Kofi Annan – A Visionary Leader

by Legalnaija | Aug 19, 2018 | Uncategorized

Kofi Annan

Order Your Law CompanionFor IPhones Published by FunmiQuadri

by Legalnaija | Aug 19, 2018 | Uncategorized

Your Law companion mobile library is now available for iphone for just N10,000. The first Nigerian Law library available on the iphone.

Contents Include –
● All Judgments of the Supreme Court
Judgements of the Court of Appeal
● Rules of Courts
● Laws
● Weekly update on cases from all Courts.

This is an improved version which is fast and super user- friendly…

To order: Call 08131210744 or email info@funmiquadrionline.com

Another Grand Deception In The NBA Election 2018

by Legalnaija | Aug 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

In the past 24 hours, false messages and threats have been going out to deceive lawyers to vote in a particular way citing Section 9(3) and 2.2(a-e) of the second schedule of the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association 2015 and giving it a mischievous interpretation that it is the turn of the Igbos to produce the NBA President.This false hood is the oldest propaganda since the inception of this electioneering process.
It is important that lawyers know that the relevant section of the NBA constitution zoned the Presidency to the Eastern Zone which is made up of *Abia,Akwa Ibom,Anambra,Bayelsa,Cross River,Ebonyi,Enugu and Rivers.*

BREAKING NEWS: THE HIDDEN NAMES ON THE NBA VERIFICATION PORTAL SUSPICIOUSLY DISAPPEAR

by Legalnaija | Aug 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

Shortly after news went out that lawyers complained that their names were hidden from their branch voters list but was found on the database, the hidden names were  deleted from the website.

This has come as an embarrassment to many lawyers whose names were not listed on the verification list. A further check revealed that those names were not transferred to the voters list but were completely removed from the portal. This is bad news as voting is slated to commence in less than 16 hours.

Some lawyers have been unable to find their names listed in their branch or any other branch when they search their names under their branch but where able to find their name when they click on the arrow in the menu (top right) which shows another drop down menu that has two options

Check by Branch

Check Verification data

When you search some names with Check by branch, some names will not be found but when you search the names with Check verification data, the details of the names appear even with an indication of their branch. Now those names are suspiciously missing

Again the readiness of the ECNBA to conduct the election which has been postponed three times has come to question. The ECNBA has given no explanation to the suspicious removal of the hidden names on the platform.

Again,the Gombe branch of the Nigerian Bar Association Has written the ECNBA over the exclusion of more than half of its verified  members  on the list. Many other branches are gearing up for a showdown with the ECNBA for excluding their members from the voters list.

The ECNBA has so far done a good job taking into consideration the pressure this whole electioneering process has put them. I know this year’s election committee will definitely be voted as the hardest committee so far in NBA’S recent history. They deserve some accolades.

Going forward, since the list of verified candidates were released, some some issues have cropped up from people who complied with the verification process who could not see their names on the list to people whose details were missing.I sincerely hope that ECNBA and Crenet anticipated these problem and will provide solutions to them before the voting begins.

Another complaint about the  verification list that calls for urgent attention is the complaints of those whose details are on the data base but not listed in any branch.

ECNBA and Crenet released two batches of names listed according to branches with the following instructions:

The final list of verified voters is hereby published and made available for members to access to confirm their status. It is important to note;

Only names in the list of members submitted by branches can be found on this final verified list
Only names of members who participated in the verification exercise can be found on this final verified list.
Members may check their verified names on either the BATCH A verified list or BATCH B verified list.
To confirm verification status, members are advised to follow the following steps;

Check your information by entering your Supreme Court enrollment number in the appropriate column
You may check your information under your branch
Some lawyers have been unable to find their names listed in their branch or any other branch when they search their names under their branch but where able to find their name when they click on the arrow in the menu (top right) which shows another drop down menu that has two options

Check by Branch

Check Verification data

When you search some names with Check by branch, some names will not be found but when you search the names with Check verification data, the details of the names appear even with an indication of their branch.Now those names are suspiciously missing

The questions now become,

What is the status of these names that are hidden in the branch list but can be found on the verification data?
Is it an issue to worry about, if not, why are those names not listed in any branch?
What are these people supposed to do if it is a problem to avoid being disenfranchised?
To ensure transparency and proper voters’ education, ECNBA and Crenet must answer the three questions above with an unambiguous explanation of why those names were hidden from the branches.

Employees’ Social Media Conduct: Can Disciplinary Measures Be Taken Out On The Basis Of This? | Zeniath Abiri

by Legalnaija | Aug 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

One
of the most important rights of an employer is the ability to take disciplinary
actions against an errant employee. Usually, the employment contract will
stipulate actions that are offensive and the punishment to be applied upon such
offensive behaviour. The most common forms of disciplinary actions in the
workplace includes; warnings, queries, suspension, termination and in extreme
cases, summary dismissal.

With
the increasing use of various social media platforms such as facebook,
instagram, twitter, linkedin and the likes, the question of how far an employee
can go on these platforms, before disciplinary actions can be taken out against
him, has often arisen. As social media continues to gain in popularity, it was
only a matter of time until it became a workplace issue. Because social media
is so persuasive, employees and employers can both benefit from a greater
understanding of both on-duty and off-duty social media use.

The
law has long allowed an employer to discipline an employee for offensive
off-duty conduct. The level of consequence would however, depend on the
seriousness of the impact of the employee’s conduct. Usually, the impact
such behaviour has/had on the employer’s business, is often considered, to
ascertain whether the punishment imposed, is justifiable. Social media acts
that lead to any of the following may attract justifiable punishment;

1.    
Harm to the
reputation of the business or its product;

2.    
Other
employees refusing or being reluctant to work with that person;

3.    
A serious breach
of the law; and/or

4.    
Disruption of
the otherwise efficient management and function of the workforce.

However,
employers must ensure that the disciplinary step taken, fits the impact of the
offensive social media conduct.  For example, in Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local 508 v Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), 2017 CanLII
10897, an HRM bus driver made inappropriate Facebook posts when she was off
duty. The comments portrayed a particular community on her bus route in a very
bad light and the Employer worried that these comments would harm the
reputation of Halifax Transit. The Employer dismissed the employee on the basis
of this.  To draw the connection between the off-duty Facebook posts
and work, the Employer led evidence of co-workers from that community who were
deeply offended by the comments and said they would not work with the “grievor”
again. Some of the co-workers saw her posts, and they shared it with other
co-workers. Further, co-workers testified that they were very upset by the
posts, and that the posts led to disruptions at the workplace and conflict
between employees. The arbitrator readily concluded that the “grievor’s” post
had a “real and material connection to the workplace”.

The
arbitrator also found that the grievor’s post had significant potential to harm
the Employer’s reputation. She specified that her conclusion was not based on
evidence of widespread harm but rather “as a matter of common sense, it is
reasonable to conclude that” the “grievor’s” posts would be upsetting to residents
of the community she maligned.

Based
on those conclusions, the arbitrator found that the “grievor’s” conduct
warranted some discipline. However, she felt that the damage to the Employer’s
reputational interests was not so substantial that the “grievor’s” on-going
employment was untenable. The arbitrator went on to consider the impact of any
potential mitigating factors. She subsequently concluded that the termination
was not warranted and she imposed a 30-day unpaid suspension instead.

Also,
in the American case of, In the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of
Jennifer O’Brien, State Operated School District of the City of Paterson,
Passaic County, +2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 28 (App. Div.
2013), the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Jennifer
O’Brien (O’Brien), a tenured first grade teacher in Paterson, New Jersey, based
on derogatory Facebook comments she made about her students. Frustrated that
the school was not addressing the behavioural and disciplinary issues of her
students, many of whom were African-American or Latino, O’Brien posted the
following on her personal Facebook page:

• “I’m
  not a teacher – I’m a warden for future criminals!”
• “They
  had a scared straight program in school – why couldn’t [I] bring [first]
  graders?”

O’Brien
was subsequently removed by the school board and tenure charges were filed
against her. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and Acting Commissioner of
Education determined that O’Brien’s actions warranted her removal. The ALJ
found that O’Brien engaged in “conduct unbecoming a teacher” and
“failed to maintain a safe, caring, nurturing, educational
environment.”

The
appellate court agreed with the ALJ’s findings that the seriousness of
O’Brien’s conduct warranted her removal and that the Facebook postings were not
protected by the First Amendment because O’Brien was not commenting on a matter
of public concern, but personal interest. There was credible evidence to
support the notion that the district’s efficient operation of its schools
outweighed O’Brien’s right to free speech.

Another
example here, is the United Kingdom case of Crisp v. Apple Retail (UK) Ltd
(Unreported 20 ET/1500258/2011), a tribunal ruled that an employee was
fairly dismissed after he had posted negative comments about his employer and
its products, on his private Facebook page.

In
addition to the above, where an employee has posted derogatory comments about
other employees on his social media account, this may raise further issues in
respect of bullying and harassment and same can lead to internal problems in
the workplace, such as a reduction in productivity of the bullied or harassed
employee. It is important to remember that an employer is vicariously liable
for the acts of one employee to another in the course of their employment and
therefore appropriate disciplinary action must be taken where this occurs.

As
set out above, whether the post constitutes grounds for disciplinary action
will depend on the circumstances of the post, its nature and extent. The
seniority of the employee in question is likely to be a key factor as well,
given that any conduct that indicates bullying or harassment on the part of a
manager or supervisor through social media posts may point to or even cause
problems in the workplace. Also, any derogatory comments made by a senior
member of staff of the company, about the employer and its business, will more
likely be taken seriously, by the public.

What
an Employer may Consider before Exercising Disciplinary Measures Against
an Employee.

Upon
becoming aware of an employee’s offensive social media conduct, an employer may
consider any or all the following, in the determination of whether it should
exercise its disciplinary powers against the employee found wanting and the
form of discipline to impose.

1.      Publicity –
this includes the nature of the social media platform used (i.e. private e-mail
versus public tweet), the number of Friends or followers who can view the
initial post, and whether the post has been reproduced or shared. The comments
following same will also be considered.

2.      Connection to
employment –
that is, is a third party capable of drawing a connection between the
poster and the Employer? Does the employee hold themselves out to be
representative of the business?

3.                  Previous
similar allegations –
whether the employee has been engaged in, and disciplined for, similar
behaviour may be a deciding factor.

4.      Intent
to offend/seriousness of the post – this refers to whether the
employee only meant the comment as a harmless joke or if they actually intended
to upset the recipient, which may have an impact on the decision. Is the post
of such a nature that can be believed?

Defences/Mitigating
factors that may be raised by an errant employee.

Upon
the exercise of disciplinary action against an errant employee, he may raise
any of the following, to mitigate the extent of punishment or get his
punishment revised/reversed.

1.     Provocation –
an employee may raise the defence of provocation if the online outburst is the
result of a single, upsetting event. However, if the employee continues to make
harmful posts after the heat of the moment has passed, this defence is less
likely to work.

1.    
Employee
remorse – whether the employee has
apologized for their behaviour and taken the offensive post down.

2.    
Length of
service – Generally, an employee
with longer service will be more secure than a more junior employee.

3.    
Intoxication – as most social media posts happen at home, employees might
claim that alcohol or other intoxicant, played a role and should be a
mitigating factor.

As
far as this writer knows, there is no known legislation on social media use,
neither is there any reported judicial authority on this issue in Nigeria,
despite the increasing concern of the legal and reputational risks employers
may face for their employees’ social media conduct. Because the National
Industrial Court of Nigeria tends to tilt in favour of the employee, it is
however advised, that employers establish a clear and comprehensive policy on
the potential consequences of inappropriate social media conduct, even while
off work. Such policy should cover instances of online bullying and harassment.
It will be prudent to include this in the employment contract and workplace
handbook of the company. Because many employees may not know the impact of what
a seemingly “innocent” post on social media, may have on their employer, it is
further advised that employees be adequately trained in this area, to avoid any
misunderstanding.

In
conclusion, despite the fact that there is no clear law on this subject in
Nigeria, where there has been an offensive social media conduct in the
workplace, an employer may rely on not just its policies, but may rely on
statutes and caselaw from other jurisdictions. This in line with Section 254
(C) (1) (f) and (h) of the Constitution of Nigeria (Third Alteration Act) 2010,
which enjoins the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, to have recourse to
international best practices, in the determination of issues before it.

Zeniath
Abiri

Managing Partner

Company Name Abiri & Mustafa Legal Practitioners.

Source: LinkedIn

Photo Credit: www.blogherald.com 

IP ABC —Can we sue MultiEnergy for passing off? | Infusion Lawyers

by Legalnaija | Aug 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

Question of
the Week

I am the manager of one of the most
successful athletes in Africa. Please call me TJ. My client is popularly known
as Ben
Breeze by fans locally and internationally. This nickname has
practically become a brand synonymous with speed, power, and confidence. Last
week, we stumbled upon a new energy drink in Lagos called Ben
Breeze. Within weeks of being launched in the Nigerian market, the
energy drink has being enjoying reception, especially amongst sportsmen and
sportswomen. Ben Breeze is a product of MultiEnergy
Limited, a Nigerian company. We consider MultiEnergy’s act an unlawful act of
passing off. I believe MultiEnergy is unduly exploiting my client’s name and
popularity to sell its identically named, energy drink, Ben
Breeze. My client has not trademarked the nickname. Do we have a
case in passing off?

Answer

For answer to this week’s question, click here. 

To subscribe to IP ABC so you receive fresh
issues in your email box every week, subscribe here. 

IP ABC™

IP ABC™ is an initiative of Infusion
Lawyers, a virtual intellectual property (IP) and information technology (IT)
law firm for the knowledge economy and the digital age. 

Disclaimer

Characters, events, names,
or places referred to in IP ABC may be fiction. Such fictional
contents are meant to aid comprehension. When real names are used, it is
for illustrative purposes only. Facts or stories around these names
are fiction. Questions are for educational purposes. Answers provided
on IP ABC are prepared by Infusion Lawyers and are for
educational purposes only. Answers should not be construed as legal
advice or legal opinion under any circumstances. If you have questions or legal
problems that you need legal assistance with, please contact your IP lawyer or
law firm, or contact  Infusion Lawyers
if you have none. And whenever any links shared through IP ABC lead to
other sites, neither IP ABC site nor Infusion Lawyers’ website incorporate
any materials published in such linked sites. We also do not
necessarily approve, endorse, or otherwise sponsor such links. ALL
external links may have been used for reference purposes only.

Source – Infusion Lawyers

Terms of Service for Your App or Online Business: How do you get yours? | Senator Ihenyen

by Legalnaija | Aug 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

Bayo Folarin
(tech-startup owner, FolaTech): “Hello Senator, a quick one please. I need you to prepare a Terms
of Service for my app. We need it in 2 days. Please send us a
pocket-friendly invoice—we have a very tight budget. Can you start working
on the Terms today? We need it in 2 days. You can deliver by Friday,
right?”

Me: “Hi Bayo, thanks for contacting me to work
on your Terms of Service. The delivery schedule is pretty
tight. But IF you can deliver to us by 2pm today the details we need
to complete the Terms of Service, we will do our best to deliver by 2pm
Friday.”

Bayo Folarin: “Great then, That’s no problem. Here are the
details: The name of the app is Lander and the company is FolaTech Ltd. I will
email the company address and company-registration number to you in a few
minutes.”

Me: “Bayo, thanks for the quick response but we will
require more details than that. Can you please email to me details of your app
business, including information about your target users, affiliates,
third-party arrangements, intellectual property you control, in-app advertising
model, privacy, app-community restrictions (if any), security & safety
measures for users, and any other information you think would be useful to us.
Hello, Tecky. Are you there?”

Bayo Folarin: “Ah! All that and you want them this week! Ermmm, …. you
see the problem is that we don’t have those things ready yet. We just need the
Terms of Service by Friday. I can send you the Terms we already copied from a
similar app in South Africa. Please use it.”

Me: (Dazed)

If you are one of those
app-based or online-based businesses that “copy and paste” terms of
services from “similar” apps or sites, PLEASE STOP. 

Terms of Service can make or
mar your entire business. It’s in fact your whole business. It’s not just
“one of those things”. Many startups often get it wrong, right from
the start. Don’t.

Along with a Privacy Policy, Terms of Service is
everything. I wrote about “How to Protect Your e-Commerce Site with Terms
and Conditions” some 2 years ago on Nigerian Law Today. You can read it up
here. I will
be sharing more insights on how to get your Terms of Service right on Infusion
Lawyers’ blog soon. You will find the subscription form here.

So NEVER start or run any
startup or other business without getting your terms of
service right—right from the beginning, not in the middle of your business
and certainly not at the end, otherwise it might just be the beginning of the
end of your app, online, or offline business.

How do you get terms of
service for your business?

*Bayo Folarin and FolaTech Ltd
are both fictitious names used to illustrate a common line of
conversations I have had with some tech-startup owners who need terms of
services.

Senator Ihenyen is the Lead Partner of Infusion Lawyers, an IP & IT law firm.

Source: LinkedIn

LEADERSHIP & CAPACITY BUILDING CONFERENCE: For Probono Lawyers and Legal Aid Service Providers in Nigeria

by Legalnaija | Aug 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

On the 15^th of August, 2018, a network for pro bono lawyers
was organized by the Prisoner’s Right Advocacy Initiative (P.R.A.I). The
centerpiece of the event was basically to train and encourage Nigerian lawyers
working in the legal aid unit or practicing some form of pro bono services on
many ways to deliver quality services to their clients. Additionally, the
conference also aimed at isolating the challenges faced by pro bono lawyers in
discharging their duties.

The event was hosted by Ahmed Adetola-Kazeem and Katumi Oboirien. Present
at the occasion were special guest speakers including Hannah McCrea and Nyasa Hickey from the Brooklyn Defenders Service,
New York, U.S.A and a host of other panelist including Aderera Olayinka; Shakrat Ikotu; Olumide Babalola; Lawson Olanipekun;
Mrs Mutiat, the Heads of the Prison service amongst others. A goodwill
message was presented by Meghan Chapman of
the Justice and empowerment
initiative. The panel was chaired by Janet Gbam of Fortitude attorneys. The
event was hosted at the LCCI conference center, Ikeja, Lagos.

Some of the thoughts shared involved the applications of world best
strategizes and practices such as

1.      
Specialization

2.      
Work together within the profession

3.      
Forming Partnerships with Non-Law Professionals

4.      
Track Outcomes and Measure Quality

5.      
Targeted & Strategic Political Advocacy

Here
are some lesson to take home from the event –

a.     Experience
+ Creativity = Quality. Lawyers must seek experience first and above pecuniary
gains. In the long run there is a better chance of offering better services to
our clients.

b.     Lawyers
 must have a large network of Lawyer
friends and Non-Law professionals. As they can help facilitate handy solutions
to many difficulties we might have in carrying our duties to the client.

c.     Lawyers
must continually train others, in order to help the law profession.

d.     One
major solution to solving prison congestion is enforcing community service for
simple offences.

e.     Big
and small Firms have a shared duty of funding probono works.

@Legalnaija

The Fifa Statute And The Nigerian Sovereignty: A Legal Perspective | Eseoghene Palmer Esq

by Legalnaija | Aug 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

Matters came to head almost immediately after the conclusion
of the FIFA World cup which was held in Russia between the months of June and
July, 2018. With the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Jos Division giving a
judgement which categorically declared Mr. Chris Giwa as the lawfully elected
NFF president in opposition to Mr. Amaju Pinnick (current president, NFF). This
decision has caused a widespread upheaval in the executive arm of the Federal
Government, particularly with the Ministry of Sports & Youth Development
and the Ministry of Justice down to the Football Parastatal. The major problem
unfortunately is how this turn of events will purportedly affect the Nigerian
Football Federation (NFF) and its healthy affiliation with the Football world
governing body (FIFA).

A lot of arguments against FIFA’s involvement in the
political squabbles of the NFF has been in ignorance of the FIFA STATUTE
(Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes and Standing Orders of
the Congress) May 2008 edition. Article 64, which stipulates the obligations of
Member Associations, particularly under par. 2 & 3 states respectively:

“Recourse to ordinary
courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA
regulations”

“The Associations shall
insert a clause in their statutes or regulations, stipulating that it is
prohibited to take disputes in the Association or disputes affecting Leagues,
members of Leagues, clubs, members of clubs, Players, Officials and other
Association Officials to ordinary courts of law, unless the FIFA regulations or
binding legal provisions specifically provide for or stipulate recourse to
ordinary courts of law. Instead of recourse to ordinary courts of law,
provision shall be made for arbitration. Such disputes shall be taken to an
independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognized under the
rules of the Association or Confederation or to CAS. The Associations shall
also ensure that this stipulation is implemented in the Association, if
necessary by imposing a binding obligation on its members. The Associations
shall impose sanctions on any party that fails to respect this obligation and
ensure that any appeal against such sanctions shall likewise be strictly
submitted to arbitration, and not to ordinary courts of law.”

On the other side of the divide, the Section 251 (1) of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria particularly in paragraph P states:

“Notwithstanding
anything to the contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other
jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly,
the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of
any other court in civil causes and matters; (p) the administration or the
management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies”

The facts leading up to this dilemma reveals that there were two
domestic elections conducted and each respectively made Pinnick and Giwa
president of the NFF. The recognition of Amaju Pinnick by FIFA to the exclusion
and ban of Chris Giwa, definitely forced the hand of the latter to seek
remedies from the Nigerian judiciary. The interpretation and declaration of the
Federal Judge is agreed to be in line with the stipulation of the Nigerian
constitution. The effect, however, from this interpretation has resulted to a
gross violation of the FIFA standing rules as stated above. Consequently,
Nigeria as a whole, risks the reality of being banned permanently by FIFA from
football related activities internationally.

The bone of contention legally speaking would be as to which of
the two legislations should be followed. Section 1 of the Nigerian constitution
clearly answers this. It states:

“(1) This Constitution
is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and
persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) The Federal Republic of
Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take
control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance
with the provisions of this Constitution. (3) If any other law is inconsistent
with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and
that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”.

The fact remains that the NFF is an agency under the
Government of Nigeria, similarly FIFA rules are merely an international treaty
that is yet to be domesticated by the nation, additionally, FIFA’s arbitration
jurisprudence is natured after the laws of Switzerland, flowing from this, the
constitution is far more superior to the FIFA standing rules. With utmost
defiance to whatever the consequences may be, the Judgment for Giwa stands. It
must be appreciated that the sovereignty of Nigeria is hinged on
non-interference of a foreign body in domestic affairs of the state, Section 1
of the constitution is a staple for this. However, the reaffirmation of our nations
sovereignty would spell an economic and social backlash in retrospect.

There is no legal solution to this insipient negative
outcome. Nevertheless, in the spirit of sportsmanship and nationalism, Chris
Giwa ought to understand the implications of the enforcement of his legal
right. There is no Win-Win to this. Such selfish venture although sanctionable constitutionally,
would attract highly negative setbacks for the future of Nigeria football. Likewise,
FIFA cannot go back on its standing rules; in truth. Nigeria will not be the
only country to be banned for the mere reason of governmental intervention in
its own domestic sport administration within the last decade.

The remedy to this should be mediation between the warring
parties, a return to status quo and a hearty compensation to Chris Giwa.
Similarly, the legislative arm of the Nigerian Government ought to incorporate
the FIFA standing rules into our laws. FIFA on the other hand may need review
its seemingly overbearing and frankly unrealistic demand from independent
nations like ours that have recognised judicial systems. 

Eseoghene
Palmer Esq is an associate with Adedunmade Onibokun & Co. He has cultivated
interest in Corporate Law, Real Estate, Intellectual Property, Sports,
Entertainment law and Mediation.

essaypalmer@gmail.com

www.linkedin.com/in/eseoghene-o-palmer

www.adedunmadeonibokun.com 

Photo Credit – The News Nigeria 

NBA 2018 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- MY FINAL CHOICE IS PAUL USORO, ESQ.,SAN – HE IS THE BEST OF ALL THE 3(THREE) CONTESTANTS

by Legalnaija | Aug 18, 2018 | Uncategorized

Distinguished learned members of the inner and the outer Bar, I pay my tributes to you all and most especially our always unjustly […] and impoverished young lawyers who are ironically in the majority but left with meagre resources, briefs and insulting wages.

I beg all of you both the Seniors and the Young lawyers in the spirit of brotherly camaraderie  existing among us as learned friends to please VOTE for PAUL USORO SAN as the next NBA President.
I have examined critically all the 3(three ) remaining contestants and I have empirically come to the a firm and resolute conclusion that Paul Usoro Esq,SAN is the best and primus inter pares among the remaining 3 candidates since the unjustifiable and arbitrary disqualification of my original candidate, Mazi Afam Osigwe Esq.

I am happy that when Mazi Afam Osigwe called me on phone on Monday this week , he told me and I verily believe him that HE HAS INSTRUCTED ALL HIS SUPPORTERS TO VOTE EN MASS FOR PAUL USORO ESQ., SAN , but he said that is without prejudice to his pending litigation in court over his disqualification.
WHY ? PAUL USORO ESQ., SAN IS THE BEST AND SHOULD BE VOTED FOR AS THE BAR PRESIDENT

We cannot afford to entrust the NBA to any of the aspirants without tangible visible presence both locally and internationally in terms of professional exposure.

I am a private legal practitioner with bias for civil litigations like Paul Usoro SAN and  Arthur Obi Okafor SAN. I have traversed and criss-crossed the 36 states of Nigeria in the course of legal practice pursuits since I started Advocacy under Chief Bayo Aluko-Olokun SAN (of blessed memory) in Kaduna in 1993/1994, the city where I met Masuuud Alabelewe Esq., also a Corp member with Gbenga Atoki Esq. I later joined Dele Akinmusuti Esq from 1994 till 1998 for the best mix of Solicitors & Advocacy practices. In the law firm which was the most organised and structured law firm in Ibadan after the law firm of S.P
A.Ajibade & Co. and Akin Delano & Co., where I was the Practice Manager from February 1995 to September 1998. I left the firm to join the foremost and most successful Partnership law firm in Nigeria, Olujinmi & Akeredolu in October 1998 and I was with the chambers till April 2002 when I was sacked by Chief Akin Olujinmi, SAN for an alleged rudeness unbecoming of a legal practitioner.
Kazeem Gbadamosi Esq. (KGB) and my humble self teamed up to establish Adebayo & Gbadamosi, Legal Practitioners in October 2002 and we fashioned the law firm after Olujinmi & Akeredolu.
Lest I bore you with all the above mentioned details, the point that I am trying to make is that i have been a very active legal practitioner since I was called to the Nigerian Bar in 1993 till date and also that I have been a very active Bar Man since NBA was brought to live again in  1999. I make bold to say that I have never heard of Arthur Obi-Okafor SAN and I have never met him throughout my progessional voyages all over the country.
The first time ever i heard about him was in 2017 through my very good friend and soul mate , Emeka Obegolu Esq who asked me to support Artur Obi Okafor SAN for the NBA President.