Post on 07-Apr-2016
description
Nigeria Bar Association Enugu Branch Law Week/Dinner
“THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN NATION-BUILDING”
SPEECH DELIVERED BY:
TAYO OYETIBO, SAN
As Keynote Speaker
ON 3RD DECEMBER, 2012
2
PROTOCOL
It gives me great pleasure to be invited to be the guest speaker at this
occasion of the 2012 Nigeria Bar Association Enugu Branch Law
Week/Dinner.
When I was informed by the Chairman of the Law Week/Dinner Committee,
Chief C.O.C. Egumgbe, that your Branch would want me to be the guest
speaker at this occasion, it did not take me much time to make up my mind to
accept the invitation because I considered it a great honour and privilege to
have been invited to speak to a distinguished audience made up of members
of a vibrant branch of the NBA.
Having decided to accept the invitation, the next question was the topic on
which your branch would want me to speak but I got a blank cheque for an
answer but with a caveat that the topic should be related to the theme of this
year’s Law Week which is: “ A D M I N I S T R A T I O N O F J U S T I C E I N N I G E R I A :
T H E P A S T , T H E P R E S E N T A N D T H E W A Y F O R W A R D ” .
I have therefore taken into consideration the theme of the Law Week in
choosing the topic on which I would be speaking to you today which is: “ T H E
R O L E O F T H E C O U R T S I N N A T I O N - B U I L D I N G ” .
3
INTRODUCTION
A paper on the role of the Courts in nation building ought to begin by shedding
light on the concept of nation-building so as to provide a foundational basis for
the examination of the role of the courts in that regard. For this reason, it
would be useful to briefly consider the concept of nation-building before
examining the role of the Courts in nation-building.2
THE CONCEPT OF NATION-BUILDING
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,3 Nation-building refers to the
process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the
state. This process aims at the unification of the people within the state so that
it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can
involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructural development to foster
social harmony and economic growth. It then goes on to define the concept as
“[t]he development of behaviours, values, language, institutions, and physical
structures that elucidate history and culture, concretize and protect the
present and insure the future identity and independence of the nation.”
In his paper: “ The challenges of Nations Building: The case of Nigeria”
presented on 7th February, 2008 at the First year Anniversary Lecture of
Mustapha Akanbi Foundation, Professor Ibrahim A. Gambari4 posited on the
subject of nation-building thus:
“Nation-building has many important aspects. Firstly, it is about
building a political entity which corresponds to a given territory, based
on some generally accepted rules, norms and principles, and a common
citizenship. Secondly, it is also about building institutions which
4
symbolize the political entity-institutions such as a bureaucracy, an
economy, the judiciary, universities, a civil service, and civil society
organisations.
Above all else, however, nation-building is about building common
sense of purpose, a sense of shared destiny, a collective imagination of
belonging. Nation-building is therefore about building the tangible and
intangible threads that hold a political entity together and gives it a
sense of purpose.”
From whatever angle one looks at the concept of nation-building, it must be
borne in mind that there is an unassailable truism that nation-building can only
be properly and truly carried out by the people and institutions of the country
concerned. Any hope that outsiders or foreigners would be the drivers of the
vehicle of nation-building is no more than a political illusion. If anyone
entertains any doubt about this truism, I would urge him to read the speech of
President George Bush of the United States of America which he made on
October 11, 2000 on the intervention of his country in Somalia where he said:
“Somalia ... it started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into
a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong.
The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price and
so i don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation
building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I
think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it’s
in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise.
And same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either .... I think what
we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to
build the nations ...”5
I agree entirely with the views of former President Bush that it is the people who live
in a country that have the primary responsibility of building that nation. For this
reason, I have fathomed the notion of “ n a t i o n - b u i l d i n g ” for the purpose of
examining the role of the Courts in Nation-building in this paper as: t h e c o n s c i o u s
5
e f f o r t s o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d p e o p l e o f a c o u n t r y t o e m p l o y t h e n a t u r a l a n d
h u m a n r e s o u r c e s o f t h e c o u n t r y a s w e l l a s s t a t e p o w e r s t o f o s t e r a
h a r m o n i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s t a t e a n d t h e v a r i o u s p e o p l e s t h a t m a k e
u p t h e c o u n t r y u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e v a r i o u s p e o p l e s i n t r i n s i c a l l y f e e l
h a p p y t o b e l o n g t o t h e C o u n t r y a n d f u l f i l t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e i r e x i s t e n c e a s a
n a t i o n a n d a s c i t i z e n s o f t h a t n a t i o n .
It is this definition that would guide us in subsequent discourse of the role of
the courts in nation-building in this paper. But before embarking on that
discourse, it would be useful to highlight two postulates thrown up by this
definition.
These are that:
a) Efforts in nation-building, must be geared towards fostering a
harmonious relationship between the state and the various peoples that
make up the country; and
b) The purpose must be self actualization for the citizens and the
promotion of a feeling of happiness on the part of the various peoples
for being an intrinsic part of the Country.
It is submitted that these two postulates are political derivatives of the political
objective stated in Section 15 (4) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that:
“(t)he state shall foster a feeling of belonging and of involvement
among the various peoples of the federation to the end that loyalty to
the nation shall override sectional loyalties.”
We would now proceed to examine the role of the Courts in nation-building
using these dialectic postulates as our guide or signpost.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
6
The courts in Nigeria are creations of statutes. This has been so even from
the colonial time before independence. However for the purpose of this paper,
it would be convenient to base our consideration of the constitutional
framework of our courts on the period beginning with the 1960 Independence
Constitution. Both the 1960 Independence Constitution and the 1963
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provided for the establishment
of superior courts of record as an independent arm of government.6
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, on its part provides
in its Section 6(1) and (2) specifically as follows7:
“(1) The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the
courts to which this section relates, being courts established for
the Federation.
(2) The judicial powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to
which this section relates, being courts established, subject as
provided by this Constitution, for a State.”
It is submitted that the judicial implication of the foregoing provisions is that
the Constitution is the fountain of the Court’s authority in the exercise of its
judicial powers and as such, it is the Constitution that the Courts must look up
to and not any of the other two arms of government in playing its role in
nation-building.
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE
The role of the Courts in nation-building is traceable to the Constitution. Thus
Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution8 provides that:
“The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing
provisions of this Section –
7
(b) shall extend to all matters between persons, or between
government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to
all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the
determination of any question as to the Civil rights and
obligations of that person;”
It is clear from the foregoing provision that the role of the Courts in nation-
building can only be “interventionist” and not “originative” in nature. It is
interventionist because, according to the language of the Constitution, there
has to be a matter between persons or between government or authority and
persons before the courts can begin to play any role by exercising their judicial
powers. “P e r s o n s ” here include natural and non-natural persons.
Although the role of the Courts has been encapsulated in forty-two words in
the provision quoted above, it is nonetheless, as wide as Nigeria itself. In this
regard, it has been held by the Courts themselves that it is their duty to
expound but not to expand their (role) in interpreting this provision.9
It is submitted that, in exercising their judicial powers under the Constitution,
the courts in Nigeria must constantly bear in mind the expectation of the
peoples of Nigeria that they wish to enjoy a feeling of happiness for being an
intrinsic part of the Country. Any exercise of judicial power therefore that does
not foster a harmonious relationship between the state and the various
peoples that make up the Country in a manner that promotes a feeling of
happiness on the part of the people for being an intrinsic part of the Country,
is, in my view, a failure of justice. Can it be open to debate that the doing of
justice is the primary role of the Courts in nation-building? Methinks not. What
our Courts need to do therefore is to adopt a pragmatic approach, in the
dispensation of justice, in a manner that would assure the citizenry of its
efforts at nation-building. Our Courts would seem to have, over the years,
strived to accomplish this objective. Permit me to review, a few of such
8
instances, with a view to providing a basis for evaluating how much have been
achieved by the Courts in their efforts at nation-building and charting the way
forward in the administration of justice in Nigeria.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT The legal system of Nigeria cannot be effectively discussed without reference
to our colonial experience.10 Nigeria gained independence from Great Britain
on 1st October, 1960. Before the attainment of independence, the Colonial
government had effectively introduced into Nigeria the English legal system.
Under the English legal system, the doctrine of stare decisis otherwise known
as judicial precedent is well established. This doctrine postulates that a court
lower in the judicial hierarchy is bound by the decision of a higher court.
The rule is designed to ensure uniformity in decision-making, foster stability
and enhance the development of a consistent and coherent body of laws as
well as assure equality of treatment for litigants similarly situated.11 Following
this doctrine, lawyers as well as the Courts are wont to cite decided cases as
authority for propositions made in a given case.
Nigerian legal system remained in infancy after political independence by
reason of which our courts had to rely mostly on English cases as authority for
decisions being rendered by them due to paucity of local authorities on many
areas of our jurisprudence.
Indeed as at independence, appeals lay to the Privy Council from the
Supreme Court of Nigeria.12 Upon the attainment of a republican status in
1963 however, the Federal Supreme Court became the highest court in
Nigeria.13 Although, appeals no longer lay to the Privy Council under the 1963
Constitution, yet Courts in Nigeria still continued to relish the citing of English
9
cases as authority for their decisions such that even at the Supreme Court,
references are more often than not made to the decisions of the High Courts
in England rather than the Court of Appeal of Nigeria!
The concept of nation-building involves the use of state power such as the
judicial power of the Courts to promote and propagate autochthonous things.
These of course include decisions of local courts. It would seem that the
Supreme Court of Nigeria is in agreement with this view although there has
not been a consistent demonstration of this tendency on its part. In
A T T O R N E Y - G E N E R A L B E N D E L S T A T E V . A T T O R N E Y - G E N E R A L O F
T H E F E D E R A T I O N 1 4 , E S O , J . S . C in an attitude of nation-building expressed
his judicial disgust for the continued promotion and propagation of foreign
judicial decisions in our courts when he said:
“Gone should be the days, if ever they were, when the decisions of
other courts in any common law country are to be accepted in this
country as precedents in the like of the Delphic Oracle. The decisions
of any court, other than those of this Court, are only to be treated as
the respected opinions of those courts, which were given in their
wisdom, under given circumstances and given environmental and
cultural background, and no more. They are, at best, to give a guidance
of what those courts did in those circumstances, and the wisdom to be
drawn from them by this Court would be reflected in its dealing with
the peculiar problems of this country, to which the Constitution which
this country operates, is peculiar.”15
O B A S E K I , J . S . C . was no less repulsive. He said in his contribution:
“just as Australian courts apply Australian Law and American Courts
apply American Law, be they state or federal, Nigerian courts are
enjoined by the Nigerian Constitution to follow Nigerian Law which is
applicable to the cases before them no matter how attractively
10
presented before them, cases and authorities from other countries of
similar judicial system as ours may be.”16
In pursuance of their role in nation-building, our courts particularly the Court of
Appeal and Supreme Court ought to be citing, more frequently, decisions of
the High Courts of Nigeria as authorities on issues on which the Supreme
Court has not made pronouncements rather than decisions of the High Court
of England, which are mainly reported in the King’s Bench Division and
Queen’s Bench Division Law Reports and other Law Reports.
PROMOTION OF INVESTMENTS
The courts in Nigeria ought to use their judicial powers to promote and
encourage investments in the nation’s economy. Citizens and Institutions that
have invested in various sectors of the economy ought not to be made to
regret their investments by reason of oppressive judicial process. There are
many areas of our judicial process that could make investors wish that they
had invested in other developed economies where the judicial process would
be investment friendly.
Take for example a simple case of a pensioner who had invested in real
estate in this country in the hope that the rents accruing from his investment
would be used to sustain himself in his retirement. There have been cases of
recovery of premises that have lasted more than ten years in court in some of
which the tenants had stopped paying rents whilst the case remain pending in
court.
A N I A G O L U , J . S . C had occasion to express his revulsion at the sense of
injustice disclosed by the facts and circumstances of the case in P A N A S I A N
A F R I C A N C O . L I M I T E D V . N A T I O N A L I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N ( N I G )
11
L T D 1 7 but ended up being helpless as he was not able to help the
investor/landlord who had purchased a property for its own use but was
unable to recover it from the sitting tenant for over five years after the
purchase.
His Lordship had this to say in expression of his revulsion:
“Finally, it now remains for me to point out that oppressive as the
situation may appear against the respondent-landlords in this appeal
who had been unable to put the premises to the use for which they
bought it since 1977, effect must be given to the law as found. Against
the background of the harsh realities of accommodation difficulties in
Lagos, the 1976 Edict appeared designed by the Lawmakers to give
optimum protection to tenants in Lagos State, against eviction from
their tenements, except upon clearly defined procedure which must be
meticulously followed.
Having said so, the appellants may well ponder the inadvisability of
using the provisions of an Edict, primarily founded upon a desire to do
justice, as an engine of injustice and oppression against their
landlords. It was an Edict designed to protect and do justice to tenants.
In so doing, it was not intended that its provisions should be
manipulated by tenants for infliction of hardship upon landlords.”
It can be seen from the passage quoted from the judgment of his Lordship that
the Court failed the litigant/investor on that occasion. Thus the Court found
that the tenant had invoked the provision of the law to oppress the
investor/landlord (and many tenants do engage in this oppressive conduct in
this Country), but was unable to provide succour to the landlord. An
investor/landlord who found himself in the shoes of the Respondent in this
case is most likely to feel unhappy to have invested in the real estate sector of
the economy and would in all probabilities have wished that his investments
12
were placed in an economy where the legal system could timeously assist him
in deriving benefits from his investments.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
As part of its contribution to the process of nation-building, our Courts ought to
ensure a Criminal justice system in which persons accused of crimes are
promptly tried and commensurate penalty imposed on those found guilty of
criminal offences. It leaves much to be desired in a nation where a poor man
who is accused of stealing a goat is speedily tried and when convicted, is
sentenced to a term of six months or one year imprisonment whilst a former
governor of a state who is accused of stealing over N 1 B i l l i o n of State funds
enjoys the privilege of a criminal process that allows his trial to be prolonged
for a period of over three years during which period he is able to gallivant
across the globe and even when he is eventually convicted, he is sentenced
to a term of imprisonment of say three or six months. I have added to this
speech an addendum of a comparative analysis of some cases involving the
poor and lowly in the society on the one hand and the high and mighty on the
other. From the addendum, you can see the capriciousness of our criminal
justice system.
The use of the criminal justice process as a tool in nation-building cannot be
over-emphacized. If the citizenry are assured of a swift criminal justice
procedure that ensures a three way traffic justice system in which there is
justice to the state, justice to the accused who is alleged to have committed
the crime and justice to the victim of the crime, then the courts would have
succeeded in promoting a feeling of happiness on the part of the people for
being an intrinsic part of the country whenever they come in contact with the
criminal justice process. O P U T A , J . S . C , that former “Socrates of the Supreme
13
Court” aptly encapsulated what I am trying to say here in his notable
pronouncement in the case of J O S I A H V . T H E S T A T E where he said:
“...justice is not a one-way traffic. It is not justice for the appellant
(accused) only. Justice is not even only a two-way traffic. It is really a
three-way traffic-justice for the appellant accused of a...crime...; justice
for the victim... and finally justice for the society at large-the society
whose social norms and values had been desecrated and broken by the
criminal act complained of...”19
I am persuaded in my belief that any criminal justice system in which
decisions being reached by the Courts in criminal cases do not take into
consideration the impact of those judicial decisions on the social norms and
values of the larger society is destructive of the moral fabric of the nation in
which such system is entrenched.
POLITICAL PROCESS
Nigeria as a nation has chosen democracy for herself. From time to time the
Courts would be called upon by politicians and institutions involved in the
democratic process to intervene in disputes arising from the electoral process.
The courts must at all times stand on the side of free and fair elections bearing
in mind that a free and fair election which gives birth to a democratic
government does not begin and end with the act of voting. An election is a
process20 beginning with the registration of voters. The courts must therefore
ensure, when called upon to intervene, that the stream of the electoral
process is not polluted by acts that are contraceptive to the birth of a truly
democratic government. In this regard the courts ought to bear in mind the
observations of A N I A G O L U , J . S . C that the essence of democratic elections is
that they be free and fair and that in that atmosphere of freedom, fairness and
14
impartiality, citizens will exercise their freedom of choice of who their
representatives shall be by casting their votes in favour of those candidates
who in their deliberate judgment, they consider possess the qualities which
mark them out as preferable candidates to those others who are contesting
with them.
Free and fair election which will give birth to a truly democratic government
cannot, therefore, tolerate inflation of the number of registered voters in a
particular constituency, thuggery or violence of any kind, corrupt practice,
impersonation, undue influence, intimidation, disorderly conduct and any acts
which may have the effect of impeding the free exercise by the voter of his
franchise.21 “Democratic governments” founded on elections that are not
free and fair are, in my view, built on political quicksands.
Although such governments may enjoy what I would call a synthetic political
followership, they ultimately weaken the citizenry’s faith in the nation on which
they are foisted. Our courts have an onerous duty of preventing their
emergence.
The Courts also have a duty to ensure that there is popular participation in the
political process. This role was manifested in the decision of the Supreme
Court in I N E C V . M U S A 2 1 a where the court upheld the right of every Nigerian to
form and belong to any political party of his choice. A Y O O L A , J . S . C who
delivered the leading judgment of the court had opined thus:
“...all powers, legislative, executive and judicial must ultimately be
traced to the Constitution. Secondly, the legislative powers of the
legislature cannot be exercised inconsistently with the Constitution.
Where it is so exercised, it is invalid to the extent of such inconsistency.
Thirdly, where the Constitution has enacted exhaustively in respect of
any situation, conduct or subject, a body that claims to legislate in
addition to what the Constitution had enacted must show that it has
15
derived the legislative authority to do so from the Constitution.
Fourthly, where the Constitution sets the condition for doing a thing,
no legislation of the National Assembly or of a State House of
Assembly can alter those Constitution in any way, directly or indirectly,
unless, of course the Constitution itself as an attribute of its supremacy
expressly so authorised.”21b
On the basis of this principle, the court concluded that:
“Section 79(2)(c) of the Act was invalid because it was inconsistent
with Section 40 of the Constitution. In terms of Section 45(1)(a) of the
Constitution, there is nothing reasonably justifiable in a democratic
society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public
morality or public health in prohibiting a member of the public Service
or Civil Service of the Federation, a State or Local Government or
Area Council from eligibility to be registered as a member of a political
party.”21c
It was the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case that liberalised the legal
regime for the registration of Political Parties and opened up the political
space for popular participation.
CORRUPTION
It is generally said that corruption is a cankerworm that has eaten deep into
Nigeria. I say it is not only a cankerworm but also caterpillar and locust which
have ravaged our economic base and negatively affected the quality of life
which the ordinary citizen would otherwise have been enjoying at the instance
of the State. It is the duty of our Courts to strive to abolish corruption in their
effort at nation–building.
16
Indeed Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “the State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.” Thus the concept of
nation-building and corruption are antithetical to each other. The objective of
corruption is to steal, kill and destroy, so it is evil.22 But nation-building is aimed
at fostering a harmonious relationship between the State and the citizenry with
a view to promoting a feeling of happiness and belonging to the end that
loyalty to the nation shall override other primordial loyalties. Our Courts must
therefore at all times stand against corruption in all its ramifications. But a
judiciary can only fight corruption if it is peopled by incorruptible personnel.
This means that the role of the courts in fighting corruption in its efforts at
nation-building must begin with the appointment of incorruptible people to the
Bench. A corrupt judge is more dangerous than an armed robber. His activity
strikes at the very root of the fountain of justice. Thus justice is rooted in
confidence and confidence is shattered and destroyed when the dispenser of
justice is revealed to have been motivated by considerations other than law.
In his Valedictory speech delivered on Monday 24th January 2005, Justice
S.O. Uwaifo said:
“a corrupt judge is more harmful to the society than a man who runs
amok with a dagger in a crowded street; while the man with the dagger
can be restrained physically, a corrupt Judge deliberately destroys the
foundation of society and causes incalculable distress to individuals
through abusing his office, while still being referred to as
honourable.”23
The statements of his Lordship quoted above clearly paints a picture of the
danger that a corrupt judge poses to nation- building. For this reason
therefore, our judiciaries ought to adopt a zero tolerance policy for corrupt
judges. But the point must be made that the role of the courts in nation-
17
building in so far as the issue of corruption is concerned goes beyond
cleansing itself of corrupt judges.
The courts must also treat cases relating to corruption with some sense of
urgency. Two independent institutions have been established in this country to
fight corruption. These are the Independent Corrupt Practices and other
related offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC). Whilst maintaining their independence and impartiality in
hearing cases instituted by these two bodies, our courts ought, at all times, to
accord such cases undiminished priority with a view to ensuring that they are
expeditiously disposed of.
This purposive approach to the disposal of corruption and other economic
crimes cases ought to be entrenched in the criminal procedure rules in force in
all our superior courts in order to assure the citizenry of judicial revulsion
against the repugnance of such conduct to our societal values.
CONCLUSION
Distinguished gentlemen of the Bar, I have just finished speaking on the role
of the courts in nation-building as requested by you. In doing so, I have given
a few instances of the role that our courts ought to play in the process of
nation-building. These instances are by no means exhaustive because I do
not wish to bore you by a prolonged discourse of the extensive role that the
courts ought to play in the process of nation-building. I am persuaded however
that the areas I have highlighted would provoke further discourse in this
programme of 2012 Law week of your branch. Having highlighted the role of
the courts, as I have done in this speech, I have advisedly refrained from
passing judgment on the question whether or not the courts have creditably
15 of 16 Tayo Oyetibo & Co; Solicitors & Barristers
18
performed their role because I do not wish to be a Judge in my own cause. I
believe that that judgement or decision should be left for you to make. I thank
you very much for the opportunity to deliver this speech and for your patience
in listening attentively to the end.
God bless Enugu Branch of the Nigeria Bar Association.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING POOR PEOPLE
ON THE ONE HAND AND THE HIGH AND MIGHTY ON THE OTHER IN NIGERIA
1) C O P V . A M O S S I J O : The accused was charged with stealing three bottles of Benylin cough syrup valued at N1,950. He pleaded guilty stating that he stole the drugs because he was sick. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment with the option of paying N3,000 as fine.
Source: Leadership Newspaper 27/09/12: www.leadership.ng/nga/articles
2) C . O . P . V . W A S I U A L A B I : The accused was charged with conspiracy and stealing of his neighbour’s goat. He pleaded guilty, after having spent 3months in custody because he could not meet the bail conditions. He was sentenced to a term of 3 months’ imprisonment on each of the counts. The sentences were to run concurrently. He was, however, given the option of paying a fine of N1,000.
Source: The Punch Newspaper of Tuesday October 2, 2012
E N D
19
3) C . O . P V D A N B A U C H I : The accused was charged with criminal trespass and
theft of a television set valued at N21,000. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to a term of 1 year imprisonment on each count, which terms were to run concurrently.
Source: The Vanguard Newspaper of October 15 2012: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/10/man-convicted-of-stealing-television-set/
4) C . O . P V . T A O F E E Q A B I O D U N : The accused was charged with the theft of tubers of yam from the complainant’s farm and for criminal intimidation. He was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on each count by an Upper Area Court in Omu-Aran.
His jail terms were, however, to run concurrently. He was given an option of paying a fine of N5,000.
Source: News Agency of Nigeria November 20 2012
1 of 3
Tayo Oyetibo & Co: Solicitors & Barristers
C R I M I N A L C O N V I C T I O N S O F S O M E W E A L T H Y N I G E R I A N S
1) F . R . N V . L U C K Y I G B I N E D I O N & O R S : The 1st accused was the former
Governor of Edo State. He was initially charged with 191 offences relating to illegal withdrawals of state funds and money laundering. The charges were subsequently narrowed down by the prosecution to only one charge of neglect by the accused to make a declaration of his interest in a bank account in the declaration of assets form of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. He pleaded guilty and was only fined N3.5million.
Source: Pg 4 Thisday Newspaper of 19th December 2008.
2) E F C C V . C E C I L I A I B R U : The accused was the Managing Director of a commercial Bank. She was charged with 25 counts, bordering on criminal manipulation of bank records and depositors’ funds. The charges were
20
amended and reduced to 3 based on a plea bargaining arrangement with the prosecution. She pleaded guilty to the amended charges of negligence, reckless grant of credit facilities and mismanagement of depositors’ funds. The court convicted her on the three counts and sentenced her to six months imprisonment on each of the counts. The terms were to run concurrently. She was also to forfeit over N191 billion in assets.
Source: The Vanguard Newspaper October 9 2010. http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/10/cecelia-ibru-goes-to-jail/
3) F . R . N . V . D S P A L A M I E Y E S E I G H A : The accused was the former Governor of Bayelsa state. He was impeached from office in 2005 on allegations of corruption and arraigned on the December 21 2005 on a 40- count charge of money laundering, illegal acquisition of property and false declaration of assets. The charge was subsequently narrowed down to 6 counts of fraud and false declaration of assets. He pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced, on 26th July 2007, to a term of two years imprisonment on each of the counts. The terms were however to run concurrently from the day of his first arrest which was December 9, 2005. The accused was also to forfeit over N1 billion in shares and cash to the Federal Government as well as several choice properties.
Source: Pg 6 Thisday Newspaper of July 27, 2007
2 of 3
Tayo Oyetibo & Co: Solicitors & Barristers
4 ) E F C C V . C H I M A R O K E N N A M A N I : The former Governor of Enugu State was arraigned on 26th July 2007 on 105 counts of fraud, conspiracy, concealment and money laundering. The case is pending in court till date.
Source: Page 6 Thisday Newspaper of Friday July 27 2007
5 ) F . R . N V . J O S H U A D A R I Y E : The former governor of Plateau state was arraigned in 2007 before an Abuja High Court sitting at Gudu, on a 23 Count charge of stealing N700 million.
The charges bordered on stealing, misappropriation of public funds and criminal breach of trust, while serving as Governor of Plateau state. He was granted bail.
21
After taking his Plea his lawyer challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court. Upon the ruling of the lower court that it had jurisdiction, he appealed, albeit, unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal. Trial in the suit was stalled because of another suit instituted by the Defendant. The cases have not been concluded till date. Joshua Dariye is currently a Senator representing Plateau Central senatorial district.
Source: Nigeria Tribune of Friday November 23 2012
www.tribune.com/ng/index.php/politics
6 ) F R N V . S A M I N U I B R A H I M T U R A K I : The former Governor of Jigawa State, Senator Saminu Ibrahim Turaki was first arraigned in 2007 on charges of money laundering before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja. He brought an application through his counsel for the suit to be transferred to the Dutse, Jigawa State Division of the court. In July 2011, the EFCC re-arraigned him, before the Federal High Court sitting in Dutse, on a 32-count charge of fraud of over N36 billion. Some of the charges included N12 billion alleged to have been withdrawn from the state government’s treasury and used for financing political activities of the PDP. During the pendency of these proceedings he contested for and was elected to the Senate, the upper legislative house of National Assembly. The suit is still pending before the court.
Source: Nigeria Tribune of Friday November 23 2012 www.tribune.com/ng/index.php/politics www.allafrica.com/stories
3 of 3
Tayo Oyetibo & Co: Solicitors & Barristers
NOTES
1. Tayo Oyetibo, SAN is the Chief Counsel of Tayo Oyetibo & Co; a multi-service Law
Firm based in Lagos, Nigeria. I am grateful to Mobisola Akerele, LL.B (Hons) B.L of
Tayo Oyetibo & Co, a vibrant Barrister who extracted the information contained in the
second addendum for me from various Newspapers and the internet.
2. Many writers on the topic have provided various definitions.
22
3. Wikipedia “Nation-building” [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-building] accessed 27
November, 2012
4. Professor Ibrahim A. Gambari [Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser to the
United Nations Secretary-General]: “The challenges of Nations Building: The case of
Nigeria.” Being a paper presented at the First year Anniversary Lecture of Mustapha
Akanbi Foundation held at Sheraton Hotel Abuja, Nigeria on 7th February 2008
5. James Joyner: Bush on Nation-building [www.outsidethebeltway.com/bush_on_nation-
building] 17th July, 2009
6. See Sections 114,115 and 119 of the 1960 Constitution and Sections 111,122 and 126 of
the 1963 Constitution
7. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999: Section 6 subsections (1) and (2)
8. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
9. Judges have no duty and no power to expand the jurisdiction conferred on them but
they have a duty and indeed jurisdiction to expound the jurisdiction conferred on them:
Per OBASEKI J.S.C in TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4
NWLR (Part 117) 517 @ 549
10. Nigeria was colonised by Great Britain and as such our legal system follows
substantially the English legal system.
11. EPEROKUN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 34) 162 @ 193
12. See Section 114 of 1960 Constitution
13. See Section 120 of 1963 Constitution
14. (1981) 10 SC 1
15. Ibid at pages 187 – 188
16. Ibid at page 115
17. (1982) 9 SC [Reprints] 1
18. (1985) 1 NWLR (Part 1) 125
23
19. Ibid at page 141
20. IDRIS V. ANPP (2008) 8 NWLR (Part 1088) 1 @ 163.
21. See OJUKWU V. ONWUDIWE (1984) 1 SCNLR 247 @ 285 – 286 per ANIAGOLU
J.S.C
21a. (2003) 3 NWLR (Part 806) 72
21b. Ibid at pages 157
21c. Ibid at page 161
22. The Holy Bible [KJV] John 10:10: “The thief cometh not, but to steal, and to kill and to
destroy”
23. Hon. Justice S.O. Uwaifo: “The Imperative of an Untainted Judiciary”: THISDAY
Newspaper [January 30, 2005 page 32]