Our President Has surpassed Himself In The Subversion Of Justice | Prof Ben Nawbueze

Our President Has surpassed Himself In The Subversion Of Justice | Prof Ben Nawbueze

Long Title
BY HIS STATEMENT WHILE SUSPENDING THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA FROM OFFICE, OUR PRESIDENT HAS SURPASSED HIMSELF IN THE SUBVERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION
by
Professor Ben Nwabueze

​President Buhari’s suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) from office is, in itself, a most condemnable subversion of the Constitution, but his statement while announcing it to the public makes the action so absurdly subversive. Hear what he said:
“A short while ago, I was served with an Order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal issued on Wednesday 23rd January, 2019 directing the suspension of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Walter Nkanu Samuel Onnoghen from office pending final determination of the cases against him at the Code of Conduct Tribunal and several other fora relating to his alleged breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers.
It is against this background that I have received the Order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal directing me to suspend the Chief Justice pending final determination of the cases against him.
It also explains why I am not only complying immediately but with some degree of relief for the battered sensibilities of ordinary Nigerians whose patience must have become severely overtaxed by these anomalies.
In line with this administration’s avowed respect for the Rule of Law, I have wholeheartedly obeyed the Order of the Code of Conduct Tribunal dated 23rd January 2019.”
​The “Administration’s avowed respect for the Rule of Law” and for obedience of court orders sound like a deliberate perversion of truth, as witness Dasuki’s continued detention four years after a court of law ordered his release on bail, and same as Ibrahim Yaquob El Zakzaky two years after he was granted bail.
​The President’s statement raises several questions, the most crucial of which is as to whether the CCT has the power to order or direct the President to suspend the CJN. Second, whether the President, incarnating the Nigerian state, and as guardian of its Constitution, is bound to carry out the order, even when he knows, as he ought to know, that he has no power to suspend the CJN. Third, do the circumstances in which the order of the CCT was obtained not suggest a pre-meditated plan to subvert the Constitution?
​With respect to the first question above, the suspension is manifestly subversive of paragraph 18 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution (1999), which provides as follows:
“18.​(1)​Where the Code of Conduct Tribunal finds a public officer guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of this Code it shall impose upon that officer any of the punishments specified under sub-paragraph
 (2) of this paragraph and such other punishment as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
​(2)​The punishment which the Code of Conduct Tribunal may impose shall include any of the following –
(a)​vacation of office or seat in any legislative house, as the case may be.
(b)​disqualification from membership of a legislative house and from the holding of any public office for a period not exceeding ten years; and
(c)​seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.
​(4)​Where the Code of Conduct Tribunal gives a decision as to whether or not a person is guilty of a contravention of any of the provisions of this Code an appeal shall lie as of right from such decision or from any punishment imposed on such person to the Court of Appeal at the instance of any party to the proceedings.
It is clear from paragraph 18 that:
(a) only the CCT itself can order vacation of or suspension from office; the President is not empowered to do so, and cannot be ordered or directed by the CCT to do so;
(b) more importantly, the CCT cannot make an order vacating an office or suspending a person from office until the trial before it is completed and the accused person is found “guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of this Code”; the trial in this case is only just commencing;
(c) the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal conferred by paragraph 18(4) of the Fifth Schedule is from a decision of the CCT finding the accused person guilty of contravention of the Code, not from the action of the President suspending the accused person from office even when the action (suspension) is on the direction of the CCT; the denial of that right is a violation of the Constitution.
In conclusion, the CCT acted ultra vires the Constitution in making the order directing the President to suspend the CJN from office. The suspension is unconstitutional, null and void.
​The second question raised above, though not as crucial, is remarkable for its great intricacy. The impression created by his statement is that the President is trying to hide under the cover of the principle that an order of court directing him to do something imposes upon him a duty to carry out the order, notwithstanding that he does not have the power to do the thing in question, and that we are thereby precluded from enquiring as to whether or not he in fact has the necessary power.
​The ex parte order the President obtained from the CCT directing him to suspend the CJN from office does not, and cannot, erase the fact that he lacks the power to do that. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines “suspend” to mean “to remove temporarily from an office, to cause to cease for a time from operation or effect”. The CJN is both the head of the judiciary, in which role he exercises largely administrative functions, as well as a justice of the Supreme Court; his removal (or suspension) from office as CJN can only be effected by the President with the support of two-thirds majority of the Senate, while his removal as an ordinary justice of the Supreme Court is by the President on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council (NJC) – section 292 Constitution 1999. The suspension (removal) of the CJN from office by the President does not comply with the two requirements of section 292 of the Constitution and is therefore null and void, notwithstanding that it is ordered by the CCT.
​The President had followed the suspension of the CJN with the appointment of the most senior justice of the Supreme Court as Acting CJN. The validity of the acting appointment depends on whether there is a vacancy in the office. Without a vacancy, no one can validly be appointed to the office in an acting capacity. Be that as it may, an acting appointment must comply either with any special constitutional provisions relating thereto or, if there is none, then, with the general provisions governing the appointment of a CJN. These require the appointment to be made by the President on the recommendation of the NJC subject to confirmation by the Senate: section 231(1). The 1999 Constitution has no special provision relating to the appointment of a CJN in acting capacity. The general provisions in section 231(1) therefore apply. The circumstances surrounding the suspension of Onnoghen and the hurried swearing-in of Mohammed as Acting CJN suggest that section 231(1) is not complied with in the swearing-in of the latter. The acting appointment is therefore null and void.
​In this connection, section 231(4) of the 1999 Constitution differs significantly from section 211(4) of the 1979 Constitution, which reads:  
“(4)​If the office of Chief Justice of Nigeria is vacant, or if the person holding the office is for any reason unable to perform the functions of the office, then until a person has been appointed to and has assumed the functions of that office, or until the person holding the office has resumed those functions, the functions shall be performed by a person to be designated from time to time in that behalf by the President, acting in his discretion, from among the Justices of the Supreme Court.
Section 231(4) of the 1999 Constitution is certainly a significant advance in our democratic evolution. What the President has done by the suspension of the CJN in his discretion without recourse to the Senate (or the NJC) is to take us back to the era of personal rule, which is the form of rule to which his career as a military commander has accustomed him. Personal rule and dictatorship is anathema to Nigerians. We want nothing more of that obnoxious system of rule.
After the Federal High Court (FHC) has ordered a stay of proceedings in the prosecution against the CJN and adjourned the case until a named date, the President, being the alter ego of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), the named complainant, went behind the scene and surreptitiously got the CCT, the supposed impartial arbiter, to order the suspension of the CJN, the other party in the case. This is subversion unchained and running wild to devour the defendant in the suit, and to stifle the system of constitutional restraints on power. By this action the President has lost all his integrity and fitness to govern, and should not remain in office.
The ex parte order issued by the CCT, on which the President relied as authority for suspending the CJN, calls in question the integrity of its chairman, Justice Danladi Umar, as well as his impartiality as arbiter in the matter. Allegation of corruption has been levelled against Justice Umar in the Sunday Vanguard of 15th November, 2015. The newspaper report discloses an investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of a N10 million corruption allegation against Umar as chairman of the CCT and the former Deputy Controller-General of Customs, Rasheed Taiwo, N1.8 million of which had reportedly been paid by Taiwo and collected on Umar’s behalf by his personal assistant, Gambo Abdullahi. The newspaper report also disclosed that the two other members of the CCT, Robert Odu and Agwage Atedze, feeling so embarrassed by the allegation, had refused to sit with Umar, and that in a joint letter to  former President Goodluck Jonathan, dated April 4, 2014, the two members had said as follows:
“May we with respect draw His Excellency’s attention to the allegation of N10 million bribe made against Justice Danladi Yakubu Umar, current chairman of Code of Conduct Tribunal, Abuja, which is being investigated by the EFCC.
“We, the two members of the CCT and the entire staff, are embarrassed and saddened by this allegation because a tribunal set up to check corruption should not be accused of being corrupt. This would not be in keeping with the transformation agenda of the administration.
“We are mindful of the fact that the Federal Government has zero tolerance policy for corruption, and this is the reason for the establishment of the CCT as one of the agencies to fight corruption in all its ramifications.
“It is our prayer therefore that this allegation will be looked into so that the tribunal can start sitting in the interest of litigants and their counsel.”
​The Sunday Vanguard of November 15, 2015 further reported that, based on findings of its investigations on the matter, the EFCC raised a two-count charge against Umar and his PA, Gambo Abdullahi, but for reasons unknown, the Commission later dropped Umar’s name from the charge sheet and took only his PA to court, which left Umar to continue functioning as CCT Chairman and to preside over Saraki’s case, sitting with one other member, Agwadza Atedze, who earlier signed a letter declining to continue sitting with Umar. In the course of the trial of Gambo Abdullahi before the CCT presided over by the same Justice Umar as chairman, the Court of Appeal made an order in March 2018 banning him (Justice Umar) from participating further in the case.
​The same Sunday Vanguard issue again reported that, based on the report and findings of the EFCC investigations, the former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke SAN, wrote on May 7, 2015 to former President Goodluck Jonathan, as follows:
“I am of the humble opinion that the current state of affairs in which the CCT is unable to sit while the institution is increasingly diminished by a pall of suspicion, should not be allowed to fester as it will expose the institution to public ridicule and undermine this administration’s effort to combat corruption.
“IN the light of the foregoing therefore, Your Excellency may wish to initiate the necessary steps for the removal of the CCT chairman from office.”
​It is surprising that in spite of all this, Justice Umar is still in office as chairman of the CCT, which suggests that he is being kept there as part of a pre-planned subversive design aimed at manipulating the 2019 presidential election.
This sad episode in our history would not be completely resolved by the resignation of Justice Onnoghen, as is being suggested in some quarters, unless the President, as the person who brought this whole mess upon us, also resigns. The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN), and Justice Danladi Umar must also resign.
Professor Ben Nwabueze 
Lagos,
31st January, 2019
Power Of Court To Convict Based On A Confession

Power Of Court To Convict Based On A Confession

Mr X was arrested for stealing by the police, on arrival at the station he made a voluntary confession and described how he and his friends had committed the crime. 

Under Nigerian criminal law, Mr. X can be convicted of the crime of stealing solely on the strength of his confession. .
If the confession was however involuntary and Mr. X was coerced to make it, what do you think will be the case? .
Share your comments below 
#criminallaw #law #nigerianlawyer #barrister #nigerianblawg #legaleducation #legalnaija
NBA Thanks Lawyers For Standing Firm For The Rule Of Law

NBA Thanks Lawyers For Standing Firm For The Rule Of Law

*NBA PRESIDENT EXPRESSES GRATITUDE TO ALL LAWYERS WHO STOOD FIRM ON DUE PROCESS* 
The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Paul Usoro, SAN and the National officers gladly convey their gratitude to members for the huge support and solidarity in observing the two day boycott of courts. The boycott recorded a huge success. 

The NBA shall continue to ensure that the tenets of the rule of law and due process are upheld by the Federal Government of Nigeria. The NBA shall also continue to stand firm in PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW.
Further information shall be communicated to members in the coming days. 
Thank you. 
 *Kunle Edun* 
National Publicity Secretary, NBA.
Photo Credit- Vanguard.com 
2nd Edition Of Babalola’s Law Dictionary Quiz Competition Is Here

2nd Edition Of Babalola’s Law Dictionary Quiz Competition Is Here

2ND EDITION OF BABALOLA’S LAW DICTIONARY QUIZ COMPETITION TO HOLD ON THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 IN LAGOS
Like the first edition which held at the Onikan Youth Centre, Lagos on the 1st day of June 2018, the 2nd edition of Babalola’s Law Dictionary Quiz Competition for Young Lawyers promises to be equally keenly contested.

The competition, which is for young lawyers between 0-5 years post call will have 10 finalist contest for varying prizes ranging from 1st prize of N250, 000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) cash with electronic law report, the second prize of N150, 000 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) and third prize of N100, 000 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) respectively and other consolation prizes.
Entry into the competition is now open to all eligible Lawyers (0-5years post call) by logging on to www.bldcompetition.com.
The qualifying rounds will be held in Lagos in March 2019.
The grande finale will be held in Lagos on the 7th day of June 2019 and the event is proudly sponsored by: Probitas Partner LLP, – Perchstone & Graeys, Hybrid Consult, – Law Pavilion Electronic Law Report, – FWLR, – Esher & Makarios, Esq. Magazine, – www.nigerianlawyer.com, – www.dnllawandstyle.com, – www.baristerng.com, – and Olumide Babalola LP.
Entry opens from 1st January 2019 to 28th February 2019 while the Grande finale holds in Lagos on the 7th day of June 2019 in Lagos.
Exclusive: NJC Saves The Day; Gives Justices Onnoghen & Tanko Muhammad 7 Days To Respond To Petition

Exclusive: NJC Saves The Day; Gives Justices Onnoghen & Tanko Muhammad 7 Days To Respond To Petition

The National Judicial Council has weighed in on the controversy that has engulfed the Nigerian Judiciary since the unlawful suspension of the Chief Justice Of Nigeria  by President Muhamadu Buhari without due process.
After the emergency meeting of the NJC held on Tuesday, 29th January, 2019, the NJC reached the following resolutions – 
1. That  Hon. Justices Walter Onnoghen, GCON and Tanko Muhammad, CFR respond to petitions written against them within 7 days. 
2. That the petition written against CCT Chairman, Danladi Yakubu Umar be forwarded to the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC)
3. That the NJC would reconvene on 11th February,2019
This is a victory for Nigerians, members of the Nigerian Bar Association and members of civil society who protested on what was dubbed a coup against the Judiciary by the Federal Government led by President Buhari. 
It should be noted that if the NJC allows the unlawful suspension of Justice Onnoghen to stay, then every Governor in Nigeria  will believe they have the powers to remove the Chief Judges of their states without the recommendations of the CJN.

The NJC is the only constitutional body recognised as having the powers to discipline members of the Judiciary and their intervention in the chaos caused by the President’s order is timely in restoring the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers.

@Legalnaija 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

k_basyt@yahoo.com,
@_Kolamposi

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

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

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

WHAT ARE CRYPTO-CURRENCIES?

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS OF
CRYPTOCURRENCY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partner @ Karina Tunyan & Company

Source: LinkedIn 
Photo Credit – www.medium.com 

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

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

Preamble

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

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

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

Overview of the 2018 Code

Purpose

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

Applicability/scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approach/Model

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

Structure of the Code

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

Part A: Board of
Directors and officers of the Board

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

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

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

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

Part F: Transparency –
disclosure.

Monitoring &
Implementation

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

Comment/Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NBA Institutes Technical Committee For Planning The 2019 Annual Conference

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

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