Connect with us

Law

EFCC Chair: Lawyers differ on Magu’s status

Published

on

Senate has for the second time in three months rejected Ibrahim Magu’s nomination as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) chairman. Can Magu continue in acting capacity after his rejection? TUNDE OYESINA asks

For weeks, controversies over what becomes the fate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s (EFCC) Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu after his rejection by the Senate had continued unabated. What does the law say about Magu’s rejection and his replacement?

Can President Muhammadu Buhari renominate Magu for the third time having being rejected twice by the Senate?

This had pitted lawyers against each other at the weekend as they could not agree on Magu’s legitimate role as the EFCC’s czar. Magu’s nomination to head the anti-graft agency in substantive capacity was rejected by the Senate, which predicated its decision on a secret investigation conducted on Magu’s integrity by the Department of State Services (DSS).

The DSS in Paragraph 14 of its report indicted Magu, insisting that the anti-graft czar was not fit to head the agency. It said Magu has failed integrity test.

“In the light of the foregoing, Magu has failed the integrity test,” it concluded. Magu took over EFCC leadership from Ibrahim Lamorde on November 9, 2015. His name was however forwarded to the Senate last year November for confirmation as the agency’s substantive chairman by President Muhammadu Buhari.

The Senate in turn specifically on December 15, 2016 rejected Magu’s nomination following the DSS’ report. Following his rejection, Buhari mandated the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN) to investigate the veracity of the claims made by the DSS in its secret investigation.

But thorough findings, the Justice Minister, however, in his report dismissed DSS’ report and gave Magu a clean bill of health. This clean bill of health on Magu by the Justice Minister compelled President Buhari to renominate the embattled EFCC’s chairman for the second time to the Senate for confirmation.

The re-nomination came exactly three months after he was initially rejected. Specifically, the Senate rejected Magu’s nomination for the second time based on another report written by the DSS.

The Senate had said that Magu should cease acting as the chairman of the anti-graft commission and a replacement should be sent by Mr. President for confirmation. Section 2 (3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment), Act Cap E17 LF, 2004 provides for how the chairman should be appointed.

The section says: “The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall be appointed by the President and the appointment shall be subject to the confirmation of the Senate.” This section has however set lawyers against each other as they could not agree on its intendment on Magu’s case before the Senate.

For instance, Mr. Inibehe Effiong said that the section had obviously narrowed down the appointment of the Chairman of the Commission by the President to the concurrent list and the confirmation of the Senate as the EFCC (Establishment) Act did not expressly provide for the position of an Acting Chairman of the Commission but a substantive Chairman.

He however queried Mr. President’s powers to appoint an acting chairman for the Commission. Can Magu continue to exercise powers in acting capacity despite the rejection of his nomination, having regards to Section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act quoted above? Effiong asked. He went on: “In resolving the twin issues formulated supra (above), the provisions of Section 11 of the Interpretation Act Cap. 123, Vol. 8, LFN, 2004 are apposite. For clarity and ease of reference, the said provisions are wholly reproduced infra (below): “11.

Appointment (1) Where an enactment confers a power to appoint a person either to an office or to exercise any functions, whether for a specified period or not, the power includes − (a) To appoint a person by name or to appoint the holder from time to time of a particular office; (b) To remove or suspend him; (c) Power, exercisable in the manner and subject to the limitations and conditions (if any) applicable to the power to appoint− (i) To reappoint or reinstate him; (ii) To appoint a person to act in his place, either generally or in regard to specified functions, during such time as is considered expedient by the authority in whose hand the power of appointment in question is vested.

(2) A reference in an enactment to the holder of an office shall be construed as including a reference to a person for the time being appointed to act in his place, either as respect to the functions of the office generally or the functions in regard to which he is appointed, as the case may be.”

Accordingly, Effiong said the decision of the Senate to reject the nomination of Magu for the position of substantive chairman of the EFCC has no upsetting consequence in law on his earlier appointment as the acting chairman of the EFCC by President Buhari on November 9, 2015, adding that the President had the requisite vires (powers) to appoint an acting chairman of the EFCC. But a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ozekhome disagreed.

He said the legal implication going by Section 2(3) of the EFCC Act implied that Magu had ceased to be the Executive Chairman, having left his “acting” position during his proposal to the Senate.

Ozekhome said: “He also loses his “acting” capacity. It is simply a bad case. The Senate is the only repository of confirmatory powers of the EFCC Chairman. And it has spoken. That is the beauty of the doctrine of separation of powers between the three arms of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

“Magu’s problem is self-inflicted from within the APC ruling party that is also not comfortable with the way he has carried on with his functions. It has nothing to do with efficiency alone, which he apparently possesses. The role of the anti-corruption Czar should also embody the finest and most edifying virtues in terms of observance of citizens’ fundamental rights and the allimportant rule of law of concept.

“The anti-corruption war has been fought in the most crude, bizarre, discriminatory and degrading manner that diminish the humanity of Nigerians and bring us back into the Hobesian state of nature where life was short, nasty and brutish.

“The anti-corruption fight has been fought in the most opaque, selective, bestial and humiliating manner, devoid of any scintilla or modicum of decency and respect for our collective and individual civil liberty and freedom.

“It has all but reduced Nigeria to a one Party state, with everyone decamping to APC because once you do that, you are immediately and automatically protected from the inquisition of EFCC.

It has been acting outside of and above the law, using detestable, unorthodox and extra-legal armtwisting tactics to intimidate and bamboozle hapless opponent, critics of government, opposition and critical voices of reason and dissention.

“Buhari cannot represent Magu’s name again because of the serious moral burden and ethical challenges thus imposed on him with a second definitive rejection this time after full screening.

It will raise more questions than answers as to why the insistence. This is unlike the first instance when Senate merely turned him down without screening.

“That it was done shortly after the celebrated arrival of President Buhari makes it more interesting and significant as it underlines the independence of the legislature, the Senate. It is high time President Muhammadu Buhari looked for another competent Nigerian out of about 180million people in population.”

Another lawyer, Kayode Ajulo in his reaction noted that by the extant provision of our Constitution, the Senate’s rejection of Magu, was the rejection by the entire Nigerians and what’s was expected was for the President to send another name out of 180million Nigerians to the Senate as the continuous sending of the same name was nothing but a mockery of the provisions of the law.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Law

Re-instatement: NRC’s MD risks arrest

Published

on

 

Justice Mojisola Olatoregun of a Federal High Court in Lagos has threatened to issue a bench warrant against the Managing Director of Nigeria Railway Corporation (NRC), Mr. Fidet Okhiria, over his failure to appear before the court.
The judge frowned at Okhiria’s refusal to show up in court to face a committal proceedings slammed on him by a former employee of the Corporation, Benedict Iheakam, for allegedly disobeying a court’s order.
Iheakam had through his lawyer, Johnson Esezoobo, asked the court for an order committing Okhiria and NRC’s Secretary/Legal Adviser, Canise Oklahoma, to prison over their alleged refusal to comply with a court’s order handed down more than 14 years ago.

Justice Dan Abutu (Rtd) had on February 18, 2003, while delivering judgement in a suit marked, FHC/L/CS/926/95, ordered the NRC to reinstate Iheakam into its fold and pay all his entitlements.
At the last hearing of the matter, Oklahoma’s lawyer, Opeyemi Igbayiloye, informed the court of his meetings with Esezoobo but did not file any document before the court in that regard.
He said: “At the last proceedings, the court directed that our client should show cause why he did not comply with the court’s order. It is unfortunate that we did not have documentary evidence that there is a cause to resolve the matter and comply with order of court.”

In his response, Esezoobo while confirming Igbayiloye’s submissions regarding the meetings added that he was informed by the NRC’s legal adviser that the MD is currently in China.
Piqued by the development, Justice Olatoregun asked if Okhiria is bigger than the law.

“Order of the court must always be obeyed. He must not show himself to be above law. Is he too big to appear in court? I give him a week to obey court”, the judge said
The matter has been adjourned to February 21 for Okhiria to appear in court.

Justice Abutu had in his judgement held that a purported retirement letter of Iheakam, a Principal Technical Officer at NRC, dated November 1, 1994, is contrary to his contract of employment and is therefore unlawful, null and void.
The judge noted that NRC had sometimes in 1992, nominated Iheakam as one of those to attend a three-month Commonwealth sponsored course in Zambia.

“During the three months period, they were given $500 per month. The total amount for the three months was $1,500, given to them in Zambia currency. They were not given estacode, but were orally told that on their return to Nigeria, they would be paid all entitlements.

“I have carefully perused the standard conditions of service of the defendant, which govern the appointment of the plaintiff admitted as exhibit 2 in this case and I am unable to see any provision thereof, which permits the retirement of an employee for no reason.

“I hold that the retirement of the plaintiff is invalid, null and void. The plaintiff is entitled to continue to have right to be treated as an employee of the defendant, notwithstanding his purported retirement vide letter dated 1st November 1994 admitted as Exhibit 11A in this case.

“The defendant is hereby ordered to reinstate the plaintiff forthwith to its employment and to restore him to his rank as Principal Technical Officer 1(Metal) with full salary and all entitlements from October 1994 to the date of judgment herein.

“The sum of $21,285, being the total of estacode allowance for 93 days is hereby awarded for the plaintiff to be paid by the defendants,” the judge ordered.
The management of NRC has refused to comply with the court’s order till date despite losing out in all their motions to appeal the judgment from 2005 to 2014 when the last application was struck out for incompetence.

Continue Reading

Law

Row over reordered sequence of elections

Published

on

AKEEM NAFIU writes that although lawyers were at the weekend unanimous that the National Assembly was constitutionally empowered to make and amend laws for the good of the country, they, however, faulted the assembly’s committee on Electoral Act (amendment) Bill for a reordered sequence of 2019 general elections

 

 

Notwithstanding last week’s disagreement among members of the National Assembly on a report of an amendment carried out on the Electoral Act which reordered sequence of the 2019 general election, lawyers at the weekend expressed disgust for the National Assemblymen to dabble into the issue when the elections were already near.
They said the amendment was carried out in bad faith while querying the rationale behind the lawmakers’ action for the amendment.

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had on January 9 at a news conference in Abuja released guidelines and schedule of operations as well as the time-table for the 2019 elections.
Its chairman, Professor Mahmud Yakubu, said the notice of the general election would be out on August 17 in accordance with Section 30 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010 which provided that the notice of election be made not later than 90 days before the elections.
Besides, the INEC chairman said the conduct of party primaries including resolution of disputes arising from the primaries would take place between August 18 and October 7.
Yakubu said: “The campaigns of political parties for Presidential and National Assembly elections should begin by November 18 while that of governorship and House of Assembly is December 1.”

According to Yakubu, the last day for the submission of nomination forms by political parties for the presidential and the National Assembly elections was December 3, while the governorship and the House of Assembly was December 17.
However, going by the schedule and guidelines, the presidential and the National Assembly poll would hold on February 16, 2019 while the governorship and the House of Assembly elections were fixed for March 2, 2019.
But, these guidelines and time-table for the 2019 general election as released by INEC on January 9 had already set the stage for an unending clash between the National Assembly and the electoral umpire over which of them had the power to actually fix time-table for a general election following an adoption of the National Assembly’s committee report which had reordered sequence of the 2019 elections.
The adoption of the committee’s report had reversed the time-table already released by INEC.

Following the adoption of the reordered sequence of elections, the presidential election would no longer hold on February 16, 2019 should President Muhammadu Buhari give assent to the proposed bill.
Although the adoption of the reordered sequence of the elections had caused a sharp disagreement among member of the National Assembly, it is believed that such tinkering with the sequence of the elections would no doubt trigger an unending legal disputes ahead of the 2019 general election especially when such adoption was coming a few weeks after the assemblymen amended the Electoral Act 2010 with an inclusion of Section 25(1).

The amendment would now reorder the sequence of the elections to begin with the National Assembly, followed by the governorship and the state Houses of Assembly and ending it with the presidential election.
However, a twist was added to the development when the House of Representatives began a process to amend the Electoral Act 2010 with the inclusion of Section 25(1) in the law.

This was to reorder the sequence of the elections, to commence with the National Assembly, followed by the governorship and State Houses of Assembly, and presidential as last.
This, however, countered the sequence announced by INEC which had put the presidential and the National Assembly elections first and the governorship and the states assembly second.
The exercise reached its climax last week when the National Assembly Conference Committee on Electoral Act (amendment) Bill adopted the reordered sequence of the 2019 general election.

The Chairman of Senate Committee on INEC, Suleiman Nazif, insisted that the bill did not in any way violate any provisions of Section 76 of the 1999 Constitution which empowered INEC to fix dates and conduct elections.
He said: “Empowering INEC to that effect was duplicated in the bill just as powers conferred on the National Assembly by Section 4 (2) of the Constitution were exercised in relation to rescheduling of elections.”

Nazif was of the view that the inclusion of Section 25(1) which changed the sequence of election different from the one earlier released by INEC had not violated any provision of the laws governing the operations of the electoral body.
He was echoed by the House of Representatives’ chairman Committee on INEC, Edward Pwajok, who said that the House concurred with the Senate on the issue because of the need to give credibility to the electoral process.
Pwajok said: “The sequence of election provision in the bill is not targeted at anybody but aimed at giving credibility to the electoral process. This is by giving the electorate the opportunity to vote based on qualities of candidates vying for National Assembly seat.

“Whether it would be assented to or not by the president, as far as we are concerned, remains in the realm of conjecture for now but if such eventually happens, we will know how to cross the bridge.”
According to Pwajok, the National Assembly would have no option than to go ahead and adopt the reordered sequence of the elections should President Buhari refuse to sign the amended bill.
A Senator representing Kogi West Senatorial District and member of the committee, Dino Melaye, also shared the same view.

He said that while date for election was within the prerogative power of the electoral umpire, extant laws had also given schedules for such elections as sole responsibility of the National Assembly.
“So, contrary to reports and comments by some Nigerians on the reordered sequence of election, National Assembly has not overlapped its boundaries,” he said.

But INEC insisted that it had the sole power under the Electoral Act 2010 to fix dates for elections as released on January 9 as it was a follow-up to the announcement of dates for the elections that was earlier made on March 9, 2017.
INEC chief Yakubu said the commission had arrived at the schedule of activities after its meeting held on the same day.
He said: “In a clear departure from past practice when dates were

announced close to elections, the commission decided that henceforth our Presidential and National Assembly elections will hold on the 3rd Saturday of the month of February of each election year, while governorship and State Assembly elections will hold two weeks later.

“When the end of tenure of the FCT Area Councils coincides with the general election, the FCT Council elections are to be combined with the governorship and State Assembly elections.
“By these decisions, the commission has fixed Saturday, February 16, 2019 as the date for Presidential and National Assembly elections while governorship and the States Assembly elections will hold on Saturday, March 2, 2019.

“Since the tenure of FCT Chairmen and Councilors will end in 2019, the Area Council elections will also hold on Saturday, March 2, 2019. Consequently, while other Nigerians elect their governors and members of States’ Assemblies, citizens in the FCT will elect Chairmen and Councilors for the Area Councils.”

Meanwhile, the Senate last Wednesday passed the conference committee report on amendment to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Act.
The passage of the report was followed by dissenting voices calling for points of order within the chamber.

The amendment to the electoral act, if approved by President Muhammadu Buhari, will uphold the change in the order of election as adopted by the lawmakers.
The federal lawmakers want their election held first in 2019, before that of the state lawmakers and state governors, with the last being the presidential election.

Since 2003, the presidential and National Assembly polls were being held first on the same day, followed by governorship and state legislative polls on the second day of the general election.
The House of Representatives was the first on January 23 to amend the Electoral Act and effect a change in the order of the 2019 general election.

The change recommended by the lower chamber came barely a month after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) released the time-table for the general election.
The amendment by the House was made at the Committee of the whole House, presided over by Deputy Speaker, Yussuff Lasun.

The lawmakers amended the Act while considering the report of the House Committee on Electoral Matters which proposed amendment of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).
The House amended Section 25 of the Principal Act and substituted it with a new Section 25 (1).
According to the section, the elections shall be held in the following order: (a) National Assembly election (b) State Houses of Assembly and Governorship elections (c) Presidential election.
Similarly, Section 87 was amended by adding a new Section 87 (11) with a marginal note “time for primaries of political parties.”

Lawyers speak
Apparently fumed at the engineered reordered sequence of elections by the National Assembly, lawyers at the weekend said the assemblymen erred by their action.
Notwithstanding the National Assembly’s view on the reordered sequence of the elections, lawyers were unanimous that neither Mr. President nor the National Assembly had legitimate powers to dictate to INEC on how it would organize and conduct general election.

To them, since INEC would always rely on its powers as guaranteed by the Electoral Act 2010 and its guidelines without recourse to the other arms of government, the power to roll out guidelines and time-table for the general election was exclusively within INEC.

Besides, the lawyers in separate telephone interviews with New Telegraph Law at the weekend while acknowledging that the lawmakers were indeed empowered by the provisions of Section 4 of the Constitution to make and amend laws, said the rationale behind the amendment to the Electoral Act 2010 and the purported adoption of the reordered sequence of the elections was self-serving.

For instance, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Chief Mike Ozekhome, believes that nothing stops the National Assembly from altering the election sequence through an amendment of the Electoral Act.
He said: “What the National Assembly is not allowed to do is to change this law less than six months to any election. We still have 14 months before the election, so they can amend the law to change the order.

“But, beyond it, it is more responsible and more politically correct to put lesser elections first before the biggest election. The little masquerade first dances in the village square before the biggest of them all comes out.
“It will have a negative effect if you hold the presidential election first before others. Others like governors or senators would want to go where the president had gone so that they would not be in opposition.
“Not only that, the person who has won the presidency can decide to muscle others and remove those they don’t want within one week.

“So, let the small elections come first, which will make the presidential candidate to lobby, work very hard and go down to the remotest parts of Nigeria to campaign, because he cannot take anything for granted. So, I think the National Assembly is right in terms of political correctness and morality.”

But another Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Seyi Sowemimo, disagreed with Ozekhome’s view.
Sowemimo while acknowledging the power of the lawmakers to make laws for the country, berated them for putting their interests above those of other Nigerians they claimed to represent.
He said: “Definitely, if they alter the time-table that INEC has done, they are acting in bad faith. The situation of the country is one that public office holders no longer act in public interests. As we have it now, the lawmakers are only interested in having their own elections when their interest will be protected.

“The lawmakers are entitled to make any law, even when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) says it is acting within the law, the National Assembly can change the law. They are the lawmakers and they can change the law to suit themselves.

“However, what I think is more important is to focus on the fact that what we are dealing with is a political matter. It is one in which all the parties are interested in having a time-table that serve their best interests. The lawmakers will want their own election to occur when their interests will be protected.

They would not want to support some other people in other elections and those ones succeed and when their own time comes, the rules of the game would have changed.
“So, I think the action of the lawmakers is more of political expediency than any other thing. The lawmakers are trying to adopt a political strategy. They make the laws and whatever the law is at every point in time they can always alter it to suit their purpose.”

Sowemimo was echoed by a rights activist, Mr. Jiti Ogunye, who noted that the silence of the law in mandating the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to fix the order of election was what the legislature now exploited to stipulate the order in which election will be conducted.
However, ogunye berated the legislators for changing an electoral law for selfish reasons and political survival in office.

He said: “There are issues that have arisen in the action of the lawmakers. This is because we can debate the reasonableness with respect to all the members of the National Assembly of the act that they have done. Why will you stipulate the order of elections and then not allow INEC to exercise its discretionary powers as to the order in which elections should be held? What is the good reason behind this action? INEC should fix the election date and when we are saying this, the implication is that it should fix the order in which the election is to be held.

The silence of the law in mandating INEC to fix the order of election is what the legislature is now exploiting to stipulate the order in which election will be conducted. If you ask me, that shouldn’t be the business of the legislature.
“What I think the National Assembly is trying to do is to protect the interest of its members who are interested in contesting election and those who are members of the ruling party who will soon fall out and all of that.

“What they are trying to do is to put the presidential election last. In which case, it would not be possible for the executive branch of government and the party leadership to compel them and coerce them to work for the candidate of their party, indeed, presumably, the current president.

“So, they want to secure their position first and leave the current president if he is going to contest election in the cold to sort out himself. This is bad for party politics. Look, you don’t change an electoral law for selfish reasons and political survival in office. It is an indication that the lawmakers are allowing personal interest and consideration to override their sense of duty to the country. There is no good reason to stagger the election that way.

“With this arrangement, we are going to spend more money and shut down the economy for at least a month, among other attendant implications. This is ridiculous. The Nigeria people do not exist for legislators. But on the contrary, the legislators exist to serve the Also speaking in that line, lawyer and National President of the Campaign for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Malachy Ugwumadu, disclosed that the action of the lawmakers was self-serving and self-centered.

He was of the view that the promulgation of the Electoral Act 2010 has put the burden of specific business of general management and conduct of elections in Nigeria on the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
He said: “If you take it from the angle of the constitutional provisions of the core mandate or responsibility of the legislature, you will be tempted to argue that the lawmakers are at liberty to do what they have done. The legislature under Section 4 of the Constitution is empowered to make and amend laws. With this, one may think that the lawmakers are in order to make laws reordering the sequence of elections.

“However, if you take a closer look at the Act of the National Assembly already promulgated by the same legislature, which is the Electoral Act 2010, you will found out that the specific business of general management and conduct of elections in Nigeria is the sole responsibility of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). If this is the case, you cannot isolate the issue of the sequence of elections from that global responsibility of INEC.

Continue Reading

Law

‘I had uneventful first court appearance’

Published

on

Funke Adeoye, an alumnus of the University of Benin (UNIBEN), was called to the Bar in 2013. She tells AKEEM NAFIU how her journey into the legal profession began

 

Background
Funke Adeoye is an associate lawyer at Azright Legal, a full service law firm in Abuja. She was called to the Bar on November 28, 2013. Adeoye, who attended Gladys College, Ketu, Lagos and LL.B at UNIBEN, is an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIarb) UK as well as a member of Young International Council for Commercial Arbitrators (ICCA).

I am ‘Funke Adeoye (Mrs), called to the Nigerian Bar on November 28, 2013. I currently practice law at Azright Legal, a full service law firm in Abuja. I am also the Executive Director of Humans Behind Bars Aid Initiative, a social-profit organization that offers legal, medical and restorative aid to women and juvenile awaiting trial in Nigerian Prison.

I had my O’levels at Gladys College, Ketu, Lagos and my LL.B degree from University of Benin. I am an Associate of Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIarb) UK as well as a member of Young ICCA (International Council for Commercial Arbitrators)”.

Why law?
I chose to study law because I love writing, reading and talking. At the time I made my choice, law seemed like the best option suitable for my ability.
Speaking on challenges confronting her as a female lawyer, Adeoye regretted inability of some male clients to distinguish between professionalism and their dealings with female lawyers. This she said had made her to always assert her stance in every discussion with male clients.

“In my experience, people especially the male folks consider female lawyers to be incredibly smart, and at times some male clients find it hard to draw the line between a professional and a pleasure seeker. Most times, I have to go out of my way to assert my stance that I am a female, I have brains and beauty but I never mix business with pleasure,” she said.

Though she managed to move a motion for substituted service on her first appearance as a lawyer in court, Adeoye could not forget how she was frightened on her first appearance in court while trying to announce her appearance.
She said: “My first solo appearance in court was uneventful. I had accompanied my senior colleagues quite a number of times before my “baptism”. Apart from having cold and shaky feet before I announced my appearance, every other thing went well. I overcame the shaky feet as soon as I announced my appearance and went straight up to move my motion Her fond memory revolved round an event in 2016 where her determination helped in securing freedom for 20 persons accused of murder.

She relived the memory this way: “One time in 2016, while I was practicing in Lagos, My senior colleague asked me to stand down a criminal matter we had both been handling at a Federal High Court presided over by Hon. Justice Abang. The prosecution counsel had informed my learned senior that he had an emergency and will be late for court and my senior colleague had a contentious motion to argue at the High Court.

“My lord had always granted us the grace of standing down the said matter as we had 20 accused persons arraigned and the courtroom was very small. I went to court and announced my appearance, after which I intimated the court on the state of things. The court’s words after my plea to stand down the matter was resounding “stand down refused, counsel go on with your case or I will adjourn this case till after vacation”
The accused persons at the time had been denied bail and had been in prison for close to two years. We were lucky to have a day-to-day trial and an adjournment since vacation was never contemplated.

So, despite my not been mentally prepared to go on with the trial, I called our next witness to the box (one of the accused persons) and went on with examination-in-chief and tendering of documents. In the course of that, the prosecution counsel appeared suddenly and cross-examined the witness why I made my objections where necessary.

Needless to say, the court commended my grit in front of my senior colleague and other lawyers at the next adjourned day. Today, the accused persons have been discharged and acquitted of all the charges filed against them which included but not limited to murder, pipeline vandalisation and conspiracy and every time I think of it, I can’t help but smile that I fully participated in letting justice run its full course.

On her dream judiciary, Adeoye said she envisioned a truly independent judiciary devoid of executive or legislative interference which is willing and ready to apply technology in dispensing justice.
She said: “A judiciary independent of the other arms of government (executive and legislature) as well as a judiciary that would make the most of technology in swift dispensation of justice is the judiciary of my dream.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Take advantage of our impressive online traffic; advertise your brands and products on this site. Call

 

For Advert Placement and Enquiries, Call:

Mobile Phone:+234 803 304 2915

 

Online Editor: Michael Abimboye

Mobile Phone: 0813 699 6757

Email: mmakesense@gmail.com

 

Copyright © 2018 NewTelegraph Newspaper.

%d bloggers like this: