#NigeriaDecides2019: Political Decisions and Its Economic Effects | B.K. Saka, Esq.

#NigeriaDecides2019: Political Decisions and Its Economic Effects | B.K. Saka, Esq.

The
Independent National Electoral Commission on January 9, 2018 released the
official timetable and calendar of exercises for the anticipated general elections
which is down to less than a month. As a major aspect of arrangements for the polls,
INEC has registered an aggregate of 91 political parties and through its
Continuous Voter Registration which was suspended on August 31, 2018, had been
able to register 84,004,084 (Eighty-Four Million, Four Thousand, and Eighty-Four)
eligible voters.

According
to Reuters, Nigeria’s economy will grow more slowly this year than previously
forecasted, this is due to investors hold off before elections this year, the
average investor is a capitalist he is concerned about the profitability of the
market he is trading in, the indicators have not shown positivity as such he
holds off. Investigators and financial experts’ conjectures demonstrated a
middle of 2.1 percent development for Nigeria, quickening to 3.0 percent one
year from now, a noteworthy downsize from the past survey taken three months
back, which demonstrated Africa’s biggest economy growing 2.6 percent this year
after a dreary 0.8 percent in 2017. The upcoming elections and its trademark of
related high-wire political issues would affect business and investment alerts
with respect to economic stakeholders. Business and venture decisions are definitely
subject to the aftermaths of the forth coming elections.

Despite
the fact that President Buhari, to some degree, won the 2015 race on the
strength of his anti-corruption promises, corruption is still endemic in
Nigerian public life and it appears that it is only members of the opposition
parties that are being prosecuted. Nigeria has one of the biggest youth
populaces on the planet, with at any rate half of its evaluated 180 million-in
number populace younger than 30. This could be a gigantic advantage for the
nation yet the current financial conditions where this advantage is harnessed,
the reverse is sadly the case, as a very large percentage of these young
persons are unemployed and the economic environment makes its unrealistic for
them to thrive.

Amidst
these negatives, we expect the continuous recuperation in oil generation to
make ready for robust medium-term prospects, helped by enhanced transparency in
the energy sector and others. Likewise, the bounce back in the economy would be
coordinated by enhancements in the fiscal balance, as the spending shortfall is
anticipated to ease from 3.6% of the GDP in 2017 to 3.2% in 2018. An enhanced
business atmosphere and speculators’ certainty have been the aftereffects of
the upward development in Nigeria’s ease of doing business ranking. 
A huge
enhancement in credit to the private sector will drive individual investment development
and thusly affect business and buyer utilization emphatically. The standpoint
of the naira past 2018 stays empowering regardless of fears that the raw
petroleum supply excess may bring costs down in 2019. Having directed its month
to month Forex request by 65% in 2017, a further significant decline is normal
in 2019 as Nigeria’s biggest Forex use the importation of refined oil-based
goods is probably going to be taken out when the Dangote refinery goes ahead
stream.

As
2019 races move closer, stock trade dives by 19.77%. The year 2018 was not all
that glowing for the Nigerian Stock Exchange as its significant markers
devalued by 19.77 percent because of vulnerabilities encompassing the expected
general decisions. The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the NSE which was
named the third best performing stock trade on the planet in 2017 with more
than 43 percent degree of profitability performed horridly in 2018. Specialists
said the market, which began the primary quarter on a positive note, plunged
because of the withdrawal of assets by remote portfolio financial investors who
were concerned over the pending elections.

Given
all these Negatives, one way out of a conceivable reaction on the economy is
that Politicians and their cronies need to receive down to business systems
that would ensure quiet battles and balance out the country to guarantee a
practical market bounce back. Besides, it should be perceived that uncertainty
and social issue are disincentives to speculation. Government should meet
people’s high expectations of handling, with all earnestness, the lamentable
advancements so as to re-establish investors’ certainty. 

The polity must be
quiet. Politicians should be upstanding and play by the standard by following
fair treatment to guarantee a serene environment in front of the decisions. Politicians
require not overheat the polity. The political class needs to understand the
nexus between political decisions/indecisions and economics. It will be
ridiculous to win an election, then spend years convincing investors to come (or
comeback) to invest in the country. To have a prosperous 4-year ahead, our
leaders have to take strict business decisions that will make Nigeria a hive
for investors and magnates.


Basit Kolapo Saka, Esq.
Associate, Ayanlaja, Adesanya & Co
Kolapo is a legal practitioner at the
prestigious Ayanlaja, Adesanya & CO, Situate in ILupeju, Lagos. He has keen
interest in Business and Corporate Law, Commercial arbitration and Fintech. He
also writes and advises business start ups and SMEs.

k_basyt@yahoo.com,
@_Kolamposi

Crypto-Currency Anarchy – A Comparative Overview | Michael Jonathan Numa

Crypto-Currency Anarchy – A Comparative Overview | Michael Jonathan Numa

Over the last 7years, crypto-currencies
have evolved tremendously and has increasingly established itself as a payment
system globally. Today, crypto-currencies are a Multibillion-dollar venture
with dual potential as both an investment and an electronic medium of exchange.
Increasingly, mainstream retailers are announcing plans to accept bit-coins.
Bit-coin ATMs are growing in prominence; the first bit-coin debit cards were
launched by an Hong Kong domiciled company called Xapo in the year 2014 and the
first Bit-coin derivative transactions have been executed on a US-regulated
exchange. Yet, there remain numerous risks and challenges associated with
crypto-currencies. In addition to experiencing significant volatility in
exchange rate and susceptibility to attacks from illicit users and
cybercriminals; the crypto-currency marketplace remains largely unregulated.
Governments around the globe are taking widely divergent actions- or taking no
action at all- to define and regulate crypto-currencies. This article is an
attempt to provide some context for the crypto currency landscape, including
regulatory and law enforcement developments.

WHAT ARE CRYPTO-CURRENCIES?

Crypto-currencies are decentralized
peer-to-peer payment systems that are digital representations of value and can
be transferred, stored and traded electronically. At their core, they are
distinct from other digital payments (e.g PayPal, Facebook Credits, airline and
hotel miles) because they provide intermediate party. They do not have legal
tender status; they operate with no central authority or banks, and their issue
is carried out collectively by a distributed network. While the transaction
between buyer and seller is direct, the identities of the parties are encrypted
and therefore no personal information is transferred. However, crypto-currency
transactions such as bit-coin transactions are not fully anonymous. A
transaction record of every bit-coin and every bit-coin user’s encrypted
identity is recorded on a public ledger. As a result, it is most appropriate to
characterize bit-coin and many other crypto-currencies as pseudonymous as
opposed to being anonymous. This pseudonymity, combined with its efficient and
decentralized nature, makes it appealing to both consumers and criminals alike.

Today, there are several hundred (if not
thousands) of crypto-currencies in existence with a current market
capitalization as at April 2018 of over $200bn. The bit-coin system is the most
prominent and perhaps most dominant crypto-currency. Other mineable crypto-currencies
with sizeable market capitalization include ButsharesX, Peercoin and Dogecoin.

While these descriptions provide a helpful
understanding of what crypto-currency is, they do clarify the role of
crypto-currencies in the modern financial system. Are they a commodity, a
currency? Policy makers and regulators are still trying to answer these
questions. The department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCen) has defined crypto-currency as a medium of exchange that operates like
currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real
currency, does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.

In its recent ruling, the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) held that crypto-currency would be treated as property, not
currency, for tax purposes. And a Former Acting Commissioner of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stated his belief in May 2013, that bit-coins
would be likely to be considered a commodity under the Commodity Exchange Act.

In March 2018, the Bank of England’s Head of
Finance Stability Board Mr. Mark Carney while in agreement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to classify crypto-currencies as
securities subject to laws governing how they are issued and traded stated inter
alia thus “For many reasons the crypto assets in your digital wallets are
unlikely to be the future of money, but that is not meant to dismiss them.
Their core technology is already having an impact. Bringing crypto-assets into
the regulatory tent could potentially catalyze innovations to serve the public
better”.

 Carney posited that the crypto
ecosystem should be held to the same standards as the rest of financial system,
which will bring great privileges, but also greater responsibility.

LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS OF
CRYPTOCURRENCY

Crypto-currency and wokings of its
respective platforms have all the semblance of a Ponzi scheme, this similarity
will be treated
anon. Owing
to the fact that Crypto-currencies transcend traditional Sovereign jurisdictions,
financial regulators globally, have diverse opinions and approaches on the
phenomenon, and are struggling to agree on market standards, amid fears of
crypto-currency bubble.

In December, 2013, the Chinese Central Bank
and four other regulatory bodies jointly issued the Notice on Precautions
against the Risks of Bit-coins (the Joint Chinese Notice). In an Echo of the
IRS ruling, the Joint Chinese Notice defined Bitcoin as a virtual commodity and
found that it was not a currency, and therefore should not be circulated and
used in the Market as such. Banks and payment institutions in China may not
deal in bit-coin but the Central Bank clarified that it was not prohibiting
trading in crypto-currencies, however, it is apparent that the Chinese investor
interest in Bit-coin has been tempered. In September, 2017 the Chinese
government quickly moved to ban Initial Coin Offering (ICO), viewing them as
illegal means of financing. It also launched an investigation into 60 local
platforms dedicated to managing them; South Korea Followed suit, introducing an
ICO ban later that month. It is however an entirely different story in many
other developed economies with strong legal frameworks, including Australia,
Canada, the European Union, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the
United States. Regulators in these jurisdictions are now looking to treat a
coin that functions like a security in a similar way as it would be under their
existing domestic securities laws. Japan, an early adopter of ICOs, has
more than ten regulated bit-coin exchanges, controlling a large chunk of global
market. A key topic in various jurisdictions is to try to put ICOs under the
umbrella of the Local Securities laws, but there is no best practice yet
globally. Recent survey has revealed that ICOs are looking to avoid being
defined as a security, so trying to regulate them seems to conflict with the
purpose of ICOs and Crypto-currencies. Such inconsistency is breeding
uncertainty among marketers.

In the United States, the SEC has taken actions
in two forms: various enforcement actions and the issue of investor advisory
notices. Recent actions indicate that even in the absence of new regulations
specifically addressing crypto-currency, the SEC has significant existing
authorities to regulate a wide range of matters involving bit-coin. The first
SEC enforcement action relating to crypto-currency occurred in July 2013, when
the SEC charged Trendon Shavers of Texas with defrauding investors in
Bit-coin-denominated Ponzi scheme. Shavers, the founder and the operator of
Bit-coin savings and trust, offered and sold bit-coin-denominated investments
online, raising at least 700,000 Bit-coins in what was allegedly a Ponzi
Scheme. In September, 2014, a US Federal Judge found that the SEC established that
the Company was a Ponzi Scheme, and ordered Bit-coin Savings and Trust and
Shavers to Pay a combined $40.7m. In so finding, the court held that the
Bit-coin investments at issue qualified as investment contracts and securities
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The finding that Bit-coins are properly treated as securities is
likely to have broad implications in the future. In conjunction with the civil
enforcement action, SEC issued an investor alert at the same time, warning
investors of the dangers of Ponzi schemes and other potential scams using
crypto-currencies. In the alert, SEC expressed its concern that heightened use
of crypto currencies may entice fraudsters to lure investors into Ponzi and other
schemes in which these currencies are used to facilitate fraudulent or simply
fabricated investments or transactions.

Numerous other measures have been taken
including suspension of companies using mobile platforms to facilitate bit-coin
trading. However, the New York department of financial Services (NYDFS)
has adopted one of the most aggressive stances when it comes to
crypto-currencies, and it became the first state in the US to propose a robust
regulatory framework for crypto-currencies. In 2014 the NYDFS requested
proposals from firms to set up regulated exchanges from crypto-currencies all
in a bid to strengthen oversight including robust standards for consumer
protection, cyber security and anti-money laundering compliance.

In 2014, the Canadian Parliament adopted an
amendment to its proceeds of crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing
Act that will treat crypto-currency as Money service businesses for the
purposes of the Canadian Anti-money laundering law. As a result, companies
dealing in Crypto-currencies will be required to register with the Financial
Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, implement compliance
programmes, maintain records, report suspicious or terrorist-related property
transactions and determine if any of the customers are politically exposed
persons.

In Nigeria, there is no clear legal or
regulatory framework (to the best of the writer’s knowledge) with respect of
crypto-currency. Although during the MMM saga the MPC issued a statements
warning members of the public not to be vulnerable to Money-doubling Ponzi
Schemes which are unapproved and unregulated by the CBN, this includes the
numerous Bit-coin related investments which are fast emerging in Nigeria
promoted by some Nigerian based platforms and some foreigners
alike.  In a whole, there is a consensus across the various
jurisdictions that crypto-currencies are susceptible to all manner of crimes
because Bit-coin transactions can be very difficult to trace, and often cross
multiple legal jurisdictions, it is hard for law enforcement to track or seize
criminal profits. The FBI has published its concerns about Bit-coin,
particularly the lack of regulation for offshore services that may be used by
criminals as a safe haven for criminal conduct. Albeit, so the attraction
to the numerous investing public is not diminishing, this perhaps increases the
conundrum associated to the subject matter. click this link to
access more of our articles via our website for free

Partner @ Karina Tunyan & Company

Source: LinkedIn 
Photo Credit – www.medium.com 

Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance 2018: necessity or superfluity? | Teingo Inko – Tariah

Nigerian Code of Corporate Governance 2018: necessity or superfluity? | Teingo Inko – Tariah

Preamble

Plans to harmonize the
corporate governance legal framework in Nigeria began in January, 2013 when a
Steering Committee on National Code of Corporate Governance was commissioned to
harmonize and unify all existing sectoral codes in Nigeria. Consequently, in
2016, the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) published a draft
3-part National Code of Corporate Governance for the private, public and the
non-profit sectors in line with sections 11(c), 50 & 51 of the Financial
Reporting Council of Nigeria Act, 2011. The code for private sector was
mandatory but did not specify any commencement or effective date. The non-profit
sector code was stated to commence on October 17, 2016 on a “comply or justify
non-compliance” basis while that of the public sector was to take effect upon
the receipt of an executive directive from the Federal Government without a
specified approach in terms of operation and application. Related blog posts on
the 2015 code can be found here and here.

Following controversies
that trailed the provisions of the 3-part 2015 code including conflict with
existing law, the code was suspended by the Ministry of Industry, Trade &
Investment, the supervising Ministry for the Financial Reporting Council of
Nigeria pending a “detailed, review, extensive consultation with stakeholders
and reconstruction of the Board of the Financial Reporting Council”.
Consequently, the Nigerian Stock Exchange issued a circular on suspension of the frc code of corporate
governance
.

On Tuesday January 15,
2019, the Vice-President of Nigeria, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo and the Minister for
Industry, Trade & Investment, Dr. Okechukwu Enelamah unveiled the Nigerian
Code of Corporate Governance 2018. Below are some highlights of the content of
the new code.

Overview of the 2018 Code

Purpose

The purpose of the 2018
code is to institutionalize corporate governance best practices in Nigerian
companies and to promote public awareness of essential corporate values and
ethical practices that will enhance the integrity of the business environment.
It is expected that by adhering to the principles articulated in the Code,
companies will demonstrate a commitment to good governance practices thereby
increase transparency, trust and integrity, and create an environment for
sustainable business operations. Consequently, this will rebuild public trust
and confidence in the Nigerian economy, thus facilitating increased trade and
investment.

Applicability/scope

The Code is applicable to companies of varying sizes and complexities
across industries/sectors. This will include public and private companies. The
Code recognizes existing sectoral codes viz:

1.    
Code of Corporate Governance for the
Telecommunication Industry 2016, issued by the Nigerian Communications
Commission (replaced 2014 NCC Code);

2.    
Code of Corporate Governance for Banks and
Discount Houses in Nigeria 2014 issued by the Central Bank of Nigeria (replaced
2006 CBN Code);

3.    
Code of Corporate Governance for Public
Companies in Nigeria 2011 issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(replaced 2003 SEC Code);

4.    
Code of Good Corporate Governance for
Insurance Industry in Nigeria 2009 issued by the National Insurance Commission;
and

5.    
Code of Corporate Governance for Licensed
Pension Fund Operators 2008 issued by the National Pension Commission.

However, the Code does
not specify whether or not these codes would be subject to its provisions or
would be applied side-by-side with them. Worthy of note also are the recently
released codes of Corporate Governance by the Central Bank of Nigeria in 2018 for
Bureau De Change operators, Primary Mortgage Banks, Finance Companies,
Micro-Finance Banks, Development Finance Banks and Mortgage Re-finance
companies. These codes have been tailored to suit the various types of
financial institutions mentioned but there is no mention of these new set of
codes released by the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Approach/Model

The 2018 code adopts a
principles based ‘Apply and Explain’ approach which requires companies to show
how the specific activities undertaken by them best achieve the outcomes
intended by the principles of the Code. Thus, companies are expected to adapt
the principles to suit their type, size and growth phase.

Structure of the Code

The Code comprises of 6
parts: A – F, 28 principles and over 200 recommended practices. Each Part deals
with a broad aspect of corporate governance which is broken into principles and
recommended practices as follows:

Part A: Board of
Directors and officers of the Board

Part B: Assurance – risk
management, internal & external audit, whistle-blowing

Part C: Relationship with
shareholders – General meetings, continuous dialogue, equitable treatment and
shareholder protection.

Part D: Business conduct
with Ethics – values, conflict of interest, etc.

Part E: Sustainability –
attention to sustainability issues including environmental, social,
occupational, community health and safety.

Part F: Transparency –
disclosure.

Monitoring &
Implementation

The FRCN is saddled with
the responsibility of monitoring implementation of the Code. This will be done
through sectoral regulators and registered exchanges who are empowered to
impose appropriate sanctions based on specific deviation noted and the affected
company. In addition, the FRCN may conduct reviews on implementation of the
code where deviations recur and adopt other monitoring mechanisms as a result
of such reviews. Where necessary, the FRCN in consonance with relevant
regulatory agencies may issue corporate governance guidelines to aid
implementation of the Code in line with sectoral peculiarities.

Comment/Conclusion

The 2018 Code of
Corporate Governance appears to have deviated from the original goal of
harmonizing and unifying all existing sectoral codes in Nigeria. Rather, the
2018 code adds to the number of existing codes of corporate governance in
operation as listed above. However, since the 2018 code will operate more of a
principles than rules based approach, unlike the 2015 code, companies may not
face an additional burden of penalties and sanctions for deviation from the
code.

Unlike the 2015 code, the
2018 code has adopted a different approach from the rules based model as there
are no express sanctions for non-compliance. There seems to be some uncertainty
as to the model of corporate governance to be adopted. Most of the sectoral codes
are rules based with sanctions for non-compliance. It is believed that this
will impact on implementation and assessment.

One wonders how the
implementation of the 2018 code will fare especially as the FRCN hopes to work
through other regulators and exchanges in this regard. The Securities &
Exchange Commission has an existing code and currently, this forms the basis
for assessment of the corporate governance parameter of the index created by
the Nigerian Stock Exchange in conjunction with the Convention on Business
Integrity (CBi). The telecoms, financial and insurance sectors, among others,
also have codes of corporate governance.

Although the Executive
Director of the FRCN reportedly stated that
the codes of Corporate Governance by the Central Bank of Nigeria and Securities
and Exchange Commission will serve as guidelines  when the 2018 code takes
effect in January 2020, there is no clear expression in the code of how it will
stand with the existing sectoral codes in terms of which will supercede where
there is a conflict. Moreover, there are other sectoral codes not mentioned.
Will the regulatory bodies or exchange implement this new code of corporate
governance along with their respective codes? How feasible is it to implement
and monitor compliance with two parallel codes?

Overall, the multiplicity
of codes may end up becoming a burden for companies on one hand and for
investors who wish to gauge their integrity and accountability on the other
hand. It may be necessary to have some form of harmonized system to standardize
corporate governance best practices in Nigeria. In the alternative, the new
code could be made applicable to companies other than those with sector
specific codes.

You can download a copy
of the 2018 Nigerian Corporate Governance Code here nccg 2018

 Source: Legally Yours 
NBA Institutes Technical Committee For Planning The 2019 Annual Conference

NBA Institutes Technical Committee For Planning The 2019 Annual Conference

NBA 2019 Annual General Conference –
Technical Committee For Conference Planning
1. Sequel to the mandate given to me by the NBA National Executive Committee 
(“NEC”) at its meeting held on 06 December 2018, I am pleased to constitute the Technical Committee for Conference Planning (“TCCP” or “Committee”) for our 2019 

Annual General Conference (“AGC”). The TCCP is made up of 42 eminent members 
of our Association and is chaired by Gbenga Oyebode, MFR, the Chairman of the 
Management Board of Aluko & Oyebode, one of Nigeria’s leading law firms, and a 
past Chairman of our Section on Business Law (“SBL”). The list of the members has 
been published as an adjunct to this Statement. 
2. I thank all 42 members for accepting to serve on the Committee despite their 
individual busy schedules. In particular, knowing first-hand how extremely 
challenging Mr Oyebode’s schedule ordinarily is, I thank him specially for answering this call to duty and for his unwavering and consistent commitment to our Association. I know that he and his team will bring to bear on this AGC planning 
assignment, their extensive and individual experiences in planning and hosting previous conferences, including but not limited to AGC and SBL conferences.
3. With the publication of the TCCP membership composition, I have agreed with Mr Oyebode that the Committee will commence its work immediately without anyado; I expect him to summon the Committee’s inaugural meeting as soon as possibleand proceed therefrom. The Terms of Reference of the Committee, in broad terms,is to organize the 2019 AGC and to carry out all such ancillary functions and duties as may be assigned to or required of them for the successful hosting of the 
Conference. The Committee would report directly to me and would, as required 
obtain specific approvals from NEC for its assignments.
4. In my discussions with the Committee, I have impressed on them the expectations of our members for the best and most memorable Conference in 2019, both in terms of content and in being pocket-friendly vis-à-vis the conferees and the 
Conference output. I have in that wise extracted the commitment of the Committee, through its Chairman, that the 2019 AGC will live up to those billings. As National 
Officers, we are mindful of the promises that we made to our members in my Inaugural Address and we shall strive to keep and live by those promises in the planning and hosting of the 2019 AGC.
5. The composition of this year’s AGC TCCP comes with some innovations and exciting bonuses. First is the selflessness of all the Committee members. I spoke with each of the 42 members and they all committed to serve on the Committee at minimal, if any, cost to the National NBA purse as it relates in particular to their transport and accommodation for Committee meetings. That is exemplary, and I cannot thank them enough for this commitment and sacrifice. 
6. Second, we have included a number of ex-officio members in the TCCP for inclusiveness and information flow to branch members. Three Branch Chairmen 
from each of the NBA Zones, totaling nine Branch Chairmen serve as ex-officiomembers of the TCCP. We expect the Chairmen to assist in explaining the mechanics of the AGC planning and the underlying considerations for decisions of the Committee to all our colleagues in their various Zones.
7. The Chairmen of our three Sections – SBL, SLP and SPIDEL – are ex-officio members of the TCCP as well and so is our own Anthony Atata, the IBA African Forum Chairman. The President of the Law Officers Association of Nigeria, Yusuf Abdullahi Abdulkadir, has been appointed to the Committee as an ex-officio member and as will the YLF President as soon as the Council of the Young Lawyers’ Forum (“YLF”) is constituted. It remains to mention that we would be updating members with the activities of the TCCP as we begin the countdown to the NBA 2019 AGC.
Paul Usoro, SAN
President

IP ABC: Question Of The Week

IP ABC: Question Of The Week



We are Artify, an artificial intelligence (AI) contents-generation company for
news sites around the world. With our proprietary AI robot, RoboAuthor, we are
able to create contents completely independent of any human input. RoboAuthor
helps us generate premium contents for over 150 news sites that need
complementary contents other than everyday news. They are paying clients. Last
week, our copyright-monitoring team discovered that a global news network has
infringed on copyright in a number of our articles. The global news network
operates news houses physically established in Australia, Europe Union (EU),
New Zealand, United States (US), UK, and Nigeria. 


These news houses run local
websites from their various locations. They all copied 5 of our news articles
verbatim without any authorization, attribution, or compensation. When our
legal team wrote the global news network to demand that they pull the
infringing articles down from their website, it refused. Reason? “Your articles
were written by robots. No copyright protection for works generated by
robots!”, they claimed. Seriously, this is not funny. We have invested millions
of dollars in developing RoboAuthor. If this copyright infringement is allowed
to persist, we are practically our of business. Do AI-generated works
enjoy copyright protection?

Answer
Dear RoboAuthor Company
The answer is YES or NO,
depending on the country the alleged copyright infringement took place.

Originality is the touchstone of copyright protection. Authorship is
primary. Authorship of a work eligible for copyright protection
implies a “creation of the human mind”. This is why in the absence of
originality and authorship as contemplated under copyright laws,
conferring copyright to works created or generated by robots, other
machines, or any nonhuman author is a big challenge. Generally, while
some jurisdictions don’t confer copyright in AI-generated works or works
by nonhuman authors, other jurisdictions confer copyright on
these works but in favour of the human programmer
or owner. 


Copyright Protection in the US and Australia: Only a human being
can have copyright under the United States copyright law and the Australian
Copyright Act.
In the US, the copyright statute
does not recognize copyright protection for works that are not created by
a human being. By implication, this includes world created by robots or
other machines.

Recently, the US judiciary had the opportunity to decide on copyright
protection for works by a non-human—a monkey who took selfies. In that
case—Naruto v Slater No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018)—the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) held that a monkey can’t
own any copyright to his selfies. Why? Because only humans can own
copyright under US law. 

Apart from Naruto’s case, the US
Copyright office “will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a
human being did not create the work.” Works “produced by machine or mere
mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any
creative input or intervention from a human author” is excluded from
copyright protection.
Similarly, under the Australian
Copyright Act, there is no copyright protection for works created by
nonhumans. This is because works are contemplated to be the “creations of
the human mind”, and not that of a robot or an animal, however
intelligent they may be.

This is why in a recent Australian case Acohs Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd,
the court refused to recognize copyright in a work created by computer
program. In that case, HTML-based data was converted by a program into
datasheets. Because the court found that the datasheets that were created
autonomously by a program did not have a sole human author, the court
held that the datasheets were not protectable by copyright.


Therefore, as far as US and
Australia are concerned, RoboCopy has no copyright in the articles. Even
your company Artify, owners of RoboCopy, cannot claim any copyright.
Copyright doesn’t apply, except there was a creative input by a human
being.
Copyright
Protection in Europe and Nigeria, excluding the UK
In Europe, originality is the
touchstone of copyright protection. This originality is not only about
newness but connected with an author’s intellectual creation. This
implies the personality of the author. Robots or machines are not known
to have a personality.

In Infopaq International A/S
v Danske Dagblades Forening
[2012] EUECJ C-302/10, the Court of
Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided a case involving data
capture by holding that copyright applies only if the work is an
expression of the intellectual creation of their author.

Law and policy in Europe is that
for now AI does not have the degree of autonomy that would grant
personality or legal status to robots.

In Nigeria, copyright does not
apply to works created by robots or machines. Under section 2(1) of the
Nigerian Copyright Act, copyright is conferred on eligible works by an
author who must be a ‘qualified person’s. Under the Act, a ‘qualified
person’ is (a) an individual who is a citizen of, or is domiciled in
Nigeria; or (b) a body corporate incorporated by or under the laws of
Nigeria. Robots and machines are therefore completely out.

Therefore, both in Europe and
Nigeria, RoboAuthor will have no copyright over the articles in question.

Copyright Protection in the UK and New Zealand
In the UK, works by robots or
other automated machines are generally treated as computer-generated
works, this qualifying such works for copyright protection, but in favour
of the human programmer. Section 178 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act (CDPA) defines a computer-generated work as a work “generated
by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the
work”.

Under section 9(3) of the CDPA,
for “a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is
computer-generated”, copyright applies to “the author [who] shall be
taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the
creation of the work are undertaken.”

So regardless of the autonomy of
a robot or machine, as long as the robot or machine was created by a
human programmer, the human programmer is the copyright owner, subject to
originality.

The legal implication of the
position above is that the news articles written or generated by
RoboAuthor enjoy copyright protection, but grants copyright to your
company Artify, not RoboAuthor. On this basis, you can bring an
copyright-infringement action against the global news company in the UK.

The New Zealand copyright law is
similar to the UK regime. So your action against the global news company
may be successful in New Zealand.

For legal advice and assistance, consult an IP lawyer or law firm.

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

Duties Of Company Directors

Duties Of Company Directors

Many CEOs always wonder why they must have Directors when registering their companies, it’s their business right!! .

Because the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) states 1 person cannot register a business in Nigeria (2 or more), most small scale businesses just have a family member, spouse or friend join the Board of their companies.

Businesses should note that Directors  can be much more than names on the forms CAC 2 and CAC 7. A Director who is invested in the growth of the company can play a big role in steering the business venture to success.

Directors can bring critical expertise, experience and contacts into the business. Most importantly a Director need not be a Shareholder and can sometimes even be a paid employee of the company. .
Will love to hear from you, why did you appoint the directors currently on your Board?

#directors #creativelawtuesdays #law #lawyer #lagos #businesslaw #legalnaija #nigerianlawyer #nigerianblawg #corporatelaw #commerciallawyer #wimbiz
Legalnaija Property Law Tip

Legalnaija Property Law Tip

Have you ever heard the allegations that members of a certain community/tribe or ethnicity usually refuse to sell land to persons who are not one of them? 

.
Such acts are unconstitutional as seen in the above quote from the Nigerian Constitution.
.
Also did you know that when a person’s land is acquired by the govt, such person must be paid compensation. The relevant provision of the law is Section 44 of the Constitution which states – 
“(1) No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that, among other things –
(a) requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore and
(b) gives to any person claiming such compensation a right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a court of law or tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.” 
.
Learn & Share 
#propertylaw #propertylawthursday #legalnaija #blog #blawg #nigerianblawg #nigerianlawyer 
Consent Of The Attorney General Pursuant To S.84(1) of the Sheriffs & Civil Processes Act – Did CBN v. Interstella Decision Nullify The Pre-Condition?

Consent Of The Attorney General Pursuant To S.84(1) of the Sheriffs & Civil Processes Act – Did CBN v. Interstella Decision Nullify The Pre-Condition?

Enforcement of Monetary
Judgment vide Garnishee Proceedings against State entities especially monies
considered to be in custody of a Public Officer has been a mirage leaving Judgment
Creditors in helpless situation after the rigours of obtaining judgment usually
through a feisty contested and protracted litigation.

Section 84(1) of the SCPA
Cap S6 2004 has indeed posed a clog in the wheel of Enforcing Money Judgments
against the government or its agencies. The Section Provides thus:

“Where money liable to be
attached by garnishee proceedings is in the custody or under the control of a
public officer in his capacity or in custodial legis, the order nisi shall not
be made under the provisions of the last preceding section unless consent to
such attachment is first obtained from the appropriate officer
in the case
of money in the custody or control of a public officer or of the court
in the case of money in custodial legis, as the case may be “ .

The appropriate officer
under this context is the Attorney General of the Federation or that of the
State as the case may be. This provision has been described as a pre-condition,
which must first be fulfilled before the Order Nisi, that is sought ex parte is
acceded to. There have been divergent views as well as conflicting decisions of
the Court of Appeal on the constitutionality or otherwise of this Section which
tends to deprive Judgment creditors from reaping the fruit of their judgment.

This article attempts to
briefly analyse the applicability of this provision vis-à-vis the recent
decision of the Nigeria Supreme Court in CBN v INTERSTELLA COMMUNICATIONS
LTD (2017) SC/500/2014 delivered on the 15th of December, 2017.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The pre-condition provided
under Section 84 of the SCPA has a common law root. The General Common
law position in order to protect the state, used to be that “ the King does
no wrong”
which is expressed in the latin maxim, “Rex non protest
pecarre”.
The trend in that inherent principle was that no country allowed
execution of judgments against the state. It was also the law then under that
principle that the state could not be sued in tort. Courts were then regarded
as the King’s Court. Naturally, judgment obtained by an individual could not be
enforced against the King. Clearly the crown enjoyed immunity from legal
actions and could not be impleaded in its own court for tortious acts by its
servants. In 1958, the said principle was trans-located into Nigeria by virtue
of Section 45(1) of the Interpretation Act, Cap 89, LFN 1958. The principle was
still the law in Nigeria even though it had been abolished in England by the
promulgation of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. The principle of State
immunity from tortious liability was codified to be part of Nigeria law by
virtue of the Petition of rights Act, Cap 149 as amended in 1964. This
explains how the common law principle prevailedThe idea is that
in a bid to protect the state, individuals cannot enforce judgment against the
King in his own court without the consent of the Attorney General. This trend
persisted up till 1979 when the 1979 Constitution came into effect. All the
cases before 1979 affirmed that any decisions of the High Court against the
State couldn’t be enforced without the consent of the Attorney General. In this
current constitutional dispensation, the provision of the Petition of Right Act
to the extent that it purports to prevent an aggrieved party from taking direct
action in court against the State is in riot conflict with Section 6(6)(b) of
the Constitution to the extent of its inconsistency null and void. Therefore
garnishee proceedings can be instituted against the government. See
RANSOME-KUTIv. AGF (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt 6) 211.

This extra formality or
red-tape was described by Lord Atkinson in HOLLINSHEAD v. HAZLETON (1916) 1 A.C
428 H.L
in the context of the Petition of Right as “ merely an
amicable litigation taken by consent of the crown against the crown itself”. Eso
JSC describes it in RANSOME KUTI v AGF (Supra) as an “Unknown Soldier”.

POLICY CONSIDERATION BEHIND
SECTION 84(1) OF THE SCPA.

The rationale for the
provision of prior consent of the AGF before a court can validly issue a
garnishee order nisi against funds in the hands of a public officer was
enunciated in the Case of ONJEWU v. KOGI STATE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE &
INDUSTRY (2003) 10 NWLR Pt. 827) 40 at 88-89 Per Muntaka- Commassie, JCA (as he
then was) now retired JSC thus:

“ In my humble view, the
rationale for the provision for the previous consent of the AG before a court
can validly issue a garnishee order nisi against funds in the hands of a public
officer is to ensure that moneys that have been voted by the House of Assembly
of a State for a specific purpose is the Appropriation Bill presented to that
House and approved in the budget for the year of appropriation does not end up
being the subject of execution for other unapproved purposes under the SCPA”

This decision has been
followed by plethora of decisions of the Court of Appeal vis UNIVERSITY OF
CALABAR TEACHING HOSPITAL v. LIZIKON (NIG) LTD & ANOR(2017)
LPELR-42339(CA), CBN v OKEFE (2015) LPELR – 24825 (CA).

 THE POSITION IN CBN v.
INTERSTELLA (SUPRA).

In 2017 the Supreme Court of
Nigeria was presented with the first opportunity to determine the
constitutionality or otherwise of this Section 84(1) of the SCPA under review,
vide an appeal by CBN challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts
on the ground inter alia that no prior consent of the AGF was sought and
obtained before the Order Nisi by the Federal High Court Umuahia Coram
H.T Soba J was granted, which subsequently crystallized into an Order
Absolute. In this case, the Judgment creditor had obtained a consent
Judgment wherein the AGF on behalf of the Federal Government’s
inter-ministerial committee had agreed to pay the sumof N24.666 Billion as
novation for a debt owed by NITEL (a public corporation) and in so doing
induced the judgment creditors to alter their position by accepting a much
lesser amount from the actual debt. The Government indeed proceeded to pay a
fraction of the agreed sum; it was after it failed, refused or neglected to pay
the residue, that the 1st and 2nd respondent approached the court. At the
hearing of the appeal both the CBN (as garnishee) and the AGF argued forcefully
that the Order nisi obtained without prior consent was void hence the order
absolute attaching the amount standing in favour of the government is a nullity.
It was argued that the CBN’s compliance with the Said Section 84 of SCPA was
mandatory; being a public officer. It was the contention of the appellant
that the participation of the AGF in the negotiation leading to the compromised
sum and part payment thereof did not amount to consent as contemplated under
the Section 84(1) of SCPA because the negotiation is not a garnishee
proceedings.

The court in resolving the
issue against the appellant relied on the relevant background facts leading to
the garnishee proceedings, describing same as very peculiar which cannot be
fitted with the general interpretation of Section 84 of the SCPA. The
court reasoned that under the doctrine of Accord and satisfaction, the judgment
creditor had forfeited substantial part of the debt on the representation of
the AGF negotiating on behalf of the state, which was clearly captioned in
documentary evidence, found in the record of Appeal as Exhibit Q. It posited
further that the AGF having assumed the indebtness of the original debtor by
subrogation therefore cannot take cover under the pretext of Section 84 SCPA
to deprive the Judgment debtor from enforcing his judgment.

I applaud the decision of
the Supreme Court for rising up to the occasion of not being just a court of
law, but equally a court of justice after examining the factual matrix of this
case to hold that there was indeed implied consent by the AGF and/or that the
AGF is the actual debtor under this circumstance, thereby creating an exception
to the law. At page 74-75 of the lead Judgment, the Supreme Court per Clara
Ogunbiyi JSC (Retired)
held thus:

 “ … It is well and
explicit on the facts of this case that the AGF has all along held out himself
to be an active participant in several stages of negotiations, transactions and
even part payment of the debt owed. ….the most potent factor which makes
section 84(1) of the SCPA inapplicable herein is because the AGF is the debtor
and has been sued in that capacity. With the AGF being the Judgment debtor
therefore, will it not be absurd to require that his consent should be sought
especially having admitted that he had taken the move by paying part of the
debt in question?

It is the writer’s
submission that a holistic reading of the judgment under review will reveal
that there was no express nullification of Section 84(1) of the SCPA, neither
was the prevailing position in ONJEWU v. KSMCI (SUPRA) overruled. It simply
created an exception to the applicability of the law owing to the peculiar
factual matrix of this case; as a matter of fact it gave credence to the law at
page 72 where the court held thus:

 “ it
should be noted clearly that the principle underlying securing the AGF’S
consent as prescribed in Section 84 SCPA is to avoid embarrassment on him of
not having the prior knowledge that funds earmarked for some purposes have been
diverted in satisfaction of a judgment debt, which the government may not know
anything about. See the persuasive authority of the case of ONJEWU v KDMCI
(Supra)”

IS THE CBN A PUBLIC OFFICER OR
A BANK WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ATTACHING MONIES OF THE FGN?

Another position, which was
considered by the Apex Court in the CBN v. INTERSTELLA decision under
review, is with respect of this vexed question that has equally posed
tremendous hurdle to judgment creditors seeking to enforce judgment sum against
the FGN accounts domiciled with the CBN. The decision of IBRAHIM v. JSC
has lent credence in classifying the CBN as a public office hence can be held
out as custodial legis requiring consent. However, the Court
of Appeal per GALADIMA JCA (as he then was, later JSC (retired)) in PURIFICATION
TECHNIQUE v. AG LAGOS (2012) 1 BFLR 544
gave a very shy treatment to the
issue and relegated it to the back waters, when it held that there is
absolutely no basis for treating government’s bank accounts any differently
from bank accounts of every other juristic personality or customers. It is
pertinent to note that in this instant case, the Garnishee proceedings sought
to attach monies standing in credit to the Lagos State Government accounts
domiciled in Commercial Banks through CBN was equally sought to be attached.

 At
page 76-78 of the CBN v. INTERSTELLA the Supreme Court was confronted
with this issue. Again, the Court considered the factual circumstances of the
case in interpreting the statute to meet the “Justice” of the case. It was
persuaded by the position taken in PURIFICATION TECHNIQUE v. AG LAGOS (Supra)
that CBN is just a Banker to the FG who can be sued as garnishee in satisfying
debt in its custody. Where it held thus

“The relationship between
the 3rd respondent and the appellant in this case, same is purely that of a
banker to a customer. Therefore, the question of whether the appellant is a
public officer, who cannot release funds except the consent of the AGF is obtained
does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case”.

Finally, it is the writer’s
contention that CBN v. INTERSTELLA has created wide panoply of
exceptions from different fronts to the general principle, which will assist
Judgment Creditors in their quest for monetary enforcement against the state,
however it did not in my opinion expressly address and/or nullify the constitutionality
of Section 84 of the SCPA.


 Partner @ Karina Tunyan
& Company

Source: LinkedIn

Court Order Directing The CCT To Stay Proceedings In The Matter Against Tne CJN

Court Order Directing The CCT To Stay Proceedings In The Matter Against Tne CJN

The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court on Monday, 14th January,2019,  restrained the Code of Conduct Tribunal from proceeding with the trial of Nigeria’s Chief Justice Walter Onnoghen for alleged false asset declaration.

Following two separate ex-parte applications seeking the same objective at the federal high court, a judge, N.E Maha, directed that parties involved in the matter appear before it on Thursday to explain why the trial should not be halted.
Find above the order of the Federal High Court.