Certificate of Advanced Studies in International Law and Diplomacy

by Legalnaija | May 8, 2025 | Blawg

The Certificate of Advanced Studies in International Law and Diplomacy is back in 2025!

Date: July 21-25, 2025

Venue: Supreme Court of Nigeria, Abuja

Early Bird deadline: June 20, 2025

Building on the success of the previous editions, the @nigeria_ila, in partnership with @nialsorg invites you to register for the 2025 Certificate of Advanced Studies in International Law and Diplomacy.

The course exposes participants to the specialised knowledge and skillsets required in the practice of international law and diplomacy. The course provides an in-depth examination of the core sources and principles of international law, the practical challenges that limit their effective design and implementation, especially in the context of developing economies, as well as the innovative approaches and skillsets required to negotiate win-win international instruments in an increasingly globalized world.

The course will hold at the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Abuja from July 21-25, 2025.

Early Bird rates end on 20 June, 2025

Register here to elevate your career and benefit from the early bird rates: https://ilanigeria.org.ng/casil

NBA Lagos Branch Annual Law Conference 2025: A Must-Attend Legal Gathering

by Legalnaija | May 5, 2025 | Blawg

How else would you want to spend Monday, June 16th, 2025, if not at the panel discussion kicking off the NBA Lagos Branch Annual Law Conference 2025?

This year, we’re bringing you an exceptional lineup of speakers:

– Mr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN

– Hon. Justice Benedict Kanyip

– Mr. Afam Osigwe, SAN

– Mrs. Funke Adekoya, SAN

– Mr. Dapo Otunla

Theme: Ethics, Innovation, and the Future of Legal Services. Let’s be Lawyers again.”

Be part of the **biggest gathering of any NBA Branch** by securing your spot today!

For Branch members:

[Register here](https://nbalagos.gigo360.com/event/2025-nba-lagos-law-weeknon-membl

For non-members:** [Register here](https://nbalagos.gigo360.com/event/2025-nba-lagos-law-week-non-members/)

Early Bird registration closes on Monday, May 19th, 2025.** Don’t miss out!

#nbalagoslawconference25 #annuallawconference25

Scholars from Davidson Oturu Mentorship Programme Excel at Nigerian Law School Bar Finals

by Legalnaija | May 2, 2025 | Blawg

Beneficiaries of the Davidson Oturu Mentorship and Sponsorship Programme have achieved remarkable success in the recently released Nigerian Law School Bar Finals results.

Among the outstanding scholars — Biboye Timipere, Kabir Damola Bakare, Favour D. Onyekere, Janet M. Adio, and Joy Abogu — four earned First-Class honours, while one graduated with a Second-Class Upper division. Their achievements underscore both their individual dedication and the impact of the programme, which was established to provide mentorship, financial support, and career guidance to promising law students.

In addition to their academic excellence, the graduates are already seeking ways to give back to their communities, reflecting the programme’s broader mission of fostering leadership, social responsibility, and professional excellence among young legal practitioners.
Founder of the programme, Davidson Oturu, expressed pride in the scholars’ accomplishments, describing their success as a testament to the value of investing in the next generation of leaders in the legal profession.

The Davidson Oturu Mentorship and Sponsorship Programme continues to mentor and support talented students and young professionals through regular check-ins, structured mentorship initiatives, and professional development opportunities, helping to build a strong pipeline of future legal leaders.

NBA Legal Education Committee calls for increased investment in legal education

by Legalnaija | Apr 26, 2025 | Blawg

NBA Legal Education Committee calls for increased investment in legal education

The Legal Education Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has called for increased funding for legal education in Nigeria in order to enhance the development of practice-ready lawyers that can contribute meaningfully to the social and economic development of the nation.

These recommendations were made at the inaugural Regional Townhall Workshop on Legal Education held at the Imo State University, Owerri (IMSU). Recall that as part of the NBA’s efforts to enhance legal education and practice in Nigeria, NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN inaugurated the Legal Education Committee (NBA-LEC) under the leadership of Professor Damilola Sunday Olawuyi, SAN, Deputy Vice Chancellor at Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti (ABUAD), with the mandate to promote and advance functional legal education in Nigeria, especially through training sessions and conferences on modern teaching approaches.

In exercise of this mandate, the NBA-LEC introduced the Regional Townhall Workshop on Legal Education Series with the maiden edition held in South East region at Imo State University, Owerri. The workshop recorded a huge turn out of about more than 300 attendees. Key stakeholders including the host of the event, the Vice Chancellor of IMSU, Prof. Uchefula Ugonna Chukwumaeze, SAN, Chairman of the NBA-LEC Regional Townhall Workshop Series, Prof. Chimezie Kingsley Okorie SAN, law teachers and students across universities in the Southeast attended. Four institutions delivered presentations on the state of legal education in Nigeria: Abia State University, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Imo State University, and Enugu State University of Science and Technology.

While welcoming delegates to the Workshop, Chairman of the NBA-LEC, Professor Damilola Olawuyi, SAN highlighted the growing demand to review legal education in Nigeria to meet global standards. He emphasized the need to revise the curriculum and leverage technology to enhance legal education, ultimately transforming it into a more effective law practice that can compete globally. According to him ‘There is also an urgent need to increase investment in learning infrastructure across our law faculties if we are to actively deploy technology-based teaching methods. Only few law faculties have functional ICT centres, modern teaching equipments, digital tools and libraries needed to instil contemporary entrepreneurial, technology and project management skills in law students. Government or the NBA alone cannot provide all the tools. We all can do something about this by giving back to our law faculties.’ the Learned Silk concluded.

The Vice Chancellor of IMSU, Prof. Chukwumaeze, SAN emphasised the need for all stakeholders in Nigeria’s justice sector, including the NBA to support legal education by providing educational materials. The Chairman of the Townhall Sub committee Prof. Okorie SAN also stressed the need for the NBA to be a bridge between the legal education and other relevant authorities in ensuring a strengthened legal education in terms of collaboration.

The ensuing roundtable discussions featured presentations by law teachers on the achievements so far and existing challenges that pose a threat to law teachers and students in law faculties. The reports expressed concern on the falling standard of law practice in Nigeria and the ethical standard depreciation, this was attributed to various challenges faced by law faculties, affecting the quality of legal education and the overall development of legal the profession. They sought increased collaboration with justice sector stakeholders to alleviate these challenges and improve existing standards.Various challenges were highlighted by the institutions, including infrastructure deficit, poor remuneration of law teachers, excessive workload of law teachers, limited access to legal information and underfunding of law faculties, especially lack of funding to attend international and domestic conferences. Despite challenges, some faculties showcased good infrastructure and upgraded law libraries from analogue to digital, especially contributions from lawyers and alumni.

While discussing the way forward, the Workshop commended the NBA leadership for providing the innovative platform to reflect on the way forward and called for the swift implementation of the NBA Legal Education Endowment Fund which could go a long way in mobilizing financial support for infrastructure and technology upgrade. While calling on law firms, companies and other stakeholders to contribute to the Fund, the Workshop also called for more joint research projects between NBA and law faculties, as well as tailored research programs and subsidized conferences for academic lawyers, as a way of incorporating theoretical and practical law aspects in the profession.

Consumer Reliance and Vendor Responsibility: Examining the Legal Liability of Skincare Sellers in Nigeria | Musbahu Yahaya Rabiu

by Legalnaija | Apr 22, 2025 | Blawg

The skincare industry in Nigeria has expanded significantly, and many consumers rely on vendors’ recommendations when purchasing skincare products. Some vendors act as informal skincare consultants and, therefore, they recommend products based on customers’ needs or desires confidently. However, when these recommendations do not work as recommended or lead to skin damage, the customers often blame the vendors. This article examines the vendors’ liability briefly in such a situation.

Under Section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, where a buyer makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which a product is required and relies on the seller’s skill, knowledge or judgment, there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose. For instance, if a vendor recommends a product for acne treatment and it causes severe irritation, the vendor shall be liable for breaching this implied condition of fitness for purpose.

The Court of Appeal in Afrab Chem Ltd. v. Owoduenyi held that a seller may be liable if a product does not serve its intended purpose as communicated to the buyer. Additionally, Section 131 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 provides that goods sold to consumers must meet their intended purposes, good quality, usable, durable and free from defects.

Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act states that goods sold must be of merchantable quality. In other words, the goods should be safe, effective, and free from any defect or encumbrance. Therefore, if a vendor sells a face cream or body lotion that is expired or contaminated, this could constitute a breach of this implied warranty. Consequently, a consumer can maintain an action and seek redress against the vendor for selling a product that is not fit for the stated purpose or unmerchantable.

But it is essential for consumers to note that where a product is sold under a patent or trade name, example ABC body lotion, the vendor will not be held liable if the consumer did not get what he likes or if it leads to damage. The pretty safe assumption of the law is that when you’re buying a product under its patent or trade name you’re aware of what you’re buying and, as such, you shall bear the consequences of your choice. In Bristol  Tramways  &  Carriage  Co  Ltd  v.  Fiat  Motors Ltd, the court held thus: “if  a  man  orders,  in   express terms,  an  article known  by a  patent  or  trade name under  that  name,  and  he gets  it, he cannot  complain  that  it  does  not  answer  some specific  purpose for  which  he wanted  it,  even  though  he  told  the vendor  before  he ordered  the  purpose for  which he required  it.”

Apart from contractual obligations, skincare vendors in Nigeria can be liable under the law of torts, particularly for negligence and misrepresentation. In celebrated case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, the House of Lords established the principle that sellers owe a duty of care to consumers. The authority of Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji reaffirmed that manufacturers and sellers can be held liable for negligence when their product causes harm to consumers. But to establish negligence in such a situation, the consumers must prove the following ingredients:

1. Duty of Care: The vendor owed a duty to provide a safe and appropriate product.
2. Breach of Duty: The vendor failed to exercise reasonable care in recommending the product.
3. Causation: The breach caused the consumer harm (example, skin damage).
4. Damage: The consumer suffered actual loss or injury.

Misrepresentation occurs when a skincare vendor makes false, misleading, or exaggerated claims about a particular product. Example: If a vendor falsely claims that a product is “100% natural” or it has a “lighting or whitening effect” but it turns out to be otherwise or contains harmful chemicals, this could amount to misrepresentation and, as such, consumers may have a right to sue for damages. Similarly, Section 132(2) of The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act makes it categorically clear that a consumer can return the goods he/she found to be unusable or not fit for its intended purpose within three months. The vendors are also mandated to either repair or replace the goods or refund the price paid by the consumer for the goods.

In conclusion, the liability of the skincare vendors in Nigeria depends on contractual obligations, tortious liability and consumer protection law. The consumers enjoy protection of the law against the vendors where products sold are not fit for the intended purpose or where they are not of merchantable quality. Similarly, where the vendors misrepresent products or sell them in violation of the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, they shall be held liable for any damage caused by their act. Therefore, the skincare vendors ought to be cautious and ensure that their recommendations are accurate and that products meet the fitness for purpose and merchantability requirements. However, where products are sold under their patent or trade names, the vendors shall not be held liable for anything.

Written by Musbahu Yahaya Rabiu, a graduate of the Faculty of Law, Bayero University Kano, and a bar aspirant. He can be reached for corrections or constructive criticism at 08107882404 or musbahuyahayarabiu@gmail.com

References

Statutes:

Sale of Goods Act

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act

Judicial Authorities:

Afrab Chem Ltd. v. Owoduenyi (2014) LPELR-23613 (CA)

Bristol  Tramways  &  Carriage  Co  Ltd  v.  Fiat  Motors Ltd (1910)

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 172

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF DAMAGED GOODS IN SUPERMARKETS BEFORE PAYMENT

by Legalnaija | Apr 19, 2025 | Blawg

WHO BEARS THE LOSS BETWEEN SELLER AND BUYER? LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF DAMAGED GOODS IN SUPERMARKETS BEFORE PAYMENT

In modern retail settings, particularly self-service supermarkets, customers routinely handle goods before purchasing them. But what happens when a customer accidentally damages an item before payment? This article examines the legal implications of such scenarios and argues that the loss lies with the supermarket owners. This is based on the principle that the display of goods is not an offer, but merely an invitation to treat, and that ownership and risk remain with the seller until a contract is entered.

Under contract law, a distinction exists between an offer and an invitation to treat. An offer, when accepted, creates a binding contract. An invitation to treat merely invites negotiation or expression of willingness to enter into a contract. This principle was initially established in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists, where the court held that the display of goods on shelves constitutes an invitation to treat. The customer makes an offer by presenting the goods to the cashier, and a contract is only formed upon the cashier’s acceptance—by scanning the product and collecting payment. The authority of Lasky v. Economy Grocery Store is also instructive here.

This concept is equally recognised under Nigerian law. Although no direct Nigerian case mirrors Boots and or Lasky, the principles of contract law, as contained in the Sale of Goods Law of Lagos State 2003 and the Sale of Goods Act 1893, adopt similar rules. Sections 17 and 18 of the Act emphasize that ownership passes when the parties intend it to pass—often at the point of sale.

In Nigeria, ownership and risk generally pass to the buyer when a contract is concluded, unless the parties intend otherwise. Until that point, goods displayed in a supermarket remain the property—and risk—of the seller. Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act provides that goods remain at the seller’s risk until the property passes to the buyer. Therefore, if damage occurs before payment, no contract exists, and the risk remains with the seller.

While the general rule absolves the customer of liability for accidental damage, it is essential to note the following exceptions:

1. Negligence or Intentional Damage: If a customer damages an item through negligence—for example, carelessly handling fragile goods—they may be liable in tort. The establishment of tort of negligence requires the existence of a duty of care, breach of the duty, and damage as a result of the breach. In such cases, the supermarkets could recover damages.

2. “You Break It, You Buy It” Policies: Many retailers display signs warning customers that they are responsible for damaging goods. However, for such policies to be legally binding, they must meet the criteria for incorporation of terms into a contract. In other words, the supermarkets must exempt themselves from liability while making the contract through what is known as exemption clause. But such a clause must be made clearly to the understanding of buyers. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, the court held that contractual terms must be brought to the notice of the customer before the contract is formed. Note that since no contract exists at the time of accidental damage, such notices may not suffice unless the customer is clearly aware and agrees in advance.

From both English and Nigerian legal perspectives, goods displayed in a supermarket constitute an invitation to treat, not an offer. Therefore, ownership and its necessary risk remain with the seller until a contract is formed at the point of sale. Unless the customer has acted negligently or recklessly, they are not liable for accidentally damaging items before purchase. This understanding ensures fairness in commercial dealings and places the burden of loss appropriately on the business owner who retains control and ownership of the goods.

It is essential to however note that, given that the risk lies with the supermarkets until payment is made, the owners should take measures to mitigate potential losses, such as taking out retail insurance to cover accidental damage, securely displaying fragile items, offering customer guidance or supervision in sensitive areas, and using clear, well-communicated signage—though such warnings alone may not be sufficient to impose liability on customers.

Written by Musbahu Yahaya Rabiu, a graduate of the Faculty of Law, Bayero University Kano, and a bar aspirant. He can be reached for corrections or constructive criticism at 08107882404 or musbahuyahayarabiu@gmail.com

NBA-SBL ANNOUNCES THE 19TH EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW CONFERENCE

by Legalnaija | Apr 16, 2025 | Blawg

The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Business Law (NBA-SBL) is pleased to announce the 19th edition of its flagship event, the International Business Law Conference, set to take place from July 2nd to 4th, 2025, at Harbour Point, Victoria Island, Lagos.

This year’s conference, themed “The Future of Business Law in an Intelligence Age”, will bring together leading legal minds, policymakers, and business professionals to explore the evolving intersection of law, technology, and artificial intelligence. As artificial intelligence and digital transformation redefine industries globally, the legal profession must evolve to address new challenges, including regulatory frameworks, data privacy, ethical considerations, and liability issues.

This conference will provide a critical platform for discussing the legal implications of AI-driven business models and strategies for legal practitioners to remain ahead of the curve. Speaking on the significance of this year’s theme, Ms. Solape Peters, Chair of the Conference Planning Committee (CPC), stated: “The intelligence age presents both opportunities and challenges for business law. As AI continues to reshape industries and automate decision-making processes, lawyers must rethink traditional legal frameworks to ensure fairness, accountability, and compliance in an increasingly digital world.

This conference is designed to equip legal practitioners and business leaders with the knowledge and tools to navigate these changes effectively Mrs Ozofu Ogiemudia; Chair of the NBA-SBL, emphasized the broader impact of the event: “The NBA-SBL International Business Law Conference has consistently set the agenda for progressive legal discourse in Nigeria and beyond. This year’s theme is particularly timely, as AI and automation rapidly disrupt traditional business and legal landscapes. Our goal is to provide a platform for thought leadership, meaningful dialogue, and actionable insights that will help shape the future of business law in Nigeria and beyond.”She said.

#NBASBL2025
#Legalnaija

Authorship and Ownership of Copyright in Music | Optimist IBK

by Legalnaija | Apr 2, 2025 | Blawg

Authorship and Ownership of Copyright in Music: A Legal Analysis of the Nigerian Copyright Act and International Perspectives

(Case Study: Zucca & LoMastro v. Soso et al. – Related to Tyla’s ‘Water’)

Abstract

This article is dedicated to Music Business for Africa and Ivory and Black LP – 2024. As a student of MBA for Africa, we were tasked with drafting a producer agreement, which led to a critical debate on whether copyright in music belongs to the creator or the funder. While many argued for the funder, my academic research and the Copyright Act support the view that the creator owns the copyright unless otherwise agreed. A litigation expert pointed out that since the Nigerian Copyright Act does not expressly resolve this issue, it would be left to the courts to determine ownership.

While preparing this article, I encountered the lawsuit Olmo Zucca & Jackson LoMastro v. Sammy Soso, Tyla Seethal, and Sony Music Entertainment. This lawsuit illustrates the potential for confusion arising from unclear definitions of ‘author’ in copyright law, particularly in a rapidly growing music industry.”

The Nigerian music industry has witnessed exponential growth, with platforms like Spotify reporting a 49% increase in music exports over the past three years and a N58 billion payout to Nigerian artists in 2024 alone[1]. This surge underscores the critical need for clear copyright definitions to protect stakeholders’ rights and foster continued investment. However, ambiguities in the Nigerian Copyright Act, particularly concerning the definition of “author” in musical works and sound recordings, have led to disputes over ownership. The recent U.S. lawsuit involving producers Olmo Zucca and Jackson LoMastro against artist Sammy Soso, fellow artist Tyla Seethal, and Sony Music Entertainment highlights the complexities surrounding authorship and ownership in the music industry.

Introduction

Copyright law serves as the bedrock for protecting creative works, granting creators exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and adapt their creations. In the realm of music, two primary components are subject to copyright: the musical composition (encompassing melody, harmony, and lyrics) and the sound recording (the fixed embodiment of a performance). Understanding the delineation of rights between these components is essential for artists, producers, and investors. The Nigerian Copyright Act of 2022 outlines these protections but presents ambiguities, particularly in defining the “author” of a sound recording. This lack of clarity can lead to disputes over ownership, as evidenced by recent international legal battles. This article aims to clarify the complexities surrounding authorship in Nigerian copyright law by comparing international legislative frameworks, including the UK Copyright Act, the U.S. Copyright Act, and the Berne Convention. It also highlights the need for legislative reform to align with global standards and ensure adequate protection for music creators.

Authorship and Ownership in Musical Works

The concept of “authorship” is pivotal in determining copyright ownership. Generally, the author is the individual who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression. In musical works, this typically refers to the composer or songwriter who creates the melody and lyrics. According to the Nigerian Copyright Act, the author of a musical work holds the initial copyright, granting them exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, and perform the composition. These rights can be transferred or licensed through formal agreements, allowing for flexibility in commercial exploitation.

Authorship and Ownership in Sound Recordings

Determining authorship in sound recordings is more complex. The Nigerian Copyright Act [2] defines the author of a sound recording as “the person by whom the arrangements for the making of the sound recording were made.” This definition is ambiguous, potentially encompassing producers, record labels, or financiers who oversee the recording process. In practice, ownership of the sound recording, often referred to as “master rights,” typically resides with the producer or the entity that financed the recording, unless otherwise stipulated by contract. This aligns with practices in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom, where the producer is recognized as the author of the sound recording.

Importantly, in musical works, the composition (melody and lyrics) is distinct from the sound recording (the performed and recorded version of the composition). The author of a musical composition is typically the songwriter or composer, while the author of a sound recording is usually the producer or entity responsible for its creation. However, in many cases, artists, producers, and contributors may share ownership of the master recording, unless agreements specify otherwise. This principle is evident in global copyright laws, including the U.S. Copyright Act and the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Case Study: Zucca & LoMastro v. Soso et al.

A recent lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California highlights this ongoing battle. Producers Olmo Zucca and Jackson LoMastro have taken legal action against Samuel Awuku (professionally known as Sammy Soso), artist Tyla Seethal, and Sony Music Entertainment, alleging that their contributions to a song recorded in March 2023 were wrongfully diminished.

According to the lawsuit, Zucca and LoMastro were full producers in the session, creating key instrumental elements, yet they were not credited or compensated fairly. Instead, Awuku allegedly took sole producer credit, secured a deal without informing them, and allocated them less than their rightful share of royalties. Despite being listed as co-authors in the song’s copyright registration, they were excluded from negotiations and denied proper recognition.

This case underscores a critical debate in music copyright law: who truly owns a sound recording—the contributors who shape its creative direction or the party who takes control of its commercial release? As the industry grapples with these questions, this lawsuit serves as a timely case study on the intersection of authorship, ownership, and producer rights in modern music production.

International Perspectives on Copyright Authorship

Internationally, copyright laws exhibit variations in defining authorship and ownership:

1. United Kingdom (UK) Copyright Act
2. UK Copyright[3] – Defines the producer (person arranging for the recording) as the author of the Sound Recording. Authorship of work in relation to a work, means the person who creates it. The person shall be taken to be- in the case of a sound recording, the producer.
3. Under UK law, the producer (the person arranging for the recording) is recognized as the author of a sound recording. This is consistent with international conventions such as the Rome Convention and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT).
4. United States Copyright Act
5. The U.S. Copyright Act[4] defines a sound recording as “a work that results from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds.” However, it does not explicitly define the “author” of a sound recording. Instead, authorship is determined by factors such as:
6. Creative control over the recording process
7. The role of the producer in shaping the final product

iii. Whether the recording was created as a “work made for hire”

1. The U.S. case Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989) [1] established that an author is “the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.” This definition supports the argument that creators, rather than funders, should hold copyright ownership.

These differences underscore the necessity for clear contractual agreements to delineate rights and prevent disputes.

Other Laws that Influence the Nigerian Copyright Act

The Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 was influenced by international treaties, including:

1. Berne Convention (1886, as amended): Recognizes authors’ rights and provides automatic protection.

1. WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996): Addresses digital rights and piracy concerns.
2. TRIPS Agreement (1994): Sets minimum copyright standards under WTO regulations.

However, despite these influences, the Act lacks clarity on the definition of authorship in sound recordings, leading to misinterpretations and potential legal disputes.

Defining Authorship in Music

1. Definition of Sound Recording

1. A sound recording refers to a fixation of sounds that can be perceived and reproduced. Under the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 [2], it is defined as: The fixation of a sequence of sounds capable of being perceived aurally and of being reproduced, but does not include a soundtrack associated with an audiovisual work.”

1. Who is the Author of a Sound Recording?

1. Authorship can be attributed to different parties, depending on the legal framework:
2. Producer: Oversees recording, mixing, and mastering.
3. Sound Engineer: If they significantly shape the final output.

iii. Record Label: If it finances and arranges the recording process.

1. Independent Artist: If self-producing, they retain authorship.
2. The Nigerian Copyright Act follows the UK model, leaning towards the producer as the author. However, this contradicts judicial interpretations in cases like Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, where U.S. courts ruled that the person who fixes an idea in a tangible medium is the author.

Personal Definition of an Author in Copyrighted Work

An author in a copyrighted work is someone who has contributed something that is independently copyrightable. If a person’s work is not copyrightable, that person should not be considered an author. For someone else to claim ownership of a work, not authorship, there must be an agreement that transfers the right from the author to the other person, such as a composer and producer transferring their rights to a record label. I do not consider a financier an author; however, such a person can be the owner of the copyright work but not the author. Just because someone funds a musical work does not make them the author of that musical work.

Judicial Provisions as to Who is an Author

1. Nigeria: Oladipo v. African Songs [5]
2. Issue: Dispute over authorship and ownership of a musical composition.
3. Ruling: The court recognized the songwriter as the copyright owner of the musical work, but the label owned the sound recording rights.
4. This case primarily addressed the copyright ownership of musical compositions, not sound recordings. The case focused on the author of the composition (the songwriter/composer) rather than the ownership of the master recording (which is a separate copyrightable element in music). The ruling established that the author of a musical work is the person who created the original composition, which typically includes the songwriter or composer. This aligns with the definition of “author” under Section 51 of the Copyright Act (Cap C28 LFN 2004), which states that the author of a literary, musical, or artistic work is the person who created it.
5. U.S.: Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989) [6]
6. Issue: Whether an independent artist’s work was a “work made for hire.”
7. Ruling: The court ruled that the person who fixes an idea in a tangible medium is the author.
8. This case is a key U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the definition of an “author” under U.S. copyright law and the distinction between independent contractors and employees in copyright ownership.
9. Key Ruling on “Author”:
10. The Court held that the “author” of a work is the person who creates it unless it qualifies as a work made for hire under 17 U.S.C. § 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
11. In the absence of a “work for hire” agreement, the independent creator (not the hiring party) is the owner of the copyright.
12. The case does not specifically discuss sound recordings. However, its principle applies to the music industry.
13. UK: Fisher v. Brooker (2009) [7]
14. Issue: A musician claimed co-ownership of a song for contributing to the arrangement.
15. Ruling: The court ruled that instrumental contributions do not automatically make someone a co-author.
16. The case is a landmark UK copyright case concerning joint authorship and ownership rights in musical compositions.
17. Key Ruling on “Author”:

The House of Lords ruled that Matthew Fisher, the organist of Procol Harum, was entitled to a share of the copyright in the song “A Whiter Shade of Pale” because his contribution (the organ solo) was significant and original.

The case reaffirmed that an author is the person who creates the original expression in a work under UK copyright law [8].

1. The case focused on the musical composition (songwriting) rather than the sound recording. However, its principle applies to disputes over joint authorship in music.

Recommendations for Nigerian Copyright Law

Given the rapid growth of Nigeria’s music industry, it is imperative to address the ambiguities in the Copyright Act regarding authorship of sound recordings. Clarifying the definition of “author” to specify the roles of composers, producers, and financiers can mitigate disputes and foster a more transparent industry. Implementing standardized contractual practices that clearly outline ownership and royalty distributions will further protect stakeholders and encourage investment.

To resolve these issues, Nigeria must:

1. Amend the Copyright Act to provide a clear definition of authorship in sound recordings, distinguishing between creators and financiers.
2. Adopt contractual best practices from international jurisdictions to define ownership terms.
3. Create a Special Tribunal for Entertainment Law for better interpretation of the law.
4. Align with WIPO standards to ensure Nigerian music creators receive global recognition and protection.

Conclusion

My definition of an author is what I believe should be obtainable in the music industry, which is supported by some judicial provisions. The Nigerian Law defines the author of a photograph as the person who takes the photograph but fails to clearly state the author of a sound recording as the person who created it. As we continue to create sounds in the industry, I will continually advise that creators should always have a clear agreement between all the contributors of the musical works, and financiers should not regard themselves as the authors of musical works or sound recordings unless there is an agreement that transfers ownership to them. Split sheets and assignment agreements should be signed in musical works to avoid future disputes, as currently happening in the case of Olmo Zucca & Jackson LoMastro v. Sammy Soso, Tyla Seethal, and Sony Music Entertainment.

The burgeoning Nigerian music industry stands at a crossroads where legal clarity can either propel it to greater heights or hinder its progress. The recent lawsuit involving Zucca and LoMastro highlights the potential for disputes arising from ambiguous definitions of authorship and ownership. By refining the Copyright Act to provide clear definitions and encouraging comprehensive contractual agreements, Nigeria can ensure that its artists, producers, and investors operate within a framework that promotes fairness, creativity, and sustained growth.

References

1. 2024 Loud & Clear report, by Spotify
2. Section 108 (1) (d), Copyright Act 2023
3. Section 9 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
4. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 101)
5. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).
6. Oladipo v. African Songs Ltd. (Suit No. LD/1138/73).
7. Fisher v. Brooker, [2009] UKHL 41.
8. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 9(1)

Save the Date: 2nd Diamond Open Access Workshop!

by Legalnaija | Mar 25, 2025 | Blawg

The President’s Lack of Power to Suspend Governors and Legislators Under the 1999 Constitution

by Legalnaija | Mar 20, 2025 | Blawg

“The President Lacks Power To Suspend An Elected Governor, His Deputy And Members Of The House Of Assembly Under Section 305 Of The 1999 Constitution As Amended Because The Power To Remove A Governor And A Deputy Governor Is Enshrined In Sections 188 And 189 Of The 1999 Constitution Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria As Amended And Same Can Only Be Exercised By The House Of Assembly Of A State And Not The President”

Since yesterday, I have been reading articles and listening to Lawyers and non-lawyers debating and arguing about the Constitutionality or otherwise of the powers of the President to suspend the Governor of Rivers state, his deputy and all other elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly. While some have hinged their arguments on the provisions of Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, others, hinged theirs on the provisions of section 218 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, there is also another school of thought, that relied on the provisions of section 180 (1)(d) which provides thus: Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a person shall hold the office of Governor of a state until- (d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

It is quite regrettable and unfortunate that majority of Nigerians have been massively misled by both Lawyers and non-Lawyers that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria can hide under the provisions of Sections 180 (1) (d), 218 and 305 of the 1999 Constitution as amended to suspend an elected governor of a state, his deputy and other elected members of the House of Assembly. For the avoidance of doubt, no such powers exist under the 1999 Constitution as amended.

Premised upon the above, it is important to state that, the provision of Sections 180 (1) (d), 218 and particularly, section 305 of the 1999 Constitution as amended are so clear, plain and direct and do not require any ambiguous or imported interpretation. There is absolutely nothing in any of these Constitutional provisions that empowers the President to suspend or remove an elected Governor of a state, his deputy or the members of the House of Assembly.

As have been held in several authorities, not even Courts can amend the Constitution or even change the words. It is also a principle of interpretation that the language of the Constitution where clear and unambiguous, must be given its plain evident meaning and that a constitutional provision should not be construed so as to defeat its evident purpose. It is also settled law that provisions of the Constitution are not to be interpreted in isolation but that other provisions must be taken into consideration in the exercise. See the case of HON. MICHAEL DAPIANLONG & ORS vs. CHIEF (DR.) JOSHUA CHIBI DARIYE & ANOR (2007) LPELR-928(SC) at PP. 55-57, paras. D-A.

The Supreme Court in Marwa vs. Nyako (2012) 6 NWLR (pt.1296) 199 at 337 SC, restated that when interpreting the provisions of our Constitution, not only should the Court look at this Constitution as a whole, the provisions should be construed in such a way to justify the hope and aspirations of those who made strenuous efforts to provide us with a constitution to ensure good governance, but also to protect the rights of Nigerians who are the beneficiaries of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly to ensure durable democratic institutions.

From the clear, express and direct provisions of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the power to remove a governor and a deputy governor is contained in sections 188 and 189 of the Constitution and only exercisable by the House of Assembly and not the president or even our Courts can exercise such powers. While a member of the House of Assembly can vacate his seat or be recalled from the House of Assembly by the express provisions of sections 109 and 110 of the Constitution. Just like sections 188 and 189, the President lacks the powers to exercise these powers.

Consequent upon the above, it is illogical and highly unreasonable for anyone to submit that the President can suspend an elected governor, deputy governor and members of the House of Assembly.

Finally, for those who have hidden under the omnibus provisions of section 180 (1) (d) to argue that the president can suspend an elected governor and his deputy, I must humbly refer you to the authority of All Progressives Congress (APC) vs. Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) & Ors (2022) LPELR-58952(CA) at PP. 42-44 paras. C-C, wherein it was held thus: Now, the offices of the Governor of a State and Deputy Governor of that State are creations of the Constitution, which is the grundnorm that regulates the conduct of government. Thus, Section 176 (1) of the Constitution stipulates that, there shall be for each State of the Federation, a Governor. The qualifications of a person to be elected Governor of a State are laid down in Section 177 of the Constitution. Where a person qualifies to contest for the Governor of a State, he will be declared duly elected if he satisfies the requirements of Section 179(1) (a) and (b), or 179(2) (a) and (b), or 179(3) (a) and (b), or 179(4) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. The equivalent provisions of the Constitution relating to the office of Deputy Governor of a State are Sections 186 and 187 (1) and (2). In the instant case, the 3rd and 4th Respondents satisfied the requirements of Section 179(2) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution and were accordingly declared duly elected and sworn in on 29/5/2019. The 1st Respondent has hot contested nor denied those facts. It should be noted that the 3rd and 4th were to occupy the offices of Governor and Deputy Governor of Ebonyi State for a term of four (4) years from the 29th day of May, 2019. See Section 180 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). However, by Section 180(1) of the Constitution, they shall not vacate or deemed to have vacated the office of Governor until: (a) when their successors in office take oath of that office; or (b) the date when their resignation from office take effect; or (d) They otherwise cease to hold office in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It is apparent from the above stated provision of the Constitution, that their term of office shall end when their successors in office have been validly elected and sworn in; or where they die during the subsistence of their terms of office; or where they resign; or they otherwise cease to hold office. Section 180(1) (d) appears to be a general or omnibus provision to accommodate other circumstances, which may truncate or terminate the tenure of four (4) years prescribed by the Constitution. It is my view that paragraph (d) of subsection 1 to Section 180 of the Constitution is meant to accommodate a situation where the Governor may be removed from office pursuant to Section 188 and 189 of the Constitution (supra).

See also the decision of Engineer David Nweze Umahi & Anor vs. Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) & Ors, (2022) LPELR-58994(CA) at PP. 67-68, paras. C-F, it was held thus: It should be noted that the Appellants were to occupy the offices of Governor and Deputy Governor of Ebonyi State for a term of four (4) years from the 29th day of May, 2019. See Section 180 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). However, by Section 180(1) of the Constitution he shall not vacate or be deemed to have vacated the office of Governor until: (a) when his successor in office takes oath of that office; or (b) the date when his resignation from office takes effect; or (d) he otherwise ceases to hold office in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, ?It is apparent from the above stated provision of the Constitution, that his term of office shall end when his successor in office has been validly elected and sworn in; or where he dies during the subsistence of his term of office; or where he resigns; or he otherwise ceases to hold office. Section 180(1) (d) appears to be a general or omnibus provision to accommodate other circumstances, which may truncate or terminate the tenure of four (4) years prescribed by the Constitution. It is my view that paragraph (d) of subsection 1 to Section 180 of the Constitution is meant to accommodate a situation where the Governor may be removed from office pursuant to Section 188 and 189 of the Constitution (supra). In the instant case, the case of the 1st Respondent leading to the decision of the Court below and subject of this appeal is that, the Appellants having decamped or cross-carpeted from the 1st Respondent’s platform on which they won the election, to the 3rd Respondent, they are deemed to have vacated their offices. It should be noted that by Section 187(2) the issue of inter alia, tenure of office applies to the office of Deputy Governor of a State. 

In conclusion, an elected governor and his deputy can only be removed pursuant to the provisions of sections 188 and 189 of the Constitution only by the House of Assembly of a state. Furthermore, it must be noted that members of the House of Assembly can vacate their seats pursuant to sections 109 or be recalled pursuant to section 110 of the Constitution. The President therefore lacks powers under section 305 of the Constitution to suspend the Governor, Deputy Governor or members of the House of Assembly.

Ojonimi S. Apeh, Esq.

(Notary Public)

08064465541

apehnimibrisk@gmail.com