ABSTRACT

As part of measures put in place to
contain the spread of the ongoing pandemic COVID-19, the Nigerian government
has ordered the total shutdown of all businesses and organizations excluding
those providing essential services for a period of two weeks in states such as
Lagos, Ogun and also the Federal Capital Territory.  Although the government, in recognition of the
financial hardship this lockdown is likely to cause has put in place steps such
as the injection of one trillion naira into the economy, reduction in the price
of petrol, and supply of foodstuffs etc. 
all to be a form of relief to its citizens, it does not mitigate the
hitch in the operations of private businesses and its attendant financial
detriment.  One of the sectors
particularly affected is the legal sector especially following the directive of
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, to suspend all
court hearings till further notice. Lawyers might be rendered incapable of
attending to their clients, but not if they embrace Information Technology
(IT).  This work aims to expose the concept
of IT and mention a few of the ways in which it could be beneficial to the 21^st
century lawyer.

INTRODUCTION

“Information
technology” was coined in 1958 by Harold J. Leavitt and Thomas L. Whisler in a
Harvard Business Review article because the new technology did not have an
established name  and comprised  several parts.[1] Even though, at that  time the  potentials of this technology was yet to be
understood, there was however no doubt in the minds of the authors that it
wielded a life-changing ability.[2] A cursory glance might misbelieve
IT to be one with  computer science,
however they differ in scope. For while computer science deals with the
effective programming of computer hardware and software which in turn births
subfields such as artificial intelligence (the programming of robots to act
like humans), information technology is the application of technology to
diverse sectors of the society.[3] It is described by Roger
Carter to be ‘the use of technology to aid the capture, storage, retrieval,
analysis, and communication of information whether in the form of data, text,
image or voice.’[4] IT is in fact the collection of
equipment that aid the organization and analysis of data.[5] It thus encompasses such
things as televisions, smartphones, computers, printers and other computer
peripherals. What is essential is that such device must be able to manipulate
data.

Over
the years, the significant impact of IT has become undeniable. IT has become an
integral part of our lives that rarely, do we have to do anything manually
anymore. For instance, it has aided the media sector in the transmitting and
broadcasting of programs. We have access to news  across the globe 24hours each day and this
wouldn’t have been feasible were it not for IT.[6]  The invention of  railways, aircrafts, and automobiles were
largely promoted by IT and this has facilitated the transporting of people from
even very remote places to any destination in the world, no matter the
distance. Health care has also benefited by the discovery, improvement of
vaccines and equipment to combat even the deadliest of ailments.  The banking system could not be so automated
and tightly secured if IT did not lend its services.   What more of the business sector which can
now manage data with ease, interact cordially with customer and even monitor
returns. How about the legal sector?

LAW AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The
relationship between IT and law may seem obscure  since the nature of IT is “fast, schematic
and  futuristic” while that of lawyers
are “cautious, verbose and old-fashioned.”[7] But it must be remembered  that law entails the processing of
information.  It is thus intertwined with
information. In fact, they’re both inseparable,
they’re Siamese twins.[8]  As such, IT should play the important role
of  managing and organizing such
information to ensure availability and easy access. Fortunately, there has been
a collaboration between these two disciplines.  An earliest example of this development can be
traced to the transition from handwritten scrolls to typewritten documents via
a typewriter.  This has also progressed
now into the drafting of legal documents with software such as Microsoft Word
and its printing with a printer.

 Legal research took on an electronic face when
in the United States (US), the computer assisted legal research (CALR) promoted
the development of websites such as Westlaw and Lexis which stores several
judicial decisions, articles that in order to aid lawyers, jurists, professors
and law student in carrying out quality research.[9] This move has been adopted
in other jurisdictions, including Nigeria where here is the existence of
websites such as LawPavillion and Legalpedia providing a similar service. Electronic
casebooks have also been introduced by the storage of large volume of cases on
a CD-ROM. Individually, Law firms have also utilized the internet by creating
blogs where they write articles, commentaries etc. all to educate their
clients. In fact firms like Aluko&Oyebode  and Banwo& Ighodalo, issue a newsletter
monthly to educate the public.[10]  Law firms have also  created on their official websites,  online form by which their actual and
potential clients can reach out to them, in order to eliminate the barrier of
distance or time constraints.

Videoconferencing
has also been applied effectively to bridge the problem of physical barrier and
it has been found quite suitable for arbitration proceedings. In addition to
this, many Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms, simply put online form of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) abound for the effective and efficient
resolution of disputes. Social media applications such as Linkedln, Facebook,
Whatsapp etc. and email also help lawyers network and share files even in a
court sitting. The legal education is not entirely left out as now there exists
in the Nigerian Law Schools an e-handbook to make studying easier for students.

With
the presence of all of these, it might sound absurd to still pick it as a
subject for discussion, however an investigation into how often IT is embraced
by lawyers reveals that lawyers pose 
somewhat resistant IT. Why? I’m not too sure but it might be because law
as we all know is conservative and as such lawyers are encouraged to be sober
members of the society. Perhaps this explains the preference for the old ways
and reluctance to accept new trends. For instance, it is reported that  back in the mid-2000s, law firms opposed the
idea of an email,[11] and even now that you
could believe that every lawyer owns a smartphone,  the American Bar Association (ABA), reports
that 98% of them do not use these phones to its full potential; usage for them does
not extend beyond calls, texts and emails.[12]  There are even stories flying round about
lawyers accusing colleagues patronizing e-libraries of lacking comprehensive
understanding of the law. To the former, the presence of a printed material is
an essential. Removal of that and there just isn’t commendable research.

WHY A LAWYER SHOULD EMBRACE IT IN
WORKPLACE

With
the present situation, ranging from closure of law firms to suspension of
court-sittings, IT is one medium by which a lawyer can continue to offer her
services. Here are a few reasons why IT should be embraced by every lawyer:

1.      Flexible
working time: rather than complain about how
exhausting, monotonous and boring a 9-5 job can be, IT affords a lawyer the
opportunity to work from everywhere, including their homes on days they cannot
be at the firm. This would even aid to reduce traffic on the roads and make
movement easier for lawyers who must appear in court.

2.      Efficient
and Speedy Research: 
there is a whole lot of information on the internet that can be
harnessed by the lawyer as he carries out his research. What’s even better is
that there is no geographical boundary to the availability of this information
and as such utilization of them produces a quality, time, energy and money
saving research.  In addition to this,
lawyers can create a blog or website where they can upload their
well-researched opinions as this would also earn recognition.

3.      Client
Satisfaction: when a lawyer can provide up-to-date
information, maintain contact with clients and speedily execute tasks, it is
only natural that clients would be pleased and of course a strong client-base
would pull in more clients. IT applications such as Zoom can be used to hold
meetings with clients in order to avoid the difficulty that cones with
scheduling a physical meeting.

4.     
An extra skill:
In the midst of the intense competition out there amongst lawyers,  the “infotech conscious”  lawyer  definitely has an edge over the “infotech
unconscious” lawyer.[13]  Russ Abney agrees with this by saying that : these technologies are a must for
litigators. Whichever on the go solution you choose; you will have an edge over
opponents who still lug their paper files into court[14]

5.      Networking:
no man is an island of knowledge, and as such no lawyer can have every
information at his/her disposal. There is always something to learn from a
colleague or senor at the bar.  You never
can tell, you might require a file urgently someday in court and then you would
wish you had your fellow’s email address so you can easily text him for
this.   Most importantly, lawyers we occupy
a very prestigious position in the society, and so should be there for one
another

6.      IT
provides so many mediums through which a lawyer can store thousands of files,
move them around conveniently and even access them. They include laptops, flash
drives. Hard disks, CD-ROMs and even Cloud.

7.      Intellectual
property lawyers can easily monitor the works of their clients in cyberspace
and be informed of any infringement at once.

CONCLUSION

 As Paliwala puts it, ‘…The
development of the global legal practice means that lawyers need to be globally
aware in ways which are beyond the limits of traditional law libraries and
books.’[15] As new areas of law
continue to spring up, it necessitates a shift from the old ways in order to
provide solution to the  new issues that
arise in these areas. Only an informed lawyer can do this and IT offers a whole
lot of information. Therefore, lawyers cannot continue to deny the relevance of
IT especially where they live in a society propelled by technology. The
yardstick for determining a well completed legal education and also a successful
lawyer lies in how well he/she has been able to apply his legal education in
addressing individual/societal problems. Lawyers must now take the pains of
understanding IT and applying it lest they find themselves incompetent in face
of situations such as the present closure of businesses.

 

 

 

 

In 2019, china recorded the outbreak of coronavirus also known as covid-19, and countries all over the world has had their fair share of the spread of the disease. The World Health Organization has declared that the Covid-19 is pandemic and countries in a way of ensuring safety are closing their borders, restricting travel, locking down cities and banning gatherings.

Countries have recorded low economic growth due to the spread of the virus and the maritime industry is not left behind from the negative impact ranging from dry-bulk market to the tanker and from ship repair business especially in china.

The maritime Industry is timely in nature i.e all activities must be done within a particular time and failure to do this will incur cost and demmurrage against the hirer or chatterer and the wide spread of the covid-19 has delayed the activities and in a time charter, the delay is usually borne by the charterer in the absence of any contrary term. In a way to salvage the risk borne by the charterer, there are some terms that may be introduced in to the time charter, and the essence is to allow a charterer not to pay hire if delay is caused to the operation of the ship. One of the clauses is termed ‘Off Hire Clause’. Off-hire clause is the clause that is included in a time charter that entitles a hirer to stop paying hire when there is delay in the operation of the ship.

Off hire clause can fall into two categories, i) Net loss of time ii) Period.

The net loss of time is the clause that states that in the event of of loss of time from the deficiency of men, breakdown of the hull or machinery, or cargo drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting of bottom or any other cause that prevent the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire will cease for the time lost. while the ‘Period’ clause is wider, it provides that the hirer will cease the payment of hire until the ship is ready and in an efficient state to resume her business.

It should be noted that the types of off hire clause provide for when there is breakdown of the ship and when the ship is not efficient to resume business. Using the literally interpretation, this off hire clause do not provide for where there is economic restriction on the vessel as in recent outbreak of the covid-19 virus. however, when one can establish that the full working of the vessel has been prevented it is necessary to examine whether it falls under the the causes discussed above or ‘Any other Cause’ but interpreting this phrase, one has to examine that the ‘Any Other Cause’ will be relevant if it is a cause that can be attached to the specific causes mentioned in the off- hire clause.

The big question is, does Economic and Political reasons trigger the off- hire clause?  Yes, it does, as long as the restrictions prevent the ship from carrying out her duties.

CONCLUSION

It is very important to conduct due diligence on a time charter before approving and appending signatures in order to exhaust all the remedies available as to prevent excess payment of hire.

Photo 1 Credit – Here 

 

1. 0 INTRODUCTION

In the period of 20 years, China has taken
the World through a gruesome path, twice. After being criticized for
a slow response to SARS, China is once again facing global scrutiny for its
handling of the new ‘Coronavirus’. China repeated the obstruction
of information that worsened the SARS crisis 18 years earlier. In
that case, China tried to cover up the SARS epidemic, which led WHO member states to adopt the new
International Health Regulations in 2005. In both cases, China and the world
would have been spared thousands of unnecessary deaths had China acted
forthrightly and in accordance with its legal obligations. 

The events to date has shaken confidence in the Chinese Communist Party at home and
abroad. China’s initial response to the crisis was less than impressive. The
Wuhan government was secretive and self-serving. The Chinese state made
evidently intentional misrepresentations to its people concerning the outbreak.
Reports showed that the Chinese Government silenced doctors who raised the
alarm of the virus, minimizing the danger to the public even as they were
bewildered and overwhelmed. State media also suppressed information about the
virus. Although authorities closed the Wuhan “wet market”, the epicenter of the
contagion, they did not take further steps to stop the wildlife trade, where
scientists traced the virus to.

The Covid-19 pandemic has affected all systems. Financial
markets have shuddered and have been pulled into all kinds of uncharted
territories, commodity prices have fallen, especially oil prices. According to
the International Monetary Fund, the global economy is now in a recession. Schools
have been closed globally, religious and social gatherings have been
restricted. There is now this new trend of ‘Working from home’. Summarily, the
whole world is in a lockdown, mildly say- a compulsory holiday.

This article addresses the possible arguments that International
law imposes an obligation on China to make reparation for COVID-19-related
harms or say damages.

 

2.0  CHINA’S OBLIGATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

The scale of the damage, Worldwide, has
prompted arguments of whether or not, China bears international legal
responsibility for the pandemic and should compensate countries harmed by the
outbreak.

China is one of the 194 states, party to the
2005 International Health Regulations, which is legally binding. China has a
duty to rapidly gather information about and contribute to a common
understanding of what may constitute a public health emergency with potential
international implications. The legally binding International Health
Regulations were adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1969, to control six
infectious diseases: cholera, plague, yellow fever, smallpox, relapsing fever,
and typhus. The 2005 revision added smallpox, poliomyelitis due to wild-type
poliovirus, SARS, and cases of human influenza caused by a new subtype, set
forth in the second annex.[1] Annex 2 of the IHR
provides for: “Any event of potential
international public health concern, including those of unknown causes or
sources and those involving other events or diseases than those listed”.
Obviously, Covid-19 falls under this category.

States are expected to provide expedited, timely, accurate, and sufficiently detailed information to
the  World Health Organization about the
potential public health emergencies identified in the second annex in order to
galvanize efforts to prevent pandemics, according to Article 6 of the IHR.
Article 7 also provides that “any unexpected
or unusual public health event within a country’s  territory, irrespective of origin or
source”, should be reported to the WHO. The body (WHO) also has a mandate in Article 10 to seek
verification from states with respect to unofficial reports of pathogenic
microorganisms. States are required to provide timely and transparent
information as requested within 24 hours, and to participate in collaborative
assessments of the risks presented. Yet China rejected repeated offers of
epidemic investigation assistance from WHO in late January (and the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in early February), without
explanation. The Washington Post concluded in a story on February 26 2020 that
China was not sending the details that WHO officials and other experts expected
and needed.

3.0 CHINA’S LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

It can be seen that China had violated international law on
infectious diseases and, under the International
legal principles of state responsibility, has an obligation to make full
reparation for the harm done. None of the treaties addressing the international
spread of infectious diseases dating back to the nineteenth century have rules
requiring payment of compensation for damage in other countries associated with
violations of treaty rules. The leading contemporary treaty, the International Health Regulations
(2005) (IHR), has no provisions on this issue. This situation is
not unusual. Most treaties do not address whether the violation of their rules
creates an obligation to compensate those states parties adversely affected by
harms caused by the violation.[2]

A state violating international law has “an
obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally
wrong act”, under Customary
international law on state responsibility.  This customary rule has played no discernable role in
disease outbreaks over the long history of international health cooperation,
even when states have argued that countries violated applicable treaties.
States have not seriously pursued compensation against countries accused of
breaching treaty obligations to report disease events or refrain from imposing
trade or travel measures that have no scientific basis.

States have not been keen
to use ‘customary law on state responsibility in the infectious disease context’
because of how political and epidemiological considerations align. Fulfilling
treaty obligations to report disease outbreaks involves challenging scientific
and public health questions and difficult political calculations. Pathogenic
threats with the potential for cross-border spread can appear in any country.
For example, although the origin of the devastating influenza pandemic of 1918-19 remains unclear, the
United States is on the list of potential countries of origin. The H1N1 virus
that caused an influenza pandemic in 2009 was first detected in the United
States. This reality creates a shared interest among states not to litigate
disease notification issues. Likewise, a state experiencing an outbreak will
complain about irrational trade or travel measures, other countries impose.
However, next year, that same state might want to implement similar measures
when another nation suffers an outbreak, which reveals reciprocal interests
among states not to seek reparations for violating treaty rules on trade and
travel measures.[3]
States understand that, tomorrow, the shoe could be on the other foot, which
creates a collective incentive among countries to avoid being legalistic about
reporting obligations.

Article 56 of the IHR
(2005) requires an injured state to first explore negotiation or any other
peaceful means of their choice including good offices, mediation, or
conciliation, to settle any dispute involving treaty interpretation and
application. Failing that, the parties may refer the dispute to the WHO
director general or parties to the dispute may agree to compulsory arbitration
in which the arbitral award shall be binding.

Under
the principles of state responsibility, States have the obligation to make
reparation for the damage caused by their wrongful act. Thus, China may be
liable to pay reparations over its failure to promptly notify the WHO about the
outbreak. Reparations involve restitution, and where that is no longer
possible, the offending state pays compensation “for loss sustained which would
not be covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it” (Chorzow
Factory,1927). Such assessment of damages may also come with an award of
satisfaction, or a formal apology and an assurance that its unlawful conduct
will not be repeated (LaGrand Case, 2001).[4]

However,
countries have never used the dispute settlement provisions in infectious
disease treaties from the nineteenth century through today — an indication that
states have no interest in legal remedies in this area.

 4.0
CONCLUSION

Under the principles of
state responsibility, separating what damage is attributable to China’s delayed
reporting and what harms arose because other governments botched their
responses to COVID-19 would be difficult. Such causation issues also help
explain why states have, historically, not pursued reparations for damage
associated with alleged violations of treaties on infectious diseases.

Many countries now struggling with COVID-19
had time to prepare for the pathogen’s transboundary spread after China
reported its outbreak under the IHR. 

At
the moment, no state party has alleged that China violated its IHR notification
obligations but two class actions have been filed against China for
“damages suffered as the result of the coronavirus pandemic” before
the U.S. District Court in Florida and Texas, shocking the Chinese legal community.

There
have been clamours that China should be held responsible this time, for the
Covid-19 pandemic so as to protect the future.

It is no longer news that on the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, the Federal Government of Nigeria and various State Governments put in place some drastic measures to prevent the spread of the life-threatening scourge. The danger posed to humanity and Nigerian citizens inclusive, by the ravaging pandemic has been taken very seriously by governments all over the world. For this purpose, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria announced a total lockdown of Lagos, Abuja and Ogun States in the national broadcast of March 29, 2020. Other State Governments have followed suit through the announcement of various restrictions and stay-at-home Orders by Executive Orders and/or regulations pursuant to their powers under the relevant enabling Quarantine Act.

The concern of this write-up is the manner of enforcement of such Executive Orders, restrictions and regulations by the law enforcement agencies and men of the Nigerian Army which has brought with it Police brutalisation, dehumanization and outright death of the citizens. The Tribune of today published the story of someone that was killed in Ogunnu, a suburb of Warri in Delta State, while driving for refusing to stop when he was reportedly flagged down by the security personnel. These various acts of brutalisation and dehumanization of citizens must be condemned in its entirety. It is an extra-judicial killing, it is illegal and absolutely unconstitutional.

It needs to be emphasised that the very reason for the announcement of these stay-at-home Orders and other restrictions on movements is essentially to save lives. Hence, the phrase: stay-at-home to stay safe. If the objective of a policy is to save lives, it is therefore totally illogical and inherently contradictory to kill in order to enforce safety measures. Indeed the point must be made for the umpteenth time that it is the business of the regular Police to enforce and maintain law and Order in the society as distinct from the Armed Forces whose duty is to protect the nation against external aggression and internal insurrection. The objective of the measures will be defeated if human lives are wasted, treated with disdain and their Human Rights violated with reckless abandon.

We saw a good example of how to enforce law and Order by the reported arraignment and conviction of twelve (12) persons for violating the provisions of Ekiti State Coronavirus Prevention of Infection Regulations 2020. The violators were tried and fined by the Chief Magistrate Court of Ekiti State. We advise everyone involved in the enforcement of these Orders in the different States of the Federation to take que from this example by arresting the violators and arraigning them before the appropriate Court for trial and sanction if found guilty. To do otherwise is to resort to self-help which is a product of executive lawlessness, an anathema and abomination in a constitutional democracy such as ours.

I call on the civil populace to see the reason behind the restrictions and other safety measures and directives to put up with the momentary inconvenience in order to experience the long term gain for ourselves, our families, the Nation and in the interest of public health and public safety. May I also say that any further act of brutalisation, dehumanization and unprofessional conduct on the part of the law enforcement agencies should be reported to the nearest Nigerian Bar Association Branch or directly to the Inspector-General of Police for necessary actions. With regards to the Armed Forces, report should be directed to the Defence Headquarters by sending text or WhatsApp messages through the telephone numbers provided by the Headquarters of the Nigerian Army.

Let us join hands together in unity of purpose to fight the Coronavirus war and live after the guaranteed victory.

Dated April 3, 2020.
Dele Adesina SAN

You are invited to participate in our innovative lunchtime mentoring session holding tomorrow Wednesday 1 April  2020.

Discussions will be led by our esteemed Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Mia Essien, SAN, Abimbola Akeredolu, SAN and Prof Toyin Akintola.

*Main Topics:*
1. Professional Development

2. Managing Practice in a Coronavirus Environment; and

3. Understanding Mentoring

Sub-Topics as time will permit are Self Development, Advocacy Skills, Dealing with Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, Work-life Balance, Choice of Life Partner. 

Time: 1pm – 2:30pm.

Link to connect: Here

Download Microsoft Team now.  Look forward to meeting you tomorrow and be sure to inform others.

The Corona-Virus
Disease (COVID- 19), famous for its widespread, has killed tens of thousands of
people across the globe and has raisedan indispensable question in the minds of
many; whether the Chinese government can be held liable in Negligence, whether the
pandemic is an ‘act of God’. In the legal community, an act of God is a concept
that allows a party exemption from instances of strict liability and negligence.
This article is concerned primarily with the debate, whether the corona-virus
pandemic is an act of God or an act of man.

An event,
occurrence or accident that cannot be prevented by ordinary human foresight,
normally by an operation of natural forces free from human intervention, like
flood or earthquake is an ‘Act of God’. James LJ in Nugent V Smith[1]
described it as “any accident due to natural causes directly and exclusively
without human intervention and that could not have been prevented by any amount
of foresight and pains and care reasonably to have been expected”.The
determining factor for an act of God is that it “proceeds from the
forces of nature alone, to the entire exclusion of human agency.”[2]

The courts have
expanded this concept by including similar defences such as force
majeure and peril of the sea to the mix. The courts have also
expanded on the no-fault concept and used the term ‘inevitable accident’ to
describe certain accidents, whether or not caused by an act of God, where all
reasonable precautions had been taken and the accident occurred anyway. An
inevitable accident, unlike an act of God, can start with human action or
originate with a natural force.[3]

On December 31,
2019, the World Health Organisation(WHO) heard the first reports of a previously-unknown
virus behind a number of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, a city in Eastern China with
a population of over 11 million.[4]What
started as an epidemic mainly limited to China has now become a truly global
pandemic with cases globally surpassing 669,310 and deaths, at least 30,982
people.[5]
Not only is the virus a major concern from a public health perspective,
businesses are seeing disruptions which are only likely to increase in the
coming weeks and months.

It is apparent
that the disease originated from a Wuhan seafood market where wild animals,
including marmots, birds, rabbits, bats and snakes, are traded illegally.
Coronaviruses, constituting the subfamily 
Orthocoronavirinae, are known to jump from animals to humans, so
it is thought that the first people infected with the disease, a group
primarily made up of stallholders from the seafood market, contracted it from
contact with animals.

The hunt for the
animal source of Covid-19 is still unknown, although there are some strong
contenders. A team of virologists at the Wuhan Institute for Virology released
a detailed paper showing that the new coronaviruses’ genetic makeup is 96%
identical to that of a coronavirus found in bats, while an as-yet unpublished
study argues that genetic sequences of coronavirus in pangolins are 99% similar
to the human virus. Some early cases of Covid-19, however, appear to have
inflicted people with no link to the Wuhan market at all, suggesting that the
initial route of human infection may pre-date the market cases. Although the Wuhan
market was shut down for inspection and cleaning on January 1, 2020, it appears
that Covid-19 had already spread beyond the market itself.

United States President
Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to it as the “Chinese virus”. Many of his
critics insist the term is racist. U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, opines that the
crisis should not be politicized by assigning blame, but our focus should be on
pulling together in the common fight against a global disease that makes no
distinction between people and recognizes no borders. However, many still argue
that the virus is a failure of governance, not a blind force of nature
independent of human agency, caused in part by incompetent, malicious, and
corrupt politicians. To ignore the political dimension of the coronavirus
pandemic is an excellent way to ensure its recurrence, and that to prevent a
recurrence, we have to hold accountable the politicians responsible for its
global transmission and uncontrolled spread, with all its terrible consequences
to populations and economies around the world.[6]

As one of the
194 states party to the legally binding 2005 International Health
Regulations, China has a duty to rapidly gather information about and
contribute to a common understanding of what may constitute a public health
emergency with potential international implications. The legally binding
International Health Regulations were adopted by the World Health Assembly in
1969, to control six infectious diseases: cholera, plague, yellow fever, smallpox,
relapsing fever, and typhus. The 2005 revision added smallpox, poliomyelitis
due to wild-type poliovirus, SARS, and cases of human influenza caused by a new
subtype, set forth in the second annex.

Article 6 of the International Health Regulations requires states to provide expedited,
timely, accurate, and sufficiently detailed information to WHO about the
potential public health emergencies identified in the second annex in order to stir
efforts to prevent pandemics. States are required to provide timely and
transparent information as requested and to participate in collaborative
assessments of the risks presented. Yet China rejected repeated offers of
epidemic investigation assistance[7]
from WHO in late January, as well as the U.S. Centres for Disease Control
and Prevention in early February, without explanation.[8]This
answers the question whether reasonable care was taken by China to prevent the
horrific consequences the disease posed. China’s failure to expeditiously and
transparently share information with WHO in accordance with the International
Health Regulations[9]
constitutes an early and subsequently extended breach of its legal obligations.

An
epidemiological model at the University of Southampton found that had China
acted responsibly just one, two, or three weeks more quickly, the number
affected by the virus would have been cut by 66 percent, 86 percent, and 95
percent, respectively.[10]
By its failure to adhere to its legal commitments to the International Health
Regulations, the Chinese Communist Party has let loose a global contagion, with
mounting material consequences.[11]

Other than the
fact that the act of God defence is still not relied on very often, likely
because of the difficulty of proving that human elements played no role in causing
an injury, China’s initial lackadaisical attitude, malfeasance and breach of an
international obligation is certainly the cause of the cost of the coronavirus
disease. Thereby making it improbable that the defence will excuse the Chinese
government. Hence, China bears legal responsibility for its internationally
wrongful acts.[12]

Under Article
31 of the Articles of State Responsibility, states are required to make
full reparations for the injury caused by their internationally wrongful acts.
Injuries include damages, whether material or moral. Injured states are
entitled to full reparation “in the form of restitution in kind, compensation,
satisfaction and assurances and guarantees of non-repetition”.[13]
Restitution in kind means that the injured state is entitled to be placed in
the same position as existed before the wrongful acts were committed.[14]
To the extent that restitution is not made, injured states are entitled to
compensation[15], and
satisfaction, in terms of an apology and internal discipline and even criminal
prosecution of officials in China who committed malfeasance.[16]As
the world continues to suffer the costs of China’s breach of its legal duties,
it remains to be seen whether the injured states can be made whole.

Perhaps, China
did not intentionally create a global pandemic. However, the increasing
incidents of sickness and death as well as the economic cost of the pandemic
cannot be overlooked. The world has paid and is still paying for China’s
carelessness.

Written by:

Oluwabukunmi
Adeniran.

---

Dear Colleagues, I recognise that as lawyers, we live a very busy life. Our time and attention are usually divided between reading, drafting, court appearances, client meetings and research work to mention a few all aimed at servicing the needs of our Clients. Our Profession is a jealous Profession which possesses us absolutely day and night. Consequently, a sedentary lifestyle and self – isolation at home may be alien to some of us. Though staying home to stay safe has become a task that must be done, we can still be productive while observing these safety measures by investing the time we have at home rather than spending it.

We can invest the time by drafting those outstanding briefs and pleadings, vetting of documents, reading our law reports, researching into specific areas of legal interest and of course audio and video calls and conferencing with clients to render both curative and preventive legal advice and opinions.

Recognising that health is wealth, exercising the body is also of paramount interest. We must remain active so as to prevent weight gain and  strengthen our immune system as this will make us less susceptible to infections including that of the Corona Virus. We must continue to take the necessary precautions to prevent the spread of the virus and flatten the curve. It is my confident belief that the earth will reject Coronavirus in all its entirety because the earth is given by God to the children of men. Surely the end of the virus is coming soon. Our expectations shall not be cut-off.

I urge you to stay alive as we will all rise from this challenge stronger, healthier and with a determined mind to continue to serve the interest of our clients, our nation and justice in general.

My warm greetings to you and your family.
Thank you.

Dele Adesina SAN

#securethefuture
#nigerianlawyers