bar Association worldwide, with Nigeria not being an exception, is the promotion and protection of the rule of law.  In that connection, there are a number of misconceptions and misperceptions that I must necessarily clear, at this juncture.  First, Judges and the Courts are not enemies of society simply because they discharge and or acquit persons who are charged before them for criminal conduct.  Courts, world over, make decisions based on the facts presented before them and based on applicable principles of law.  Courts do not manufacture evidence and do not descend into the arena to prosecute or defend persons charged with criminal conducts.  Judges remain impartial arbiters, even in criminal matters and our Nigerian Courts have in the main carried out these functions in a most exemplary manner.  It therefore pains us, as lawyers, when the Judiciary is erroneously perceived and characterized as the problem in Nigeria.  It pains us when they are vilified and demonized in a manner that would tend to cow and intimidate them.  Yes, like any grouping of people, there may be bad eggs amongst our Judges, but that does not call for class demonization of our Judges and Courts.  What needs to be done is to fish out those bad eggs amongst them and remove them from the pack – and there are sleuth methods and laid down procedures in this regard.  We truly damage our justice administration system when we, public officials and lawyers alike, openly vilify and condemn our entire judiciary and judges – more often than not, without any proven case of infraction.  We degrade the rule of law thereby and blackmail our judges and the judiciary. 

A corollary and second misconception and misperception is that which characterizes lawyers who defend persons charged with criminal conduct before our courts as criminals themselves or accomplices to the crimes for which their clients are charged, ipso facto.  That is entirely incorrect.  Persons charged with criminal conducts are not only constitutionally deemed innocent until proven guilty based on court pronouncements, they are entitled to legal representation by Counsel of their choice.  This is a basic principle of the rule of law and a constitutionally guaranteed right.  It is also a demand of the rule of law that Counsel, once engaged in defence of a client, must prosecute the client’s case to the best of his professional ability and most assiduously.  In some instances, such forensic and assiduous defence of clients earns the defendant a discharge and/or acquittal.  That is not and cannot be the fault of the Counsel and it should not necessarily be attributed, without proof, to the compromise of the Judge by Counsel.  Such an attribution is just as unfair to the Court and Counsel as the attribution of all convictions to the unproved undermining pressures that may be perceived by some to have been placed on the courts by agencies of government.  Indeed, both misperceptions do grave injustice to our justice administration and unduly destroy the credibility of our courts and lawyers. 

To this end, it is important that lawyers be not class-defamed and treated by our law enforcement agencies as criminals or accomplices to the crimes for which their clients may be charged.  It is perhaps this misperception that has resulted in the increasing incidents of assault and battery of our lawyers throughout the length and breadth of our country in the course of their discharge of their professional duties and functions.  The NBA is scandalized by and totally condemns, in very strong terms, these unwarranted assaults and battery of our members by law enforcement agencies including but not limited to the Nigerian Prison Service and the Nigeria Police Force.  We shall take steps to ensure that these incidents do not recur and in this regard shall meet with the top hierarchies of the various law enforcement agencies to agree on protocols for engaging lawyers and avoiding such ugly incidents of assault and battery of our colleagues in the course of their carrying out their professional duties. 

This is not to say that we do not have bad eggs in our midst.  We however have a disciplinary machinery for purging ourselves of such bad eggs.  Do we need to tweak and make that machinery more efficient?  Yes, of course, and this we would do. We would look at measures that need to be introduced in order to make our disciplinary procedures far more responsive and time-sensitive.  In truth, the image of the Nigerian lawyer is perhaps at its lowest ebb and this cannot all be attributed to misperception by government and the public.  The conduct of some of our members brings bad repute to us.  It is critical and important that we purge ourselves and, as a profession, regain the moral high ground that historically stood us out as members of the honourable profession.  Our seniors must lead by example and our juniors must emulate and follow the example of our worthy seniors.  These are indeed issues that we shall concern ourselves with continuously and constantly with the plan that, well before the end of our tenure, the glory of our profession and legal practitioners shall be truly restored in the eyes of the public. 

I must address one more misperception that sometimes colours the actions of the government, its agencies and indeed the larger public and this is the misconception that the NBA is in constant adversarial position with government.  Lawyers and their association, the NBA are not adversaries of government but partners with government in the promotion and protection of the rule of law.  The NBA’s significant role in that partnership is to serve as the watchdog of society and, in the process, call the government to account.  We shall not shirk our responsibilities in that regard.  Indeed, our role in that capacity is not much different from the role of financial auditors who highlight the weaknesses in the financial systems of organizations and governments.  I do wonder why the financial auditors are not vilified and condemned as enemies of organizations and governments similar to the misperception and mischaracterization of legal auditors, notably, the NBA, as adversaries and/or enemies of governments.  Indeed, all governments and organizations need legal auditors like the NBA and it must be remembered that no auditor worth his salt, submits himself to simply being a yesman. The NBA will not be living true to its creed and lead motif if it were to become such a yes-man to any government or its agency.  It is, in truth, not in the DNA to be such a yes-man organization. 

Rather than crave for yes-men in the NBA, government and its agencies should be craving for collaborative partnership, even if sometimes, adversarial, with the NBA so they could work together in the promotion and protection of the rule of law.  And there are indeed so many areas that we could and should collaborate, ranging from the review and/or enactment of our laws and legislation to the prosecution of crimes and criminals (including but not limited to corrupt practices), to the institution of enabling environment for investments and doing business, to law and order in our society, to our electoral processes and elections. Indeed, as we progress towards the 2019 National Elections, there is room for constant and consistent collaboration between government and the NBA with the aim of ensuring the conduct of a free and fair elections.   

Such collaboration does not, of course, mean that the NBA would not be critical of government and its agencies when necessary and required.  We would at all times be constructively critical of government, and of course, would also commend government when the occasion calls for it.  In this regard and as part of giving voice to the voiceless, the NBA would be having monthly press briefings at which event topical national issues would be x-rayed and discussed.  This would be our standard way of drawing attention to national issues that border mostly on justice administration and the rule of law as well as other issues of national concern, and issues that affect our members.  For the avoidance of doubt,  we would at all times highlight these issues in a constructive manner – which is the hallmark of lawyers generally – and, when necessary and fitting, not only criticize government actions but also commend them.  Governments must however learn to take both the commendations and criticisms, no matter how biting, in their strides and presume always on the good intentions of their critics, in this instance, the NBA. 
Conclusion
My most respected colleagues, distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, time would not permit me to adumbrate in greater detail on our lofty plans for the NBA, the justice subsector and indeed the larger Nigerian society in our 2-year tenure as custodians of your sacred NBA trust.  Please, understand, that the areas I have touched upon in this Address constitute but a capsule of the activities we would be focused on during our stint as the managers of our common heritage, the NBA.  Suffice for me to say that we would be building on the solid foundations that our predecessors in office have left in place for us going as far back as our legendary Past President, the late but not forgotten Chief F R A Williams, SAN (God rest him) up to the days of the late fiery and integritysuffused Aka Bashorun (God bless him) as well as our living icon, Judge (Prince) Bola Ajibola (I do not and did not, Sir, take lightly your blessings love and endorsement), up to our more recent Past Presidents, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN, Mrs. Priscilla Kuye, my good friends and brothers Lanke Odogiyon J B Daudu, SAN, Okey Wali, SAN, Austin Alegeh, SAN and of finally, not least, my close friend and brother, Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud, OON SAN. 

AB has not only been passionate about the required reforms for our Association but also worked assiduously at internationalizing our NBA.  I have been privy to his efforts at reforms and these constitute the much-needed resource materials for some of the reform programs that we would effect.  We would continue to lean on him and his relationships with our international partners and will count at all times on his support and assistance in the course of our navigation of our Association’s journey towards enhanced greatness.  In like manner we will continue to lean on and count on the wisdom of all our Past Presidents, Bar Elders and Leaders and indeed, all of you our dear colleagues.  We are nothing without you. We can only succeed with your support and assistance.  More importantly, we come as your servants; you are our masters and we would at all times listen to and heed your advice.  Where or when we think differently, we would patiently explain our viewpoints to you knowing as we do that communication between us clears doubts and pre-empts quarrels and misunderstandings.  Transparency and accountability, we assure you, would be our watchwords at all times.  

 I must finally thank my younger brothers, Aigboje and Herbert, whose consistent support to Mfon and I, well beyond the NBA elections, has always proved invaluable.  But then, what are families for?  We value you greatly.  There is also our mentor and elder brother, Alhaji Aliko Dangote, GCON, to whom we – Mfon, myself and my younger brothers, Aigboje and Herbert – owe a lot.  His presence today means a lot to us and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.  There’re of course, my immediate family members who are represented today by my younger brothers, Esedo, Charles Aniedi, Nkereuwem and Ukpong and of course, my wife, Ofonmbuk (Charles’ wife), without whose support I would not be where I am today.  I reserve special thanks to my Governor, HE Udom Emmanuel.  Our relationship predates his ascendance to the Akwa Ibom State Governorship seat.  His support, just like the support of HE Godwin Obaseki – represented today by his Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Professor Yinka Omoregbe – whom I had also known and had a close relationship with prior to his assumption of office, has been most outstanding.  Mfon and I thank both Excellencies from the bottom of our hearts. 

Finally, My Distincguished Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, I welcome you to a New and Most Promising Day in the life of the NBA and thank you for your attendance at today’s event.  Long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  Long live the Nigerian Bar Association.

Paul Usoro, SAN FCIArb President Nigerian Bar Association

Why Nigeria needs to be re-structured | Atiku Abubakar

Why Nigeria needs to be re-structured | Atiku Abubakar

In a recent interaction in the United States, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo asserted that the “problem with our country is not a matter of restructuring…and we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into the argument that our problems stem from some geographic re-structuring”.

It is a surprise that the Vice President would take such a position and, in particular, fail to appreciate the connection between Nigeria’s defective structure and its underperformance.

It is unhelpful to reduce the construct of “Restructuring” to a geographical concept as VP Osinbajo does, which in itself demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the core tenets of the concept.

For the avoidance of doubt, re-structuring is not about the re-drawing of state or regional boundaries. The restructured Nigeria that a large number of Nigerians talk about, is a Nigeria that not only provides opportunities for everyone to work but even more specifically challenges every layer of governance to demonstrate the capacity to create wealth and jobs for the citizens.

Restructuring is not just about the devolution of powers to the states, it is about transforming the respective roles of the federal, state and local governments to perform more efficiently in matters of territorial as well as economic governance.

Above all, when we talk about restructuring, we are not talking about just constitutional tweaks, we are talking about a cultural revolution. It is not about re-shuffling a few responsibilities or resources, but about disrupting the authoritarian politics our democracy has inherited from its military and colonial rulers of past.

Viewed this way, Nigeria needs to be restructured. Nigeria has operated a faulty system of federalism, especially under military governments. Both economic and political structures are defective, resulting in weak economic management systems which, in turn, prevent all levels of the Nigerian government — federal, states and local governments, from operating at optimal levels.

Faced with the reality of non-performance, Nigerians have clamoured for the restructuring of the economy towards a more diversified structure. To make this happen would require that we establish and sustain a model of governance which would nurture a spirit of participation and consensus on key national issues and accommodate all the diverse segments of the society. In other words, if we accept the wisdom behind calls for a restructuring of the economy, we must be ready to build a foundation for its success: we must, in other words, re-structure the polity.

The federal structure is so complex with a very strong centre that it has succeeded in accumulating many responsibilities, and along with these, huge resources, which belong to the other levels of government.

It is all too obvious that the current arrangement does not respond to the needs of the people at the local level. We have all too often lied to ourselves that the politicians sitting in Abuja can effectively respond to the needs of a population in far remote locations as Kaura Namoda, Iseyin, Arochukwu or Bama. Only the autonomy of the local governments and the states both of which are closer to their people than the Central Government in Abuja can guarantee this and result in more effective decisions. Only when local administrations are on the saddle, will there be greater accountability for decision making as well as improved flexibility, adaptability and ability to change as a result of a reduction in bureaucracy.

I strongly believe that the restructuring of Nigeria will foster the spirit of co-operation and consensus in a nation of diverse ethnic groups, cultures, and religions. It is desirable, in fact, you may even say it is required to establish, nurture and sustain a strong and effective democratic government.

In this continuous dialogue, we should remind ourselves that restructuring is not a new or strange phenomenon. A number of developing economies have had cause to restructure their economies, for greater efficiency or to correct imbalances or to reorient them towards, for example, more open and market-oriented systems with greater reliance on the private sector as the engine of growth. Even the United Kingdom is restructuring its political and economic systems to enable a better union among its component parts. Businesses restructure for better performance. Even families do!

Working with the National Assembly and all other stakeholders, we will lead the process of genuine and transparent constitutional amendments, in order to provide the necessary stimulus and focus on how to restructure Nigeria that would work for all

Source – Medium.com