PICTURES FROM THE BNLF TERRORISM LAW LECTURE 2014
The British Nigeria Law Forum (BNLF) lecture held on 14th June, 2014 in London. The lecture above all addressed the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies in bringing offenders to justice.
LAGOS STATE LAW ON CHILD ABANDONMENT
In
Nigeria, children’s rights are protected by law and held sacred, not only does
the law protect the child; it also stipulates punishment for adults who take
advantage of children or seek to negatively influence them. If you missed the blog on the rights of the
Nigerian child, Click
Here. The Lagos State Government has however taken the protection of
children’s rights a bit further by providing laws in the Criminal Code Law of
Lagos State (2011) that seek to prevent the abandonment of children and also instil
fines members of the public who do so.
As an
illustration, consider the following scenario;
illustration, consider the following scenario;
“John, a charming and dashing young man meets Jane
at a public gathering in Lagos, Jane is swept off her feet by John’s chivalrous
nature and they both spend the weekend in John’s beach house where they have
repeated and unprotected sexual intercourse though John informed Jane that he
was in another relationship, to which she replied she did not mind. Eventually,
4 weeks later, Jane misses her period and after running hospital tests confirms
she is pregnant which she dutifully informs John.
at a public gathering in Lagos, Jane is swept off her feet by John’s chivalrous
nature and they both spend the weekend in John’s beach house where they have
repeated and unprotected sexual intercourse though John informed Jane that he
was in another relationship, to which she replied she did not mind. Eventually,
4 weeks later, Jane misses her period and after running hospital tests confirms
she is pregnant which she dutifully informs John.
John is however having none of it and tells Jane he
would not be accepting responsibility for the child, Jane cries and cries but
her emotions do not sway John who is set on his course of action with regard to
the child”.
would not be accepting responsibility for the child, Jane cries and cries but
her emotions do not sway John who is set on his course of action with regard to
the child”.
What can
Jane do in this situation,have an illegal abortion or take care of the
child by herself?
Jane do in this situation,
child by herself?
OR
“Mark gets Linda pregnant and refuses responsibility
for the child, eventually Linda reports Mark to the police.”
for the child, eventually Linda reports Mark to the police.”
Can she
do that?
do that?
There was
a time when the woman will probably decide to leave John or Mark to the laws of
Karma or like many Nigerians will say “in the hands of God” but now these women
can do more than that and here is why; Section
277 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State (2011) states that:
a time when the woman will probably decide to leave John or Mark to the laws of
Karma or like many Nigerians will say “in the hands of God” but now these women
can do more than that and here is why; Section
277 of the Criminal Code Law of Lagos State (2011) states that:
(1) Any person who impregnates a
woman or girl and fails, refuses or neglects to contribute to maternity related
costs from ante-natal to post-natal stages is guilty of an offence and is
liable to a fine of Forty Five Thousand Naira (N45,000.00) without
prejudice to the recovery of any cost that any other person may have reasonably
incurred in relation to the upkeep of the woman or girl.
woman or girl and fails, refuses or neglects to contribute to maternity related
costs from ante-natal to post-natal stages is guilty of an offence and is
liable to a fine of Forty Five Thousand Naira (
prejudice to the recovery of any cost that any other person may have reasonably
incurred in relation to the upkeep of the woman or girl.
(2) For the purpose of this
Section, maternity related costs includes all medical expenses, food expenses,
reasonable shelter and other necessaries.
Section, maternity related costs includes all medical expenses, food expenses,
reasonable shelter and other necessaries.
(3) In determining the financial
liability of a person under subsection (1) of this Section, the Court shall
have regard to the means and resources available to him.
liability of a person under subsection (1) of this Section, the Court shall
have regard to the means and resources available to him.
Furthermore, Section 276 of the Law also provides that;
“Any person
who being the parent, guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge
of a child under the age of twelve years, and being able to maintain such
child, wilfully and without lawful or reasonable cause deserts the child and
leaves him without means of support, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable
to a fine of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000.00) without prejudice to the
recovery of any cost any other person may have reasonably incurred with respect
to the upkeep of the child”.
who being the parent, guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge
of a child under the age of twelve years, and being able to maintain such
child, wilfully and without lawful or reasonable cause deserts the child and
leaves him without means of support, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable
to a fine of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000.00) without prejudice to the
recovery of any cost any other person may have reasonably incurred with respect
to the upkeep of the child”.
The law
is clear, you cannot abandon a woman who is pregnant with your child, neither
can you abandon a child who is your responsibility or you just may find
yourself having to pay a court fine in addition to being compelled to take up
the responsibility which you tried avoiding in the first place.
is clear, you cannot abandon a woman who is pregnant with your child, neither
can you abandon a child who is your responsibility or you just may find
yourself having to pay a court fine in addition to being compelled to take up
the responsibility which you tried avoiding in the first place.
So my
advice to couples is to play safe (not that it works all the time) or don’t play
at all, at least till you are married. LOL. It should however be noted that the
law will not compel either John to marry Jane nor Mark to marry Linda, it will
only compel them to take responsibility for the children they deem to have abandoned.
advice to couples is to play safe (not that it works all the time) or don’t play
at all, at least till you are married. LOL. It should however be noted that the
law will not compel either John to marry Jane nor Mark to marry Linda, it will
only compel them to take responsibility for the children they deem to have abandoned.
Adedunmade
Onibokun, Esq
Onibokun, Esq
@adedunmade
2014 LAW REGULATING PUBLIC SMOKING IN LAGOS STATE
Several weeks ago, the Lagos
State govt passed a law banning smoking in public places. While some Lagosians
received the news with mixed feelings, others commended and supported the govt
of Raji Fashola SAN for its commitment to making Lagos state a safer community for
everyone. It is worthy of note that a similar bill is being considered before
the National Assembly in the guise of the National Tobacco Bill which
is being sponsored by Hon. Dayo Bush-Alebiosu representing the good people of
Kosofe Local Govt in the House of Representatives.
Many Lagosians are however still
in the dark about the actual provisions of the law. Legalnaija in its bid to
inform Nigerians about their civil rights,duties and obligations in law
dedicates this blog post to informing about these lagos state law which is the
first of its kind in the country.
in the dark about the actual provisions of the law. Legalnaija in its bid to
inform Nigerians about their civil rights,duties and obligations in law
dedicates this blog post to informing about these lagos state law which is the
first of its kind in the country.
The law which is culled as a “Law
to provide for the regulation of smoking in public places in Lagos State and
for connected purposes” and enforced by the Lagos State Environmental Agency
(LASEPA) provides thus:
The law in section 1 defines
smoking in Section 1 as:
smoking in Section 1 as:
- The
carrying or holding of any lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette of any kind, or any
other lighted smoking equipment; - The
lighting, inhaling or exhaling of smoke from a pipe, cigar or cigarette of any
kind; or - Being
in possession of any other list of substance in a form in which it could be
smoked.
The law further provides that no
person shall smoke in all public places including but not limited : All places designated as “No smoking areas” by
the act of the National Assembly in Nigeria; Libraries, Archives, Museums and Galleries; Public toilets;
Hospitals and other health care premises;
Creches, Nurseries, Day care centres and other
premises used for the day care of infants, children and adults; Kindergartens, Nursery, primary and Secondary
Schools; Public telephone kiosk or call centers; Public transportation vehicles within Lagos state; Private vehicles which have more than one person
inside;
School buses; Restaurants; Cinemas, Concert Halls, Theaters, Amusement
Arcades, Studios and other premises used for entertainment of the members of
public; Halls and any other premises used for the
assembly of members of the public for social, religious or recreational
purposes; Conference centers and exhibition halls;
Shopping centers; Retail shops; Factories and other premises that are non –
domestic premises in which one or more persons work; Premises which are being used wholly or
principally as a place of work; Lifts; All common parts of flats or communal spaces; Any place that is enclosed or substantially
enclosed and opened to the public.
person shall smoke in all public places including but not limited : All places designated as “No smoking areas” by
the act of the National Assembly in Nigeria; Libraries, Archives, Museums and Galleries; Public toilets;
Hospitals and other health care premises;
Creches, Nurseries, Day care centres and other
premises used for the day care of infants, children and adults; Kindergartens, Nursery, primary and Secondary
Schools; Public telephone kiosk or call centers; Public transportation vehicles within Lagos state; Private vehicles which have more than one person
inside;
School buses; Restaurants; Cinemas, Concert Halls, Theaters, Amusement
Arcades, Studios and other premises used for entertainment of the members of
public; Halls and any other premises used for the
assembly of members of the public for social, religious or recreational
purposes; Conference centers and exhibition halls;
Shopping centers; Retail shops; Factories and other premises that are non –
domestic premises in which one or more persons work; Premises which are being used wholly or
principally as a place of work; Lifts; All common parts of flats or communal spaces; Any place that is enclosed or substantially
enclosed and opened to the public.
The law however allows owners of
Tertiary institutions; Bars and Night clubs and Hotels to designate no more
than 10% of their premises as smoking areas. It also mandates that owners and
managers of public places must put up “No smoking signs” in their premises;
install smoke detectors in no smoking areas and ensure that anyone smoking
outside a no smoking area must do so at least 10 feet away from the entrance of
the premises. any one that violates this provision of the law is liable to a
fine of N100,000 or 6 months in prison or both. Where this law is breached by
an organisation, if it is committed by an officer of the organisation shall be
liable to a fine of N250,000.
Tertiary institutions; Bars and Night clubs and Hotels to designate no more
than 10% of their premises as smoking areas. It also mandates that owners and
managers of public places must put up “No smoking signs” in their premises;
install smoke detectors in no smoking areas and ensure that anyone smoking
outside a no smoking area must do so at least 10 feet away from the entrance of
the premises. any one that violates this provision of the law is liable to a
fine of N100,000 or 6 months in prison or both. Where this law is breached by
an organisation, if it is committed by an officer of the organisation shall be
liable to a fine of N250,000.
Smoking areas must have also
proper ventilation and where necessary ventilation equipments. Authorised
officers have the authourity to enter such places in other to inspect that the
law is complied with and it is a crime to prevent such officers from carrying
out their duties.Persons who violate this law are
liable upon conviction to a fine not less than N10,000 and not more than
N15,000 or imprisonment for a period not less than one month and not more than
3 months or both. The court may also stipulate any non – custodial punishment
that it deems fit. Repeat offenders are liable to a fine of N50,000 or
imprisonment for a term of 6 months or both. Smoking in the presence of a
child under the age of 18 in a way that will be injurious to the child is an
offence and offenders on conviction will be liable to a fine of N15,000 or
imprisonment for a term of one month or both.
proper ventilation and where necessary ventilation equipments. Authorised
officers have the authourity to enter such places in other to inspect that the
law is complied with and it is a crime to prevent such officers from carrying
out their duties.Persons who violate this law are
liable upon conviction to a fine not less than N10,000 and not more than
N15,000 or imprisonment for a period not less than one month and not more than
3 months or both. The court may also stipulate any non – custodial punishment
that it deems fit. Repeat offenders are liable to a fine of N50,000 or
imprisonment for a term of 6 months or both. Smoking in the presence of a
child under the age of 18 in a way that will be injurious to the child is an
offence and offenders on conviction will be liable to a fine of N15,000 or
imprisonment for a term of one month or both.
Adedunmade Onibokun Esq.
dunmadeo@yahoo.com
BNLF SEMINAR: TERRORISM IN NIGERIA– SAVE THE DATE
British Nigerian Law Forum (BNLF)
and
Hospital & Prison Action Network (HPAN)
invite you to a seminar on
Terrorism in Nigeria
The Nigerian Terrorism (Prevention) Act was passed in 2011. However, 2014 has seen a sharp increase in acts of terrorism within Nigeria, which has cost the lives of at least 1500 people and seen the recent abduction of over 200 schoolgirls.
This seminar will raise questions on, amongst other things:
The effectiveness of the Nigerian law enforcement, judicial, and political institutions in dealing with this long-standing threat;
What solutions can be found to assist the Nigerian government; and
If solutions can be gleaned from the international community and human rights laws.
Speakers:
Leading legal and counter-terrorism experts from Nigeria and the UK.
Top government officials (including the Nigerian Inspector-General of Police) have been invited.
Date: Saturday 14 June 2014
Time: 10am to 3pm
Venue: Central London (TBC)
Admission: Eventbrite link to follow.
The event is to be covered by UK and Nigerian media.
***********************************************************************************
More information on this event is to follow.
For more information email info@bnlf.org.uk
For sponsorship opportunities email funmi@bnlf.org.uk
For opportunities to advertise in the forthcoming BNLF Newsletter email juliana@bnlf.org.uk
The BNLF is a professional organisation that aims to strengthen the relationship between the British and Nigerian legal communities.
OPINION: TERRORISM; IN LIGHT OF THE TYPICAL NIGERIAN
Initially, the focus of this piece was to highlight a need for the average Nigerian to have a basic understanding of his fundamental human rights; what better time than the present to educate us on another rich aspect of law as it concerns our well-being.
However,as is wont to happen to overzealous minds,if the writer be permitted to be self-effacing,this piece turned into a reflective cornerstone which aims not to change the world but to sow seeds in the hope that it will ignite growth for a meaningful harvest somewhere, sometime, in someone.
Permit me the liberty to caution; if you are looking to read a constructive article of criticism or an astounding opinion put in light of a new discovery,you will be sorely disappointed! This is simply the ranting of an underworked legal mind itching to put to paper ramblings from said mind.
Having got that out of the way, I proceed to share this quote by Gustave Flaubert ‘There is no truth. There is only perception’. Before I lose all the rational thinking individuals who can educate me on the fine points of the existence of truth,I will press on with my position.
Terrorism, as we know it, isn’t the exclusive preserve of African nations,need I point out cases of the 9/11 bombing in New York, U.S.A. or the Beslan school siege,Russia in 2004, to mention a few. Far from it! The underlying cause of terrorism is simply man’s innate penchant for mischief or to put it appropriately, wickedness. Finer points can be made on how lesser offsprings are the bane;greed,poverty,thirst for power,idealism, etc….. But I choose to pick out the underlying thread through which all these are birthed: Wickedness!!!
It is wickedness that makes you place a lesser value on another human life,same malady ails you if you feel your actions are justified for religious,political or self-enriching reasons. There is no higher value on this earth to be placed on anything than the value of human life. Whichever religion you profess to worship,the person next to you is the God you see and for those who believe in no God,the next person deserves the same respect you place on yourself as I assume you do believe in yourself.
Following from this,several facets and applaud-worthy opinions have been heard on the issue of the rising spate of terrorist activity in our dearly beloved country;the camp that blames poverty as the root cause make argument for the fact that if poverty were eradicated,there would be no room for idle and hungry minds and bellies to give in to the urge to inflict terror in the heart of the nation. On the contrary,another school opines that it is the rich and political miscreants that are the masterminds that use hapless pawns to further their own agenda and therefore call for an uprising against these class of people.
These are but a few sides to the situation that is fast becoming a plague in our great nation. Be that as it may,the only side I have not come across, or maybe my reading has been limited in some way, is; the reason why terrorism has begun to thrive in a country such as ours is YOU! Yes,YOU reading this!
We are the terror!
A typical day in Lagos State; I drive in my lane to find that some impatient people have decided to turn a 2 Lane road to a 3 Lane road or even 4. Before I say Jack,1 of the ‘self appointed road Jackie Chana’ then outmaneuvers himself and proceeds to give my car a good brushing. On proceeding to come down and address the issue like 2 mature adults,he quickly assesses the other party aka me and records the words ‘young’ and ‘female’ in his brain and goes to work trying to intimidate me with threats,shouting, basically assault quickly tending towards battery. The next thing you know an official burdened with the responsibility of assessing the situation appropriately steps in and is then pulled aside by the guy to ‘explain his side of the story through action’ (aka rubbing palms) in my very presence and by the time they are done, I begin to ask myself if I am hallucinating in broad daylight listening to the words emanating from the official’s lips! Luckily, passersby notice the gang up and come to my aid, berating the two men, before I can be adequately incensed to reduce myself to the mad woman they were awakening.
The moral of the story is we all have it in us to be terrorists! The man would have beat me quite gladly as long as he could get away with it and escape without any repercussions, I read it clearly in his eyes. And he would have gone scot free with the calibre of the official present that day.
Be it the man who wants to further his political ambition and provides funds for arms and ammunition or the man who feels he is bold enough,paid enough to waste another man’s life under the guise of hypocritical religion or the people acting out of greed or thirst for bloodshed or to advance political mayhem,we all started from somewhere! It was when he first got away with bribing his way to that political office or to obtain a license to do whatever shady business, it was when he first squandered his tuition fees or welfare money to buy alcohol to meet up with some peer standard, it was when someone in position felt the resources allocated to promote education was better used in serving personal selfish needs and instead the promotion of institutions that preached radicalism was a more thriving venture, it was when people stood aloof and refused to share information because they were not personal victims not just out of fear but feeling one group of people deserved whatever was happening to them because they did not have the same beliefs! It was when I felt that you would be a better candidate to vote for at our estate elections simply because we are of the same tribe! It started with us all!
This is not to say we are not loving, warm and unified Nigerians! Far be it from me to say so, if anything, we have shown that give Nigerians one common enemy and see them turn to a herd of bulls with one target! #BringBackOurGirls!
What I am saying,point not missed,misinterpreted or misread, is we need to be more accountable of and to ourselves! Not just our leaders but each of us! That way,we will build a system steadily where no amount of misplaced agendas will thrive and cause mayhem in our midst!!
This is how we will make Nigeria a country where terrorism will not thrive!! This is how our children will be taught that no matter the enticement you are offered or the beliefs you hold dearest,the quality of human life should be regarded as something to be placed at great value!
I do not know the truth behind Boko Haram! I do not know the true stories of the antagonists and the victims! But I can only perceive this; the answer for the future lies in you and I!
By:
Chica Maduakolam LL.B,B.L, LL.M(London)
IBHARI PRESS RELEASE: URGENT NEED FOR VENEZUELAN JUSTICE SYSTEM
Read online: tinyurl.com/nrwdzhw
Portuguese: tinyurl.com/pgzyu26
Spanish: tinyurl.com/o7ezdk2
Portuguese: tinyurl.com/pgzyu26
Spanish: tinyurl.com/o7ezdk2
INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION’S
HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTE
HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTE
NEWS RELEASE
[For immediate release: Tuesday, 29 April 2014]
Urgent need for Venezuelan justice system reform is highlighted by criminal trial of Judge Afiuni states
new IBAHRI report
new IBAHRI report
A new report states the Venezuelan justice system does not
contain adequate systemic safeguards to guarantee judicial independence
and cites the trial of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni as emblematic of the
situation in general. Describing her trial as being characterised by
multiple violations of due process and other human rights, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) points to an urgent need for reform of the Venezuelan judiciary.
The 28-page IBAHRI trial observation report, entitled The Execution of Justice: The criminal trial of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni, details a number of specific irregularities in the trial of Judge Afiuni, including:
- her being arrested without a warrant and the late President of
Venezuela Hugo Chavez Frías appearing on national television immediately
afterwards calling for her imprisonment; - her being subjected to grievous physical abuse in the female maximum
security prison Instituto Nacional de Orientación Femenina between
December 2009 and February 2011, amounting to violations of her right to
life, liberty, personal integrity and adequate conditions of detention; - the failure of the public prosecutor to produce sufficient evidence
at any stage of the trial in order to substantiate the allegations
against her; and - the frequent procedural delays resulting in a criminal process that
has been drawn out over four years, violating Judge Afiuni’s right to a
fair trial within a reasonable time.
IBAHRI Co-Chair Sternford Moyo commented ‘The IBAHRI remains
deeply concerned by the serious damage the criminal trial of Judge
Afiuni has caused to the independence of the Venezuelan judiciary and
the legal profession as a whole by creating an atmosphere of fear. On
multiple occasions the IBAHRI heard that “no one wants to be the next
Afiuni”.’ He added, ‘The independence of judges and lawyers is an
essential component of any democratic society and a fundamental pillar
of the rule of law. It is clear that the Venezuelan justice system is in
urgent need of reform if public confidence in the fair administration
of justice is to be restored. We urge the Venezuelan government to heed
the calls of national and international organisations to take swift and
meaningful steps to make these principles and obligations a reality.’
The IBAHRI sent international observers to attend Afiuni trial hearings between November 2012 and October 2013. The trial was annulled on the 23 October
because of it being ‘interrupted’ by the prosecution failing to turn up
at an evidentiary hearing. A retrial date has yet to be scheduled.
The Execution of Justice: The criminal trial of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni is
the IBAHRI’s sixth report on Venezuela. With each one the separation
between the executive and the judiciary is observed to be diminishing.
Of particular concern to the IBAHRI is:
- the system of provisional judges under which judges are subject to discretionary dismissal without appeal;
- the lack of implementation of the judicial code of ethics;
- inadequate parameters regarding the appointment and removal process for judges; and
- frequent executive interference.
IBAHRI Co-Chair Baroness Helena Kennedy QC commented, ‘The Afiuni
trial is one of the most important political cases in Venezuela and the
IBAHRI finds it troubling that Judge Afiuni was arrested without the
issuance of a warrant following her decision to release a “political
prisoner” in accordance with the Venezuelan Penal Code and a United
Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention decision. The only
conclusion a person can reach is that the arrest was arbitrary and
politically motivated.’ She added, ‘Four years later, having
endured death threats, abuse and serious health complications, there is
still no final decision in sight. Judge Afiuni remains in a Kafkaesque
criminal process. ’
The Execution of Justice: The criminal trial of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni,
published in Spanish with a translated English executive summary, will
be launched today, Tuesday 29 April 2014, at the plenary working group
meeting at the annual meeting of the Federation of Latin American
Judges’ Associations (Federación Latinoamericana de Magistrados – FLAM)
in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Click here to download the Executive Summary of The Execution of Justice: The criminal trial of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni – English language version
www.ibanet.org/Document/
Click here to download The Execution of Justice: The criminal trial of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni – Spanish language only.
www.ibanet.org/Document/
Ends
Notes to the Editor
(1) Details of Judge Afiuni’s case:
- Judge Afiuni, a titular judge, was charged with ‘corruption’ and
‘assistance to escape’ following the conditional release of Eligio
Cedeño in 2009. - She granted bail to Mr Cedeño after two years of pre-trial
detention, applying provisions of the Venezuelan penal code and taking
into account a decision of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
that considered this individual’s detention unlawful. - Following her arrest Judge Afiuni was arbitrarily detained in
prison, where she developed serious health complications as the result
of physical abuse. - In February 2011 she was transferred to house arrest where she was
kept under heavy armed guard until her conditional release on 14 June
2013, granted by Judge Marilda Rios of the 17th Caracas District
Tribunal. - Judge Afiuni is required to present herself to the court every 15
days and is banned from leaving the country, speaking to the media, and
using social media networks.
(2) The International Bar Association
(IBA), established in 1947, is the world’s leading organisation of
international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies.
Through its global membership of individual lawyers, law firms, bar
associations and law societies it influences the development of
international law reform and shapes the future of the legal profession
throughout the world.
The IBA’s
administrative office is in London. Regional offices are located in: São
Paulo, Brazil; Seoul, South Korea; and Washington DC, US, while the
International Bar Association’s International Criminal Court Programme (IBA ICC) is managed from an office in The Hague.
The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
(IBAHRI) works to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a
just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and
the legal profession worldwide.
For further information please contact:
Romana St. Matthew – Daniel
Press Office
International Bar Association
4th Floor, 10 St Bride Street,
London EC4A 4AD
Mobile: +44 (0)7940 731 915
Direct Line: +44 (0)20 7842 0094
Main Office: +44 (0)20 7842 0090
Fax: +44 (0)20 7842 0091
Email: romana.daniel@int-bar.org
Website: www.ibanet.org
STATE LIMITATION LAWS CANNOT BAR CLAIMS MADE UNDER OIL PIPELINES ACT
BENSON V. MOBIL PRODUCING NIG UNLIMITED
This summary is fully reported at (2014) 3 CLRN.
COURT OF APPEAL (PORT HARCOURT DIVISION)
(MUHAMMAD; GALINJE; AWOTOYE, JJ.CA)
In January 1998, the Appellant’s fishing nets were severely damaged when the Respondent’s oil pipeline installation burst and spilled oil into the waterways where the Appellant and others in the Bayelsa Community fished.
The Appellant claimed that the Respondent had agreed to compensate the victims whose nets were damaged by paying N10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira) per bundle of damaged fishing nets but that antithetically, the Respondent paid him N10,000 (Ten Thousand Naira) for the 600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand) bundles of nets that were damaged.
In spite of repeated demands by the Appellant, the Respondent failed to pay further sums as compensation for the destroyed fishing nets. Accordingly, the Appellant commenced an action at the High Court of Bayelsa State and claimed the sum of N599,999,990 (Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Naira) as special damages for the destruction of 599,999 (Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine) bundles of fishing nets at N10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira) per bundle of fishing net by the Respondent.
Relying on section 16 of the Limitation Law of Bayelsa State, the Respondent objected to the suit on the grounds that the Appellant’s action was statute barred having been commenced more than six years after the cause of action accrued.
In its ruling on the Respondent’s objection, the trial court held that the Limitation Law of Bayelsa State applied and dismissed the suit. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The singular issue that emerged for the determination of the Court of Appeal as formulated by the Appellant was:
“Whether the plaintiff’s (now appellant’s) action is statute barred either by the provision of Bayelsa State Limitation Law Cap. 18 Laws of Bayelsa State or the Limitation Act of 1623.”
In arguing this issue, the Appellant contended that the Bayelsa State Limitation Law being a State Law could not apply to matters within the exclusive list neither can items 38 and 39 in the 2nd Schedule and section 251(1)(n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 be interpreted in subordination to any state law. Similarly, he submitted that the Limitation Act of 1623 is also inapplicable.
He submitted that the decision of the lower court which was reached by relying on the case of Etim v. IGP was attained in error. Instead, he relied on the judgment of the court in Eboigbe v NNPC and urged the Court of Appeal to remit the case back to the trail court by allowing his appeal.
On the contrary, the Respondent referred to the case of Etim v. IGP and submitted that in that case, the Federal High Court applied the Limitation Law of Kaduna State to a Federal matter.
Further, it relied on section 44 of the Bayelsa State Limitation Law, the doctrine laid down by the Court of Appeal in RCC (NIG) Ltd. v. Buratto and the Supreme Court case of Egboigbe v. NNPC in concluding that the case was statute barred and that the Limitation Act of 1623 applied. It urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal.
The Court of Appeal having found that the right of action of the Appellant was created by section 19 of the Oil Pipelines Act 1990 which is a law made by the National Assembly and was therefore indefeasible by the state limitation law, allowed the appeal and remitted the case to be tried afresh by the high court.
The Court of Appeal held as follows:
“Now the right of action of the plaintiffs/appellants was created by section 19 of the Oil Pipelines Act 1990 which reads.
‘19. If there be any dispute as to whether any compensation is payable under any provision of this Act or if so as the amount thereof, or as to the persons to whom such compensationshould be paid, such dispute shall be determined by a magistrate exercising civil jurisdiction in the area concerned if such magistrate has in respect of any other civil matter monetary jurisdiction of at least as much as the amount of compensation claimed and if there be no such magistrate by the high court exercising jurisdiction in the area concerned and, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act or Law, in respect of the decision of a magistrate in accordance with this secti on there shall be an appeal to the High Cour t of the State and in respect of a decision of the High Court of the State under this section, whether original or appellate, there shall be an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer power upon a magistrate to exercise jurisdiction in a matter raising any issue as to the title to land or as to the title to any interest in land.’
…It appears to me also that a state law limiting the right created by a Federal law is in conflict with the Federal law.
Section 4(5) of the 1999 Constitution is clear on this. It States:
‘If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validlymade by the National Assembly the law made by the National Assembly shall prevail and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.’
The Oil Pipeline Act is a Federal Law. The Bayelsa State Limitation Law seeks to curtail the exercise of the right of action created by the Oil Pipeline Act. This certainly is unconstitutional and the Bayelsa State Limitation Law cannot be so interpreted. See A.G. Abia State v. A.G. Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264. I therefore hold that the Bayelsa State Limitation law does not apply.”
Counsel:
Babatunde Sodipo with Olusola Olarewaju for the Respondent
This summary is fully reported at (2014) 3 CLRN
Join the discussion of the above report atwww.commerciallawreportsnigeria.blogspot.com
GET FREE LEGAL ADVICE IN LAGOS
Nigerians are always searching
for legal information on various aspects of the law, from issues bothering on
Tenancy, Employment Law, Divorce and even Court proceedings. These information is valuable and in many
cases is always a life saver to people who cannot afford competent legal
representation. As a result of not
knowing the law, many unsuspecting members of the public have been taking
advantage of by unscrupulous elements. Via
the law blog, we aim to inform Nigerians about their rights in law and it’s
great to see the Lagos state Government taking the same initiative by establishing
the Public Advice Centre.
for legal information on various aspects of the law, from issues bothering on
Tenancy, Employment Law, Divorce and even Court proceedings. These information is valuable and in many
cases is always a life saver to people who cannot afford competent legal
representation. As a result of not
knowing the law, many unsuspecting members of the public have been taking
advantage of by unscrupulous elements. Via
the law blog, we aim to inform Nigerians about their rights in law and it’s
great to see the Lagos state Government taking the same initiative by establishing
the Public Advice Centre.
The Public Advice Centre (PAC) is
an initiative of His Excellency, Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN. The Centre is
saddled with the responsibility of providing citizens with easy access to
information and advice which will benefit and improve their lives. The PAC
serves as a port of call for citizens in distress and those seeking information
on their rights and responsibilities.
an initiative of His Excellency, Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN. The Centre is
saddled with the responsibility of providing citizens with easy access to
information and advice which will benefit and improve their lives. The PAC
serves as a port of call for citizens in distress and those seeking information
on their rights and responsibilities.
The PAC is accessible to all,
particularly the indigent, who have been socially excluded or subjected to
discrimination. Its office is located at 3rd Floor, (Ereke House), 15 IPM Road,
CBD Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos. PAC can be reached on 01-9500942 and 01-9500943. You can
also tweet at PAC at @LAGPUBLICADVICE and visit their web site at http://pacng.wordpress.com/.
particularly the indigent, who have been socially excluded or subjected to
discrimination. Its office is located at 3rd Floor, (Ereke House), 15 IPM Road,
CBD Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos. PAC can be reached on 01-9500942 and 01-9500943. You can
also tweet at PAC at @LAGPUBLICADVICE and visit their web site at http://pacng.wordpress.com/.
Please note that services of the
PAC are free and if you are ever in need of free legal advice in Lagos State
without access to Legal counsel, you can give the Public Advice Centre a call.
PAC are free and if you are ever in need of free legal advice in Lagos State
without access to Legal counsel, you can give the Public Advice Centre a call.
Adedunmade Onibokun
@adedunmade
UNLAWFUL DETENTION: CASE STUDY OF CIAXON
Onimisi Ciaxon a.k.a Isiaka Yusuf, aged 32, a member of staff of PHCN who
worked at the T-junction by State House Gate-7 has been declared missing for
over 10 days now. He is alleged to have been arrested by members of the
Nigerian State Security Service (SSS) after posting pictures on twitter, of the
gun battle between Nigerian security agencies and suspected Boko Haram members
on March 30, 2014 in Abuja. There has been a wide media appeal to the SSS about
the whereabouts of Ciaxon but nothing has been heard. You can read the news
reports HERE. No one
knows where Ciaxon is at the moment but it’s safe to assume that he is in the
custody of the Secret Service, witnesses identified him and reported that he
was handed over to a security team, read the news article HERE.
worked at the T-junction by State House Gate-7 has been declared missing for
over 10 days now. He is alleged to have been arrested by members of the
Nigerian State Security Service (SSS) after posting pictures on twitter, of the
gun battle between Nigerian security agencies and suspected Boko Haram members
on March 30, 2014 in Abuja. There has been a wide media appeal to the SSS about
the whereabouts of Ciaxon but nothing has been heard. You can read the news
reports HERE. No one
knows where Ciaxon is at the moment but it’s safe to assume that he is in the
custody of the Secret Service, witnesses identified him and reported that he
was handed over to a security team, read the news article HERE.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
If really Ciaxon is with the SSS or any other security agency,
then the
fundamental rights of this gentleman at this point are currently being
breached. Every Nigerian by virtue of Section 39 (1) of the Constitution is entitled
to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
impart ideas and information without interference. Ciaxon on duty at work that
morning came upon the gun battle happening close to the Aso Villa, took
pictures with his camera and imparted the information on twitter, I do not
believe at that point it occurred to him that he might be committing a crime
because his fundamental rights entitle him to do such.
An exemption to the Freedom of Speech rule as seen in subsection
(3)(b) is if the alleged actions imposes restrictions upon persons holding
office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the
armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other
Government security services or agencies established by law. Will you say
Ciaxon’s actions have imposed any of these restrictions, I doubt.
(3)(b) is if the alleged actions imposes restrictions upon persons holding
office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the
armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other
Government security services or agencies established by law. Will you say
Ciaxon’s actions have imposed any of these restrictions, I doubt.
UNLAWFUL DETENTION
Assuming the SSS raises the “national security or terrorism” card in
support of Ciaxon’s unlawful detention, it will not support their case either.
A jail break as reported by the SSS to be the underlying cause of the gun
battle that morning hardly falls under the category of a terrorist act.
Moreover, Section 28 of the Terrorist prevention law (2011) which deals with “detention
for offences related to terrorism” provides that “where a person is
arrested under reasonable suspicion of having committed any offence under
sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 or 14, the National Security Adviser
or Inspector General of Police or a delegated officer not below the rank of
Chief Superintendent of Police or its equivalent may, subject to this section,
direct that the person arrested be detained in a custody for a period not exceeding 24 hours (highlight
supplied) from his arrest, without having access to any person other than his
Medical Doctor and legal counsel of the detaining agency.
support of Ciaxon’s unlawful detention, it will not support their case either.
A jail break as reported by the SSS to be the underlying cause of the gun
battle that morning hardly falls under the category of a terrorist act.
Moreover, Section 28 of the Terrorist prevention law (2011) which deals with “detention
for offences related to terrorism” provides that “where a person is
arrested under reasonable suspicion of having committed any offence under
sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 or 14, the National Security Adviser
or Inspector General of Police or a delegated officer not below the rank of
Chief Superintendent of Police or its equivalent may, subject to this section,
direct that the person arrested be detained in a custody for a period not exceeding 24 hours (highlight
supplied) from his arrest, without having access to any person other than his
Medical Doctor and legal counsel of the detaining agency.
By virtue of Section 35 Of the Constitution “Every person shall be
entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such
liberty save in some exceptions which Ciaxon does not come under, such as – (a) in execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a
criminal offence of which he has been found guilty; or (b) by reason of his
failure to comply with the order of a court or in order to secure the
fulfilment of any obligation imposed upon him by law; or (c) for the purpose of
bringing him before a court in execution of the order of a court or upon
reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such
extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal
offence;
entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such
liberty save in some exceptions which Ciaxon does not come under, such as – (a) in execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a
criminal offence of which he has been found guilty; or (b) by reason of his
failure to comply with the order of a court or in order to secure the
fulfilment of any obligation imposed upon him by law; or (c) for the purpose of
bringing him before a court in execution of the order of a court or upon
reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such
extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal
offence;
Provided that a person who is charged with an offence and who has been
detained in lawful custody awaiting trial shall not continue to be kept in such
detention for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment
prescribed for the offence.
detained in lawful custody awaiting trial shall not continue to be kept in such
detention for a period longer than the maximum period of imprisonment
prescribed for the offence.
More so, the law further states that “Any person who is arrested or
detained shall have the right to remain silent or avoid answering any question
until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his
own choice.
detained shall have the right to remain silent or avoid answering any question
until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of his
own choice.
Subsection (3) states “Any person who is arrested or detained shall be
informed in writing within twenty-four hours (and in a language that he
understands) of the facts and grounds for his arrest or detention.”
informed in writing within twenty-four hours (and in a language that he
understands) of the facts and grounds for his arrest or detention.”
Subsection (4) states “Any person who is arrested or detained in accordance with subsection
(1) (c) of this section shall be brought before a court of law within a
reasonable time, and if he is not tried within a period of –
(1) (c) of this section shall be brought before a court of law within a
reasonable time, and if he is not tried within a period of –
(a) two months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of a
person who is in custody or is not entitled to bail; or
person who is in custody or is not entitled to bail; or
(b) three months from the date of his arrest or detention in the case of
a person who has been released on bail, he shall (without prejudice to any
further proceedings that may be brought against him) be released either
unconditionally or upon such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure
that he appears for trial at a later date.
a person who has been released on bail, he shall (without prejudice to any
further proceedings that may be brought against him) be released either
unconditionally or upon such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure
that he appears for trial at a later date.
Subsection (5) states “In subsection (4) of this section, the expression “a reasonable
time” means –
time” means –
(a) in the case of an arrest or detention in any place where there is a
court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometres, a period
of one day; and
court of competent jurisdiction within a radius of forty kilometres, a period
of one day; and
(b) in any other case, a period of two days or such longer period as in
the circumstances may be considered by the court to be reasonable.”
the circumstances may be considered by the court to be reasonable.”
(6) Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled
to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person;
and in this subsection, “the appropriate authority or person” means
an authority or person specified by law.
to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person;
and in this subsection, “the appropriate authority or person” means
an authority or person specified by law.
FAIR HEARING
Ciaxon is also being unlawfully detained against his fundamental right of
fair hearing which is stated in Section 36 of the Constitution. The law
provides that; “In the determination of his
civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or
against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair
hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by
law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and
impartiality.”
fair hearing which is stated in Section 36 of the Constitution. The law
provides that; “In the determination of his
civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or
against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair
hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by
law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and
impartiality.”
Subsection (4) also provides that
“Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the
charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a
reasonable time by a court or tribunal; while subsection 6 states that “Every
person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to –
“Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offence, he shall, unless the
charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing in public within a
reasonable time by a court or tribunal; while subsection 6 states that “Every
person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to –
(a) be informed promptly in the
language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence;
language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence;
(b) be given adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of his defence;
facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) defend himself in person or
by legal practitioners of his own choice;
by legal practitioners of his own choice;
(d) examine, in person or by his
legal practitioners, the witnesses called by the prosecution before any court
or tribunal and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses
to testify on his behalf before the court or tribunal on the same conditions as
those applying to the witnesses called by the prosecution; and
legal practitioners, the witnesses called by the prosecution before any court
or tribunal and obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses
to testify on his behalf before the court or tribunal on the same conditions as
those applying to the witnesses called by the prosecution; and
(e) have, without payment, the
assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language used at the
trial of the offence.
assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language used at the
trial of the offence.
AT THIS POINT, WE URGE THE SSS TO
DO NEEDFUL AND EITHER CHARGE CIAXON TO COURT SO HE MAY DEFEND HIMSELF OR LET
HIM GO HOME.
DO NEEDFUL AND EITHER CHARGE CIAXON TO COURT SO HE MAY DEFEND HIMSELF OR LET
HIM GO HOME.
Adedunmade Onibokun
@adedunmade
NIGERIA | AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL | CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AS VIOLENCE ESCALATES IN NORTH- EAST
|
| Group of young men killed in Potiskum, Yobe state, by the security forces following an attack by Boko Haram in a nearby village |
An increase in attacks by Boko Haram and uncontrolled reprisals by
Nigeria’s security forces has seen the death toll in North East Nigeria
rise to at least 1,500 people, more than half of whom are civilians, in
the first three months of 2014, Amnesty International said in a briefing published today.
“The
escalation of violence in north-eastern Nigeria in 2014 has developed
into a situation of non-international armed conflict in which all
parties are violating international humanitarian law. We urge the
international community to ensure prompt, independent investigations
into acts that may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity,”
said Netsanet Belay, Research and Advocacy Director for Africa at
Amnesty International.
“More than 1,500 deaths in three
months indicate an alarming deterioration in the situation. The
international community cannot continue to look the other way in the
face of extrajudicial executions, attacks on civilians and other crimes
under international law being committed on a mass scale. Civilians are
paying a heavy price as the cycle of violations and reprisals gather
momentum.”
More than half of the killings have been
carried out by members of the Islamist armed group Boko Haram, including
scores of schoolchildren who have been the victims of deliberate
attacks.
Amnesty International has documented the
killings carried out in January, February and March 2014 by both Boko
Haram and the Nigerian Security Forces. It highlights 14 March as a
tipping point when the security forces unleashed a brutal crackdown on
former detainees.
On 14 March Boko Haram gunmen attacked
the Giwa military barracks in Maiduguri, Borno state. They reportedly
fought their way into the detention facilities and freed several hundred
detainees. Amnesty International has received credible evidence that as
the military regained control, more than 600 people, mostly unarmed
recaptured detainees, were extra-judicially executed in various
locations across Maiduguri.
Amnesty International has
pieced together a partial timeline of events following the 14 March
attack in Maiduguri. The evidence is based on interviews with residents,
lawyers, human rights campaigners, and hospital staff across the city
as well as satellite imagery showing three possible mass graves in one
area of Maiduguri.
“The scale of atrocities carried out
by Boko Haram is truly shocking creating a climate of fear and
insecurity. But this cannot be used to justify the brutality of the
response that is clearly being meted out by the Nigerian security
forces,” said Netsanet Belay.
Amongst the testimony gathered by
Amnesty International were the voices of witnesses who described what
happened when the military found 56 of those who had escaped from the
Giwa barracks.
“The former detainees were in a classroom.
They started screaming ‘we are not Boko Haram. We are detainees!’ My
neighbours and I saw the soldiers take the men to a place called ‘no
man’s land,’ behind the University of Maiduguri. We watched as the
soldiers opened fire killing all 56. They were killed in front of us.
All of them.”
Other eyewitnesses in Jiddari Polo, also in
Maiduguri, described how members of the “Civilian Joint Task Force”
rounded up freed prisoners and handed them to soldiers. More than 190
people were executed, many of whom were too frail to run.
“I
saw the soldiers asking the people to lie on the ground. There was a
small argument between the soldiers and the civilian JTF. The soldiers
made some calls and a few minutes later they started shooting the people
on the ground. I counted 198 people killed at that checkpoint.”
Given
Nigeria’s apparent unwillingness and inability to investigate and
prosecute perpetrators of these crimes, Amnesty International is calling
on the African Commission and the United Nations to assist Nigeria in
investigating acts that may amount to war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed by both Boko Haram and the Nigerian security forces
in north-eastern Nigeria.
“The summary killing of these
detainees amount to extrajudicial executions and are crimes under
international law. These killings follow an entrenched pattern of deaths
in custody of detainees held in relation to the situation in the
northeast,” said Netsanet Belay.
“The international community,
and in particular the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights
and the UN Human Rights Council, must, as a matter of urgency, ensure
that a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation is conducted
into these allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in
Nigeria.”
Amnesty International is also calling on the
African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) and the African Union’s Peace and Security Council to assess
immediately the conflict situation in north-eastern Nigeria and provide
full and effective support to end these acts of violence against
civilians. It must also strongly condemn the on-going war crimes and
crimes against humanity committed by all parties to the conflict.
“As
Nigeria assumes the chairmanship of the African Union’s Peace and
Security Council next month, the AU needs to critically ask itself how
far its member States are living up to their commitment to uphold the
principles of the African Union and respect for rule of law and human
rights,” said Netsanet Belay.
from; www.amnesty.org