Sunday, 17 April 2016
Friday, 15 April 2016
US Report Accuses Buhari's Government of Brutality and Unbridled Bribery
US Report Accuses Police, Army of Unbridled Bribery, Brutality, Extra Judicial Killings
•Says 69% of inmates await trial, Boko Haram committed pogrom
Zacheaus Somorin
Zacheaus Somorin
The United States has released yet
another damning report on Nigeria, accusing the government at all levels
of injustice, brutality and inflicting pain on poor Nigerians.
The report, which was released by the US Department of State, accused the Nigerian police, DSS and the military of gross abuse of power including citizens’ brutality, arbitrary detention and bribery, among other scandals.
The report, which was released by the US Department of State, accused the Nigerian police, DSS and the military of gross abuse of power including citizens’ brutality, arbitrary detention and bribery, among other scandals.
The report also revealed that 69 per cent
of persons in prisons across the country are awaiting trial – blaming
the situation on lack of judicial capacity and corruption.
While acknowledging that the insurgency in the North-east has rendered many homeless, the US blamed the terror Islamist sect, Boko Haram, for committing a pogrom in which more than 20,000 people have been killed and maimed with permanent injuries.
While acknowledging that the insurgency in the North-east has rendered many homeless, the US blamed the terror Islamist sect, Boko Haram, for committing a pogrom in which more than 20,000 people have been killed and maimed with permanent injuries.
“The most serious human rights abuses
included those committed by Boko Haram, which conducted numerous attacks
on government and civilian targets that resulted in thousands of deaths
and injuries, widespread destruction, the internal displacement of an
estimated 1.8 million persons, and the external displacement of 220,000
Nigerian refugees to neighbouring countries,” the report said.
It pointed out that in response to Boko
Haram’s violent attacks, and at times to crime and insecurity in
general, “security services perpetrated extra-judicial killings, and
engaged in torture, rape, arbitrary detention, mistreatment of
detainees, and destruction of property”.
“The country also suffered from
widespread societal unrest, including ethnic, regional, and religious
violence. Other serious human rights problems included vigilante
killings; prolonged pre-trial detention, often in facilities with poor
conditions; denial of fair public trial; executive influence on the
judiciary; infringement on citizens’ privacy rights; and restrictions on
freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and movement.
“There were reports during the year of
official corruption; violence against women and children, including
female genital mutilation/cutting; infanticide; sexual exploitation of
children; trafficking in persons; early and forced marriages;
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity;
discrimination based on ethnicity, regional origin, religion, and
disability; forced and bonded labour; and child labour,” the report
added.
The report pointed out that impunity
remained widespread at all levels of government, saying: “Although
President Buhari’s administration began initial steps to curb
corruption, authorities did not investigate or punish the majority of
cases of police or military abuse.
“Boko Haram perpetrated numerous attacks,
often directly targeting civilians. The group, which recruited and
forcefully conscripted child soldiers, carried out bombings–including
suicide bombings–and attacks on population centres in Adamawa, Bauchi,
Borno, Gombe, Kano, Plateau, and Yobe States.
“In some cases, the group employed women and children as suicide bombers. The government investigated these attacks but prosecuted only a few members of Boko Haram.”
“In some cases, the group employed women and children as suicide bombers. The government investigated these attacks but prosecuted only a few members of Boko Haram.”
It said between November 2014 and
February 2015, Boko Haram abducted more than 500 women and 1,000
children from one local government area in Borno State alone; subjecting
many abducted women and girls to sexual and gender-based violence,
including forced marriages and rape.
“Organised criminal forces in the southern and middle parts of the country committed abuses, such as kidnappings. Violence between farmers and herders in the North-central states claimed hundreds of lives,” it said.
“Organised criminal forces in the southern and middle parts of the country committed abuses, such as kidnappings. Violence between farmers and herders in the North-central states claimed hundreds of lives,” it said.
On arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of
life, the US accused the government and its agents of committing
numerous arbitrary and unlawful killings, pointing out that the nation’s
security “used lethal and excessive force to apprehend criminals and
suspects as well as to disperse protesters”.
“Authorities generally did not hold
police, military, or other security force personnel accountable for the
use of excessive or deadly force or for the deaths of persons in
custody. State and federal panels of inquiry investigating suspicious
deaths did not make their findings public.
“Security forces’ use of excessive force, including live ammunition, to disperse demonstrators resulted in numerous killings,” it added.
“Security forces’ use of excessive force, including live ammunition, to disperse demonstrators resulted in numerous killings,” it added.
The report gave the December 12 Army,
Shiite clash as example, stating: “The army troops killed an
undetermined number–possibly hundreds according to some credible
reports–of members of the Shia group Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN)
in Zaria, Kaduna State, following an altercation at a roadblock that
disrupted the convoy of the chief of army staff.”
It said in May 2015, following the
killing and mutilation of six soldiers by cattle rustlers, “army troops
killed dozens of civilians and razed scores of houses in Wase District,
Plateau State. Community leaders accused the military of storming
several villages at night and firing indiscriminately”. “They also
alleged government forces had previously killed more than 80 persons in
similar attacks. While acknowledging it had carried out an operation
against militants,” the report noted.
It said despite evidences, the military denied killing any civilians and promised to investigate, saying there were no reports of any investigations as of December 2015.
It said despite evidences, the military denied killing any civilians and promised to investigate, saying there were no reports of any investigations as of December 2015.
“Local NGOs, international human rights
groups, and political and traditional leaders from affected states
continued to accuse the security services of illegal detention, inhuman
treatment of detainees, and torture.
“In May, Amnesty International (AI) released a report documenting mass arbitrary arrests, unlawful detention, and torture by security forces in the North-east. After the report’s release, President Buhari vowed to investigate.
“In May, Amnesty International (AI) released a report documenting mass arbitrary arrests, unlawful detention, and torture by security forces in the North-east. After the report’s release, President Buhari vowed to investigate.
“This report followed a 2014 AI report
alleging the routine and systematic practice of torture and other
mistreatment by security services. AI reported that police sections in
various states, including the Special Anti-robbery Squad and the
Criminal Investigation Division, had ‘torture chambers’, special rooms
where suspects were tortured while being interrogated.
“The military and police reportedly used a
wide range of torture methods, including beatings, shootings, nail and
tooth extractions, rape, and other forms of sexual violence,” the US
report added.
The report accused the police of “commonly using a technique called ‘parading’ of arrestees. Parading involved walking arrestees through public spaces and subjecting them to public ridicule and abuse”.
“Bystanders often taunted and hurled food and other objects at arrestees. Police defended the practice, claiming that public humiliation helped deter crime.
The report accused the police of “commonly using a technique called ‘parading’ of arrestees. Parading involved walking arrestees through public spaces and subjecting them to public ridicule and abuse”.
“Bystanders often taunted and hurled food and other objects at arrestees. Police defended the practice, claiming that public humiliation helped deter crime.
“Prison and detention centres conditions
remained harsh and life-threatening. Prisoners and detainees, the
majority of whom had not been tried, were reportedly subjected to
extra-judicial execution, torture, gross overcrowding, food and water
shortages, inadequate medical treatment, deliberate and incidental
exposure to heat and sun, and infrastructure deficiencies that led to
wholly inadequate sanitary conditions that could result in death.
“Guards and prison officials reportedly
extorted inmates or levied fees on them to pay for food, prison
maintenance, and release from prison. Female inmates in some cases faced
the threat of rape,” it stated.
It said the problem of overcrowding has been a significant problem, adding that while the total designed capacity of the country’s prisons was 50,153 inmates, an imbalance in prison occupancy rates resulted in underutilisation at some facilities, while others were at more than 800 per cent of designed capacity.
It said the problem of overcrowding has been a significant problem, adding that while the total designed capacity of the country’s prisons was 50,153 inmates, an imbalance in prison occupancy rates resulted in underutilisation at some facilities, while others were at more than 800 per cent of designed capacity.
Sunday, 10 April 2016
CCT AND THE MATTER INVOLVING DR SARAKI - FOREMOST CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER, PROFESSOR BEN NWABUEZE SAN
The CCT And The Matter Involving Dr Bukola Saraki – A Case Study
 |
Click here to Reply or Forward
|
0.29 GB (1%) of 15 GB used
Ben Nwabueze
On 11 September, 2015 a deputy director in the Federal Ministry of Justice filed an application in the CCT, Abuja, asking for the commencement of trial of Dr Bukola Saraki, President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, on a charge of false declaration of assets, with 13 counts – Charge No. CCT/ABJ/01/2015 dated September 14, 2015.
The application was granted by the tribunal, sitting with its chairman, Mr. Danladi Umar and one other member, Mr Agwadza Atedze, which directed that a summons should be issued commanding the accused to appear before it and plead to the charge. On September 17, Dr Saraki, through his counsel, filed an application praying the tribunal to quash and/or strike out the charge against him. After due hearing, the application was dismissed on September 18, 2015. By its ruling dismissing the application, the tribunal also issued a bench warrant ordering the Inspector-General of Police to arrest and produce the accused in the tribunal on September 21, 2015.
The accused then applied to, and obtained from the Federal High Court, (FHC) Abuja, an order dated September 17, 2015 directing the tribunal to appear before it on September 21, 2015 to show cause why the proceedings before it (i.e. the tribunal) should not be halted. The tribunal refused to comply with the order of the FHC, and went ahead with the trial, which was eventually halted by the Supreme Court.
Eight issues arise from the above stated facts:
Issue One:
Whether the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) is not, in its true character, as it is conceived and established by the constitution of Nigeria 1999, a purely disciplinary body:
1.1 The CCT is a body established by the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution 1999 to deal with contraventions or breaches of the duties laid on public officers by the Code of Conduct enshrined in the said Fifth Schedule. The issue raised here is as to what the true character of the tribunal is – whether it is simply a body to exercise disciplinary control of public officers or a court with criminal jurisdiction. The answer depends on the nature of the duties laid on public officers by the Code of Conduct. Are the duties criminal in nature and effect or purely disciplinary? Or putting it differently is the Code in the nature of a Criminal Code or a Disciplinary Code designed to regulate the way public officers discharge their official duties and responsibilities towards the public, much like the Civil Service Rules?
1.2. This requires that the provisions of the Code of Conduct should be looked at very closely. A close look shows that although some of the provisions are in their terms prohibitory, the Code is merely a body of rules designed to regulate the civil, not criminal, behaviour of public officers. The duties it imposes on public officers are not in the nature of criminal obligations or liabilities. In any case, it is outside the purpose, concern or role of a constitution anywhere in the world to create criminal offences.
1.3. Furthermore, the sanctions or penalties prescribed by the Code for contraventions or breaches of its provisions show that its purpose and intent is disciplinary, not punitive. Under paragraph 18 of the said Fifth Schedule, the CCT is empowered to impose as sanctions the vacation of an office or a seat in a legislative house, disqualification from holding office or such seat, and the seizure or forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office. These are purely disciplinary sanctions or penalties, not punishment for a criminal offence.
1.4. This conclusion is supported by the authority of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in a Ceylonese appeal in Kariapper v. Wijesinha [1967] 3 ALL E.R. 485. In 1965 some members of the legislative assembly and the local government councils in Ceylon were found guilty of corruption by a commission of enquiry. The country’s legislature then enacted a law vacating their seats in parliament and in the local government councils and also disqualifying them for seven years from being voters or candidates in any parliamentary or local government elections. The Privy Council held, relying on a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Lovett (1945) 328 U.S. 303, that the penalties imposed by the law were not punishment for the criminal offence of corruption, but only disciplinary sanctions “to keep public life clean for the public good” at page 491.
1.5. In the view of the Privy Council, there is a difference between a disciplinary penalty and a punishment for an offence, quoting the words of Justice Frankfurter in the United States case, United States v. Lovett (1945) 328 U.S. 303, –
“Punishment presupposes an offence, not necessarily an act previously declared criminal, but an act for which retribution is exacted. The fact that harm is inflicted by government authority does not make it punishment. Figuratively speaking all discomforting action may be deemed punishment because it deprives of what otherwise would be enjoyed. But there may be reasons other than punitive for such deprivation. A man may be forbidden to practice medicine because he has been convicted of a felony…. Or because he is no longer qualified…….The deprivation of any rights, civil or political, previously enjoyed, may be punishment, the circumstances attending and the causes of the deprivation determining this fact.”
The meaning of the word “punishment” in paras 18(1) & (2) as denoting simply “sanction” is brought out clearly by para 18(3) which refers to “the sanctions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) hereof”. It would distort the entire scheme contemplated by the establishment of the CCT to read “punishment” in the context of para 18 as meaning punishment for a criminal offence rather than as a disciplinary sanction.
1.6. The decision of the Privy Council in this case shows clearly that the Code of Conduct Tribunal is conceived and established by the Constitution as a disciplinary body, and that the power given to it by paragraph 18 of the Fifth Schedule are intended, not really to punish, but to discipline and, in the words of the Privy Council, to “keep public life clean for the public good”.
1.7. The view of the provisions in paragraph 18(1) (2) & (3) as disciplinary sanctions rather than punitive derives support from the provision in paragraph 18(6), which says:
“Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice the prosecution of a public officer punished under this paragraph or preclude such officer from being prosecuted or punished for an offence in a court of law”.
The provision in paragraph 18(6) seems conclusive that paragraph 18(1), (2) and (3) creates no criminal offences, and that the sanctions therein mentioned are not punishment for a criminal offence, as otherwise it will contradict or conflict with the prohibition against double jeopardy in section 36(9) of the Constitution, which says:
“No person who shows that he has been tried by any court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior court”.
1.8. The view of the matter here canvassed is also supported, and is certainly not contradicted, by paragraph 18(3), which says that “the sanctions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) hereof shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence.” This again suggests that the conduct proscribed by the Code is not thereby made a criminal offence. Paragraph 18(3) also clearly contemplates trial and punishment by a court, not the Code of Conduct Tribunal, “where the conduct is also a criminal offence.” A distinction is here drawn between sanctions for contraventions or breaches of the Code of Conduct, which are merely disciplinary, and punishment for criminal offences.
1.9. Finally, the character of the CCT as a purely disciplinary body under the Constitution is reflected in the procedure provided in paragraph 3(e) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution for invoking its powers; they can only be invoked by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) referring to it a complaint about non-compliance with, or breach of, the provisions of the Code of Conduct. The CCB is also a disciplinary body authorised, not only to receive complaints, and investigate them, but also to “ensure compliance with and, where appropriate, enforce the provisions of the Code of Conduct”: paragraph 3(d), Third Schedule; (emphasis supplied).
1.10. Accepting the arguments and conclusions above about the character of the CCT as a purely disciplinary body, the Federal High Court, per Justice Jonah Adah, in the Dariye case held that:
“The Code of Conduct Tribunal is conceived by the Constitution as a disciplinary body, and that the power given to it by paragraph 18 of the Fifth Schedule are intended, not really to punish, but to discipline and, in the words of the Privy Council, to ‘keep public life clean for the public good’. I am entirely in agreement with this position of Professor Nwabueze (SAN) as the exact intendment of the Constitution relating to the Code of Conduct Tribunal. This is manifestly clear from the provision of paragraph 18(6)” – at page 15 of his judgment: Fed Republic of Nigeria v. Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye.
1.11. The CCT itself has affirmed that, under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, it is a purely disciplinary body, with no power to try criminal offences – see Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Dr Orji Uzor Kalu (judgment delivered on April 26, 2006 – a case in which Dr Orji Kalu, former governor of Abia State, was arraigned before the CCT on a charge of corruption, and in which the former governor pleaded in defence, his immunity under section 308(1) of the Constitution. The CCT, speaking through its then chairman, Justice Constance Momoh, held the immunity inapplicable as a defence to the suit, on the ground that the Tribunal (i.e. the CCT) is not a court, but a purely disciplinary body, that it has no power to try criminal offences, and that proceedings before it are sui generis and are not civil or criminal proceedings to which alone section 308(1) applies, see Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Dr Orji Uzor Kalu, Charge No. CCT/NC/ABJ/KW/03/3/05/MI.
1.12. It follows from all what is said above, in particular the decisions noted in paragraphs 1.4, 1.10 and 1.11, that it is unconstitutional, null and void for the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act to change the character of the CCT from that of a purely disciplinary body to a court, with power, albeit limited power, to try criminal cases and, on conviction, sentence persons for criminal offences. The point is fully argued under Issue Two below wherein the discussion on the true character of the CCT is continued. Continues on Sunday
Ben Nwabueze is a distinguished professor of law and a leading scholar of constitutional law.
- See more at: http://independentnig.com/2016/04/cct-matter-involving-dr-bukola-saraki-case-study/#sthash.uzaFh2rD.dpuf
On 11 September, 2015 a deputy director in the Federal Ministry of Justice filed an application in the CCT, Abuja, asking for the commencement of trial of Dr Bukola Saraki, President of the Senate, Federal Republic of Nigeria, on a charge of false declaration of assets, with 13 counts – Charge No. CCT/ABJ/01/2015 dated September 14, 2015.
The application was granted by the tribunal, sitting with its chairman, Mr. Danladi Umar and one other member, Mr Agwadza Atedze, which directed that a summons should be issued commanding the accused to appear before it and plead to the charge. On September 17, Dr Saraki, through his counsel, filed an application praying the tribunal to quash and/or strike out the charge against him. After due hearing, the application was dismissed on September 18, 2015. By its ruling dismissing the application, the tribunal also issued a bench warrant ordering the Inspector-General of Police to arrest and produce the accused in the tribunal on September 21, 2015.
The accused then applied to, and obtained from the Federal High Court, (FHC) Abuja, an order dated September 17, 2015 directing the tribunal to appear before it on September 21, 2015 to show cause why the proceedings before it (i.e. the tribunal) should not be halted. The tribunal refused to comply with the order of the FHC, and went ahead with the trial, which was eventually halted by the Supreme Court.
Eight issues arise from the above stated facts:
Whether the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) is not, in its true character, as it is conceived and established by the constitution of Nigeria 1999, a purely disciplinary body:
1.1 The CCT is a body established by the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution 1999 to deal with contraventions or breaches of the duties laid on public officers by the Code of Conduct enshrined in the said Fifth Schedule. The issue raised here is as to what the true character of the tribunal is – whether it is simply a body to exercise disciplinary control of public officers or a court with criminal jurisdiction. The answer depends on the nature of the duties laid on public officers by the Code of Conduct. Are the duties criminal in nature and effect or purely disciplinary? Or putting it differently is the Code in the nature of a Criminal Code or a Disciplinary Code designed to regulate the way public officers discharge their official duties and responsibilities towards the public, much like the Civil Service Rules?
1.2. This requires that the provisions of the Code of Conduct should be looked at very closely. A close look shows that although some of the provisions are in their terms prohibitory, the Code is merely a body of rules designed to regulate the civil, not criminal, behaviour of public officers. The duties it imposes on public officers are not in the nature of criminal obligations or liabilities. In any case, it is outside the purpose, concern or role of a constitution anywhere in the world to create criminal offences.
1.3. Furthermore, the sanctions or penalties prescribed by the Code for contraventions or breaches of its provisions show that its purpose and intent is disciplinary, not punitive. Under paragraph 18 of the said Fifth Schedule, the CCT is empowered to impose as sanctions the vacation of an office or a seat in a legislative house, disqualification from holding office or such seat, and the seizure or forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office. These are purely disciplinary sanctions or penalties, not punishment for a criminal offence.
1.4. This conclusion is supported by the authority of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in a Ceylonese appeal in Kariapper v. Wijesinha [1967] 3 ALL E.R. 485. In 1965 some members of the legislative assembly and the local government councils in Ceylon were found guilty of corruption by a commission of enquiry. The country’s legislature then enacted a law vacating their seats in parliament and in the local government councils and also disqualifying them for seven years from being voters or candidates in any parliamentary or local government elections. The Privy Council held, relying on a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Lovett (1945) 328 U.S. 303, that the penalties imposed by the law were not punishment for the criminal offence of corruption, but only disciplinary sanctions “to keep public life clean for the public good” at page 491.
1.5. In the view of the Privy Council, there is a difference between a disciplinary penalty and a punishment for an offence, quoting the words of Justice Frankfurter in the United States case, United States v. Lovett (1945) 328 U.S. 303, –
“Punishment presupposes an offence, not necessarily an act previously declared criminal, but an act for which retribution is exacted. The fact that harm is inflicted by government authority does not make it punishment. Figuratively speaking all discomforting action may be deemed punishment because it deprives of what otherwise would be enjoyed. But there may be reasons other than punitive for such deprivation. A man may be forbidden to practice medicine because he has been convicted of a felony…. Or because he is no longer qualified…….The deprivation of any rights, civil or political, previously enjoyed, may be punishment, the circumstances attending and the causes of the deprivation determining this fact.”
The meaning of the word “punishment” in paras 18(1) & (2) as denoting simply “sanction” is brought out clearly by para 18(3) which refers to “the sanctions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) hereof”. It would distort the entire scheme contemplated by the establishment of the CCT to read “punishment” in the context of para 18 as meaning punishment for a criminal offence rather than as a disciplinary sanction.
1.6. The decision of the Privy Council in this case shows clearly that the Code of Conduct Tribunal is conceived and established by the Constitution as a disciplinary body, and that the power given to it by paragraph 18 of the Fifth Schedule are intended, not really to punish, but to discipline and, in the words of the Privy Council, to “keep public life clean for the public good”.
1.7. The view of the provisions in paragraph 18(1) (2) & (3) as disciplinary sanctions rather than punitive derives support from the provision in paragraph 18(6), which says:
“Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice the prosecution of a public officer punished under this paragraph or preclude such officer from being prosecuted or punished for an offence in a court of law”.
The provision in paragraph 18(6) seems conclusive that paragraph 18(1), (2) and (3) creates no criminal offences, and that the sanctions therein mentioned are not punishment for a criminal offence, as otherwise it will contradict or conflict with the prohibition against double jeopardy in section 36(9) of the Constitution, which says:
“No person who shows that he has been tried by any court of competent jurisdiction or tribunal for a criminal offence and either convicted or acquitted shall again be tried for that offence or for a criminal offence having the same ingredients as that offence save upon the order of a superior court”.
1.8. The view of the matter here canvassed is also supported, and is certainly not contradicted, by paragraph 18(3), which says that “the sanctions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) hereof shall be without prejudice to the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence.” This again suggests that the conduct proscribed by the Code is not thereby made a criminal offence. Paragraph 18(3) also clearly contemplates trial and punishment by a court, not the Code of Conduct Tribunal, “where the conduct is also a criminal offence.” A distinction is here drawn between sanctions for contraventions or breaches of the Code of Conduct, which are merely disciplinary, and punishment for criminal offences.
1.9. Finally, the character of the CCT as a purely disciplinary body under the Constitution is reflected in the procedure provided in paragraph 3(e) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution for invoking its powers; they can only be invoked by the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) referring to it a complaint about non-compliance with, or breach of, the provisions of the Code of Conduct. The CCB is also a disciplinary body authorised, not only to receive complaints, and investigate them, but also to “ensure compliance with and, where appropriate, enforce the provisions of the Code of Conduct”: paragraph 3(d), Third Schedule; (emphasis supplied).
1.10. Accepting the arguments and conclusions above about the character of the CCT as a purely disciplinary body, the Federal High Court, per Justice Jonah Adah, in the Dariye case held that:
“The Code of Conduct Tribunal is conceived by the Constitution as a disciplinary body, and that the power given to it by paragraph 18 of the Fifth Schedule are intended, not really to punish, but to discipline and, in the words of the Privy Council, to ‘keep public life clean for the public good’. I am entirely in agreement with this position of Professor Nwabueze (SAN) as the exact intendment of the Constitution relating to the Code of Conduct Tribunal. This is manifestly clear from the provision of paragraph 18(6)” – at page 15 of his judgment: Fed Republic of Nigeria v. Chief Joshua Chibi Dariye.
1.11. The CCT itself has affirmed that, under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, it is a purely disciplinary body, with no power to try criminal offences – see Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Dr Orji Uzor Kalu (judgment delivered on April 26, 2006 – a case in which Dr Orji Kalu, former governor of Abia State, was arraigned before the CCT on a charge of corruption, and in which the former governor pleaded in defence, his immunity under section 308(1) of the Constitution. The CCT, speaking through its then chairman, Justice Constance Momoh, held the immunity inapplicable as a defence to the suit, on the ground that the Tribunal (i.e. the CCT) is not a court, but a purely disciplinary body, that it has no power to try criminal offences, and that proceedings before it are sui generis and are not civil or criminal proceedings to which alone section 308(1) applies, see Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Dr Orji Uzor Kalu, Charge No. CCT/NC/ABJ/KW/03/3/05/MI.
1.12. It follows from all what is said above, in particular the decisions noted in paragraphs 1.4, 1.10 and 1.11, that it is unconstitutional, null and void for the Code of Conduct Bureau & Tribunal Act to change the character of the CCT from that of a purely disciplinary body to a court, with power, albeit limited power, to try criminal cases and, on conviction, sentence persons for criminal offences. The point is fully argued under Issue Two below wherein the discussion on the true character of the CCT is continued. Continues on Sunday
Ben Nwabueze is a distinguished professor of law and a leading scholar of constitutional law.
- See more at: http://independentnig.com/2016/04/cct-matter-involving-dr-bukola-saraki-case-study/#sthash.uzaFh2rD.dpuf
The CCT And The Matter Involving Dr Bukola Saraki – A Case Study
Falana: Looting Under GEJ Continued Unabated Under PMB: What Kind of Anti-graft War is This?
Falana: Looting Under GEJ Continued Unabated Under PMB: What Kind of Anti-graft War is This?
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/201552-falana-threatens-sue-nigerian-government-plans-borrow-5-5-billion.html
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/201552-falana-threatens-sue-nigerian-government-plans-borrow-5-5-billion.html
Falana Threatens to sue FGN for plans to borrow $5.5 billion
Kemi Adeosun in Paris
An activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has
threatened to go to court if the Muhammadu Buhari administration goes
ahead to borrow $5.5 billion from international creditors.
Instead of taking loans to increase the nation’s debt profile, the Lagos lawyer advised the government to recover the $200 billion allegedly withheld by federal agencies and multinational corporations.
Mr. Falana’s threat was contained in a letter to the Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, dated April 8, with a copy made available to PREMIUM TIMES.
In the letter titled, “Request for the Collection of Outstanding Revenue of $200 billion Withheld from the Federation Account or Stolen by Looters,” the lawyer also warned the government against collecting a $2 billion loan from the Chinese Government.
Following a report that the administration had concluded plans to borrow $2.5 billion from the World Bank and another $1 billion from the African Development Bank, Mr. Falana said he wrote requesting the government to jettison the plan.
In a previous letter dated February 12, addressed to Mrs. Adeosun, the lawyer said he urged the government to explore alternative revenue sources to fund the 2016 budget instead of increasing the nation’s external debt which currently stands at $64 billion.
“In particular, we requested the federal government to embark on the recovery of the revenue of $42 billion withheld from the Federation Account from 1999-2012 by some transnational oil companies, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and other agencies of the federal government,” Mr. Falana wrote.
“In your reply dated March 17, 2016, you (Mrs. Adeosun) assured us that the issues raised in our letter were receiving the attention of the federal government. We were therefore surprised to learn that the administration had applied to the Chinese Government for another loan of $2 billion.
“In urging the Federal Government to desist from taking the loan of
$2 billion from China or any other country we are compelled to advise
the federal government to intensify efforts to recover the nation’s
wealth which has been criminally diverted by a handful of local and
foreign looters.”
Mr. Falana urged the government to direct the relevant agencies and the anti-graft bodies to recover the nation’s stolen funds.
He drew attention to the report by the National Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, NEITI, covering 1999-2012, which indicated that the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, some oil majors and agencies of the government withheld $20.2 billion for the Federation Account.
He listed other funds being withheld from the federal purse by different agencies and companies and advised the government to compel them to remit such funds to the Federation Account.
“In the light of the foregoing, we are compelled to call on the Federal Government to muster the political will and courage to recover the aforesaid withheld or stolen wealth of not less than $200 billion belonging to the Nigerian people,” Mr. Falana said.
“However, if you (Mrs. Adeosun) refuse to accede to our request, we shall have no alternative than to initiate legal proceedings at the Federal High Court with a view to restraining the federal government from further plunging the nation into external indebtedness.”
Read the full text of the letter below:
8th April, 2016
The Honourable Minister of Finance,
Federal Ministry of Finance,
Ahmadu Bello Way,
Central Business District,
Abuja, FCT.
Dear Honourable Minister,
REQUEST FOR THE COLLECTION OF OUTSTANDING REVENUE OF $200 BILLION WITHHELD FROM THE FEDERATION ACCOUNT OR STOLEN BY LOOTERS
Following a recent report that the Federal Government had concluded arrangements take a loan of $2.5 billion from the World Bank and $1 billion the African Development Bank we wrote to the Administration requested to jettison the plan. In our letter dated February 12, 2016 addressed to your good self we urged the Federal Government to explore alternative sources of raising revenue to fund the 2016 budget instead of increasing the nation’s external debt of $64 billion. In particular, we requested the federal government to embark on the recovery of the revenue of $42 billion withheld from the Federation Account from 1999-2012 by some transnational oil companies, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and other agencies of the federal government.
In your reply dated March 17, 2016 you assured us that the issues raised in our letter were receiving the attention of the Federal Government. We were therefore surprised to learn that the Administration had applied to the Chinese Government for another loan of $2 billion. In urging the Federal Government to desist from taking the loan of $2 billion from China or any other country we are compelled to advise the Federal Government to intensify efforts to recover the nation’s wealth which has been criminally diverted by a handful of local and foreign looters. The Federal Government may wish to direct the relevant agencies and the anti graft bodies to collect the stolen wealth including the following:
(a) The National Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has confirmed that from five cycles of independent audit reports of NEITI covering 1999-2012 the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), some oil companies and certain agencies of the federal government had withheld $20.2 billion for the Federation Account. The indicted oil companies and agencies should be made to remit the said sum of $20.2 billion into the Federation Account.
(b) In 2006, the Central Bank of Nigeria apportioned $7 billion out
of the nation’s external reserves to 14 Nigerian banks. In 2008, the
CBN also gave a bailout of N600 billion ($4 billion) to the banks. The
indebted banks should be asked to repay the $11 billion loan.
(c) On September 6, 2016 the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) announced that arrangements had been concluded to recover the sum of $9.6 billion in over-deducted tax benefits from joint venture partners on major capital projects and oil swap contracts. Since the NNPC is said to have recovered the said sum of $9.6 billion it should be remitted into the Federation Account.
(d) Sometime in 2009, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited applied to the federal government for the renewal of three oil blocks. Upon granting the application the NNPC asked Mobil to pay the sum of $2.5 billion for the renewal of the licences. Curiously, the $600 million paid by the Mobil was accepted by the federal government. One of our clients has requested the EFCC to investigate the circumstances surrounding the fraudulent transaction. The outstanding sum of $1.9 billion ought to be collected from Mobil and paid into the federation account.
(e) From 1998-2014 the Federal Government collected over $4 billion from the over $5 billion stolen from the vaults of the CBN by a former military ruler, the late General Sani Abacha. I have submitted a petition to the Economic and Financial Commission to investigate the alleged criminal diversion of the recovered loot by some former public officers. The governments of the United States and Switzerland have promised to repatriate $458 million and $321 million respectively recovered from the loot.
(f) In 1999, the Abdulsalami Abubakar military junta enacted the Deep Offshore Inland Sharing Contract Decree to give effect to certain fiscal incentives for the oil and gas companies operating in the Deep Offshore and Inland Basin under production sharing contracts. Thus, by virtue of section 5 of the Act, the payment of royalty in respect of the Deep Offshore production sharing contracts shall range from 4 to 12 per cent while no royalty shall be paid whatsoever in areas in excess of 1000 metres depth! Since the 15-year period of for non-payment of royalties expired in June 2014 the should collect arrears of royalties running to hundreds of millions of dollars owed by the oil and gas companies operating in the area.
(g) The $470 million contract awarded to ZTE, (a Chinese company) in 2009 by the federal government for the construction of CCTV cameras in Abuja and Lagos has been abandoned. Hence, the cameras which were installed did not capture the criminals who recently launched bomb attacks in Abuja and killed scores of citizens. Since the contract was not executed the federal government should recover the contract sum of $470 million.
(h) In the Appropriation Act, 2011 the sum of N245 billion was earmarked for fuel subsidy. In violation of the budget law the federal government fraudulently paid out N2.5 trillion ($16 billion) to a cabal of fuel importers. The investigation conducted into the large scale fraud by the Police and the anti graft agencies was compromised due to pressure from the Jonathan administration. The EFCC should revisit the matter.
(i) On July 6, 2012 the Supreme Court of Nigeria set aside the fraudulent sale of the federal government owned Aluminium Smelting Company of Nigeria (ASCON) located in Akwa Ibom state to RUSAL for $250 million and directed the company be sold BFIG, the winner of the bid for $410 million. The federal government should direct the National Council of Privatisation to comply with the judgment. The federal government stands to realise an additional sum of $160 million from the sale.
(j) For contravention of the law on compulsory registration of all SIM cards the NCC imposed a fine of $5.2 billion on MTN last year. Based on plea by the MTN management and the intervention of the Government of South Africa the fine was reduced to $3.9 billion out of which MTN has paid the paltry sum of $250 million. Since MTN has withdrawn the suit challenging the payment of the fine the federal government should take steps to ensure the prompt payment of the outstanding balance of $3.65 billion.
(k) Under the Jonathan administration it was estimated that the nation was recording oil theft worth $7 billion to criminals annually. An investigation being carried out by a team of lawyers hired by the federal government has so far confirmed that hundreds of millions of barrels of oil were stolen by oil companies and shipped to many countries. According to the lawyers the total amount recoverable by the Nigeria Government from the Sellers and Buyers who stole Nigeria’s hydrocarbons and shipped same to the United States from January 2011 to December 2014 stands at US$12.7 billion. Since the verification is programmed to cover 10 years it is estimated that Nigeria can recover not less than $100 billion from the undeclared millions of barrels of oil shipped to the United States and other countries. The EFCC should collaborate with the lawyers to recover the missing fund and prosecute the transnational oil companies involved in the grand oil theft.
(l) On February 20, 2014, President Goodluck Jonathan fired the then
Central Bank Governor, Alhaji Sanusi Lamido Sanusi for having the
temerity to expose the NNPC for not remitting $20 billion to the
Federation Account. Following the reconciliation of the accounts of the
NNPC by the federal government the missing sum was said to be $10.8
billion. To douse the tension generated by the scandal the Federal
Government appointed a firm of auditors to audit the books of the NNPC.
But in a bid to cover up the scandal the Federal Government ensured
that the auditors were denied access to vital documents. At the end of
the investigation the auditors indicted the NNPC for withholding $1.8
billion from the Federation Account.
(m) Rising from its monthly meeting at Abuja on September 17, 2015 the National Economic Council accused the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) of failing to remit N3.8 trillion to the Federation Account under the Jonathan administration. The Council set up a committee of 3 state governors to trace the missing fund. Last month, the Auditor-General of the Federation indicted the NNPC for withholding N3.2 trillion from the Federation Account in 2014. The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission has said that ” the total indebtedness of the NNPC to the Federation Account is N4.9 trillion ($32.6).” In its reaction to the allegations the NNPC has challenged the figures but admitted that it has withheld the sum of N326 billion! The federal government should investigate the conflicting figures to determine the actual amount withheld by the NNPC.
(o) The unprecedented looting of the public treasury via the NNPC took place under the rogue regime of President Goodluck Jonathan has continued unabated under the President Buhari who is currently waging a war against corruption. Last week, a firm of auditors revealed that out of the sum of $6.4 billion realised from the sale of crude oil and gas by the Federal Government in the first quarter of 2016 the NNPC remitted only $2 billion to the Federation Account and withheld the colossal sum of $4.2 billion. Up till now the NNPC has not explained how much of the sum of $4.2 billion was spent on its operations in 3 months.
(p) The presidential panel instituted by President Buhari to investigate the criminal diversion of the fund earmarked for procurement of weapons for the armed forces from 2007-2015 has established that over $8 billion was stolen by handful of serving and retired military officers and their civilian collaborators via the Office of the National Security Adviser and the Nigerian Air Force. The Panel is currently probing similar fraudulent arms procurement in the Nigerian Army and Nigerian Navy. The EFCC has commenced the recovery of the said sum of $8 billion and prosecution of individuals and corporate bodies implicated in the criminal diversion.
(q) The United States’ Government has successfully prosecuted Halliburton and its top officials for bribing Nigerian public officers with $180 million and recovered fines of about $1.3 billion. Although no one was prosecuted in Nigeria the federal government about $200 million was paid by Halliburton and other indicted companies through plea bargain.
(r) The sale of the OPM 245 for $1.3 billion otherwise known as malabu oil deal has continued to generate controversy. Allegations of bribery and money laundering are being investigated by the British Police, the Italian Police and the EFCC. Apart from the $210 million signature bonus paid to the federal government the sum of $190 million has been frozen in the United Kingdom and Switzerland. The Italian Police has also frozen $200 million from the proceed of the transaction. The federal government ought to take a final decision on the matter so as to end the controversy surrounding the sale of the oil block.
In the light of the foregoing, we are compelled to call on the Federal Government to muster the political will and courage to recover the aforesaid withheld or stolen wealth of not less than $200 billion belonging to the Nigerian people. However, if you refuse to accede to our request we shall have no alternative than to initiate legal proceedings at the Federal High Court with a view to restraining the Federal Government from further plunging the nation into external indebtedness.
Instead of taking loans to increase the nation’s debt profile, the Lagos lawyer advised the government to recover the $200 billion allegedly withheld by federal agencies and multinational corporations.
Mr. Falana’s threat was contained in a letter to the Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, dated April 8, with a copy made available to PREMIUM TIMES.
In the letter titled, “Request for the Collection of Outstanding Revenue of $200 billion Withheld from the Federation Account or Stolen by Looters,” the lawyer also warned the government against collecting a $2 billion loan from the Chinese Government.
Following a report that the administration had concluded plans to borrow $2.5 billion from the World Bank and another $1 billion from the African Development Bank, Mr. Falana said he wrote requesting the government to jettison the plan.
In a previous letter dated February 12, addressed to Mrs. Adeosun, the lawyer said he urged the government to explore alternative revenue sources to fund the 2016 budget instead of increasing the nation’s external debt which currently stands at $64 billion.
“In particular, we requested the federal government to embark on the recovery of the revenue of $42 billion withheld from the Federation Account from 1999-2012 by some transnational oil companies, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and other agencies of the federal government,” Mr. Falana wrote.
“In your reply dated March 17, 2016, you (Mrs. Adeosun) assured us that the issues raised in our letter were receiving the attention of the federal government. We were therefore surprised to learn that the administration had applied to the Chinese Government for another loan of $2 billion.
Mr. Falana urged the government to direct the relevant agencies and the anti-graft bodies to recover the nation’s stolen funds.
He drew attention to the report by the National Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, NEITI, covering 1999-2012, which indicated that the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, some oil majors and agencies of the government withheld $20.2 billion for the Federation Account.
He listed other funds being withheld from the federal purse by different agencies and companies and advised the government to compel them to remit such funds to the Federation Account.
“In the light of the foregoing, we are compelled to call on the Federal Government to muster the political will and courage to recover the aforesaid withheld or stolen wealth of not less than $200 billion belonging to the Nigerian people,” Mr. Falana said.
“However, if you (Mrs. Adeosun) refuse to accede to our request, we shall have no alternative than to initiate legal proceedings at the Federal High Court with a view to restraining the federal government from further plunging the nation into external indebtedness.”
Read the full text of the letter below:
8th April, 2016
The Honourable Minister of Finance,
Federal Ministry of Finance,
Ahmadu Bello Way,
Central Business District,
Abuja, FCT.
Dear Honourable Minister,
REQUEST FOR THE COLLECTION OF OUTSTANDING REVENUE OF $200 BILLION WITHHELD FROM THE FEDERATION ACCOUNT OR STOLEN BY LOOTERS
Following a recent report that the Federal Government had concluded arrangements take a loan of $2.5 billion from the World Bank and $1 billion the African Development Bank we wrote to the Administration requested to jettison the plan. In our letter dated February 12, 2016 addressed to your good self we urged the Federal Government to explore alternative sources of raising revenue to fund the 2016 budget instead of increasing the nation’s external debt of $64 billion. In particular, we requested the federal government to embark on the recovery of the revenue of $42 billion withheld from the Federation Account from 1999-2012 by some transnational oil companies, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and other agencies of the federal government.
In your reply dated March 17, 2016 you assured us that the issues raised in our letter were receiving the attention of the Federal Government. We were therefore surprised to learn that the Administration had applied to the Chinese Government for another loan of $2 billion. In urging the Federal Government to desist from taking the loan of $2 billion from China or any other country we are compelled to advise the Federal Government to intensify efforts to recover the nation’s wealth which has been criminally diverted by a handful of local and foreign looters. The Federal Government may wish to direct the relevant agencies and the anti graft bodies to collect the stolen wealth including the following:
(a) The National Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative has confirmed that from five cycles of independent audit reports of NEITI covering 1999-2012 the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), some oil companies and certain agencies of the federal government had withheld $20.2 billion for the Federation Account. The indicted oil companies and agencies should be made to remit the said sum of $20.2 billion into the Federation Account.
(c) On September 6, 2016 the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) announced that arrangements had been concluded to recover the sum of $9.6 billion in over-deducted tax benefits from joint venture partners on major capital projects and oil swap contracts. Since the NNPC is said to have recovered the said sum of $9.6 billion it should be remitted into the Federation Account.
(d) Sometime in 2009, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited applied to the federal government for the renewal of three oil blocks. Upon granting the application the NNPC asked Mobil to pay the sum of $2.5 billion for the renewal of the licences. Curiously, the $600 million paid by the Mobil was accepted by the federal government. One of our clients has requested the EFCC to investigate the circumstances surrounding the fraudulent transaction. The outstanding sum of $1.9 billion ought to be collected from Mobil and paid into the federation account.
(e) From 1998-2014 the Federal Government collected over $4 billion from the over $5 billion stolen from the vaults of the CBN by a former military ruler, the late General Sani Abacha. I have submitted a petition to the Economic and Financial Commission to investigate the alleged criminal diversion of the recovered loot by some former public officers. The governments of the United States and Switzerland have promised to repatriate $458 million and $321 million respectively recovered from the loot.
(f) In 1999, the Abdulsalami Abubakar military junta enacted the Deep Offshore Inland Sharing Contract Decree to give effect to certain fiscal incentives for the oil and gas companies operating in the Deep Offshore and Inland Basin under production sharing contracts. Thus, by virtue of section 5 of the Act, the payment of royalty in respect of the Deep Offshore production sharing contracts shall range from 4 to 12 per cent while no royalty shall be paid whatsoever in areas in excess of 1000 metres depth! Since the 15-year period of for non-payment of royalties expired in June 2014 the should collect arrears of royalties running to hundreds of millions of dollars owed by the oil and gas companies operating in the area.
(g) The $470 million contract awarded to ZTE, (a Chinese company) in 2009 by the federal government for the construction of CCTV cameras in Abuja and Lagos has been abandoned. Hence, the cameras which were installed did not capture the criminals who recently launched bomb attacks in Abuja and killed scores of citizens. Since the contract was not executed the federal government should recover the contract sum of $470 million.
(h) In the Appropriation Act, 2011 the sum of N245 billion was earmarked for fuel subsidy. In violation of the budget law the federal government fraudulently paid out N2.5 trillion ($16 billion) to a cabal of fuel importers. The investigation conducted into the large scale fraud by the Police and the anti graft agencies was compromised due to pressure from the Jonathan administration. The EFCC should revisit the matter.
(i) On July 6, 2012 the Supreme Court of Nigeria set aside the fraudulent sale of the federal government owned Aluminium Smelting Company of Nigeria (ASCON) located in Akwa Ibom state to RUSAL for $250 million and directed the company be sold BFIG, the winner of the bid for $410 million. The federal government should direct the National Council of Privatisation to comply with the judgment. The federal government stands to realise an additional sum of $160 million from the sale.
(j) For contravention of the law on compulsory registration of all SIM cards the NCC imposed a fine of $5.2 billion on MTN last year. Based on plea by the MTN management and the intervention of the Government of South Africa the fine was reduced to $3.9 billion out of which MTN has paid the paltry sum of $250 million. Since MTN has withdrawn the suit challenging the payment of the fine the federal government should take steps to ensure the prompt payment of the outstanding balance of $3.65 billion.
(k) Under the Jonathan administration it was estimated that the nation was recording oil theft worth $7 billion to criminals annually. An investigation being carried out by a team of lawyers hired by the federal government has so far confirmed that hundreds of millions of barrels of oil were stolen by oil companies and shipped to many countries. According to the lawyers the total amount recoverable by the Nigeria Government from the Sellers and Buyers who stole Nigeria’s hydrocarbons and shipped same to the United States from January 2011 to December 2014 stands at US$12.7 billion. Since the verification is programmed to cover 10 years it is estimated that Nigeria can recover not less than $100 billion from the undeclared millions of barrels of oil shipped to the United States and other countries. The EFCC should collaborate with the lawyers to recover the missing fund and prosecute the transnational oil companies involved in the grand oil theft.
(m) Rising from its monthly meeting at Abuja on September 17, 2015 the National Economic Council accused the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) of failing to remit N3.8 trillion to the Federation Account under the Jonathan administration. The Council set up a committee of 3 state governors to trace the missing fund. Last month, the Auditor-General of the Federation indicted the NNPC for withholding N3.2 trillion from the Federation Account in 2014. The Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission has said that ” the total indebtedness of the NNPC to the Federation Account is N4.9 trillion ($32.6).” In its reaction to the allegations the NNPC has challenged the figures but admitted that it has withheld the sum of N326 billion! The federal government should investigate the conflicting figures to determine the actual amount withheld by the NNPC.
(o) The unprecedented looting of the public treasury via the NNPC took place under the rogue regime of President Goodluck Jonathan has continued unabated under the President Buhari who is currently waging a war against corruption. Last week, a firm of auditors revealed that out of the sum of $6.4 billion realised from the sale of crude oil and gas by the Federal Government in the first quarter of 2016 the NNPC remitted only $2 billion to the Federation Account and withheld the colossal sum of $4.2 billion. Up till now the NNPC has not explained how much of the sum of $4.2 billion was spent on its operations in 3 months.
(p) The presidential panel instituted by President Buhari to investigate the criminal diversion of the fund earmarked for procurement of weapons for the armed forces from 2007-2015 has established that over $8 billion was stolen by handful of serving and retired military officers and their civilian collaborators via the Office of the National Security Adviser and the Nigerian Air Force. The Panel is currently probing similar fraudulent arms procurement in the Nigerian Army and Nigerian Navy. The EFCC has commenced the recovery of the said sum of $8 billion and prosecution of individuals and corporate bodies implicated in the criminal diversion.
(q) The United States’ Government has successfully prosecuted Halliburton and its top officials for bribing Nigerian public officers with $180 million and recovered fines of about $1.3 billion. Although no one was prosecuted in Nigeria the federal government about $200 million was paid by Halliburton and other indicted companies through plea bargain.
(r) The sale of the OPM 245 for $1.3 billion otherwise known as malabu oil deal has continued to generate controversy. Allegations of bribery and money laundering are being investigated by the British Police, the Italian Police and the EFCC. Apart from the $210 million signature bonus paid to the federal government the sum of $190 million has been frozen in the United Kingdom and Switzerland. The Italian Police has also frozen $200 million from the proceed of the transaction. The federal government ought to take a final decision on the matter so as to end the controversy surrounding the sale of the oil block.
In the light of the foregoing, we are compelled to call on the Federal Government to muster the political will and courage to recover the aforesaid withheld or stolen wealth of not less than $200 billion belonging to the Nigerian people. However, if you refuse to accede to our request we shall have no alternative than to initiate legal proceedings at the Federal High Court with a view to restraining the Federal Government from further plunging the nation into external indebtedness.
LAW PRACTICE BEGAN FROM SW: UNFORTUNNATELY IN IBADAN POLICE FOUND FAKE LAWYER OLU ADEWALE
Latest
SUPER FAKE LAWYER
— 10th April 2016THE sun has set on the illegal practice of 66-year-old Olu Adewale, who masqueraded as a lawyer for 16 years, and had appeared over 60 times on behalf of his clients to argue their cases before federal and state high courts in Ibadan.
It is still a mystery how he was able to achieve this ‘feat’ and evaded exposure all these years, under the gaze of the judges before whom he appeared and the Oyo State Chapter of the Nigerian Bar Association. If eagled-eye detectives in Ibadan had ignored their hunch to ask questions about him, Adewale would probably have continued and later seek recognition as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, a privilege reserved for distinguished members of the bar that have made sterling contributions to the legal profession in the country.
It is instructive that Adewale claimed to be a 1978 graduate of the University of Lagos with a degree in History.
The unmasking of Adewale, as Sunday Sun learnt from the Commissioner of Police, Oyo State Police Command, Mr. Leye Oyebade, began when he visited the headquarters of the State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID), Iyaganku, Ibadan, to solicit for a case. The detectives on a hunch questioned him as his conduct and this stirred suspicion. Under the intensity of their interrogation, he cracked and confessed that he never trained as a lawyer, neither was he ever called to the bar.
Recounting how it happened, Oyebade said: “He has been coming for a case in the State CID before detectives interrogated him, to know whether he was actually called to the bar. It was in the course of the interrogation that he confessed.
“He has been parading himself as a lawyer for 16 years before we arrested him and he confessed that he did not train as a lawyer in the university nor attended the Nigerian Law School and qualify to be called to bar and legally practice the profession.
Oyebade further disclosed that when the house of the suspect was searched, police detectives found different documents and stamps, which he allegedly used to deceive clients and collect money from them, but he never won any case in the court.
The suspected fake lawyer, who spoke with Sunday Sun said: “I never attended the Nigerian Law School or called to bar. I was never a Law student. I read History at the University of Lagos in 1978. Before I started practicing as a lawyer, I was in Kano where I lived before the Boko Haram crisis chased me back to Ibadan. I left all my certificates in Kano and fled to Ibadan, Oyo State. As I did not have my certificates, I had to start doing something to survive. So I began to solicit for charge and bail cases at the police headquarters for other lawyers and at the judiciary headquarters. Later I began taking the cases myself. I have appeared on behalf of clients at the Magistrate Court, Iyaganku, Federal High Court and State High Court at Ring road. I have appeared over 60 times in different courts in Ibadan.”
He spoke further: “I didn’t buy any wig or gown, to appear in court. I only borrow the wig and gown from other lawyers,” he said.
Adewale who until his arrest operated from a small office in Oke-Ado area of Ibadan and hails from Ibadan South Local Government Area, Oyo State further told Sunday Sun: “I have been practicing as a fake lawyer since 2000 in different courts. I have handled various matters at the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, Anti-Kidnapping Squad and State CID, Iyaganku, before I was arrested when I went to solicit for a case at SCID.”
In the days ahead, Oyebade said, the alleged fake lawyer would be charged to court.
THE HYPOCRISY OF BUHARI'S BAN ON 'FIRST-CLASS FLIGHTS' FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS ORDER
Barring govt officials from flying first class hypocritical —Adegboruwa
Human rights lawyer and activist, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, tells BAYO AKINLOYE
that President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration’s decision to bar
government officials from flying first class is a smokescreen for its
failure to resolve the country’s economic and financial crisis
The Federal
Government through the Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, said it had
banned public servants from flying first class when on official trips.
Do you see this as cheering news?
That statement of the Minister of
Finance (Kemi Adeosun) that public officials are barred from flying
first class is hypocritical and only a mere attempt to divert attention
from the suffering and agony that have been imposed upon the Nigerian
people as a result of the poor and ineffective economic policy of the
Maj Gen. Muhammadu Buhari administration. Nigerians are no fools and we
know what is going on. The issue of flying first class by government
officials is mere tokenism because the people who are living the life of
affluence are indeed the politicians. And I believe that if the
Minister of Finance were to be serious about cutting cost, she should
have encouraged her boss to let charity begin at home. How can a
president be maintaining nine presidential jets flying up and down, all
over the world as a way of escaping the crisis Nigerians are going
through? How can a president who has budgeted over N1 billion for
feeding in one year or over N4 billion for his own clinic in Aso Rock
have feelings for Nigerians to be able to subsidise petroleum products?
Despite the 20 per cent reduction in travel expenses targeted by the Federal Government, you think the decision makes no sense?
If he reduced flying first class for
public servants and increased the agony of Nigerians by subjecting them
to trekking to work, by subjecting Nigerians to inflation and perpetual
darkness and at the same time increasing the tariff for that darkness,
that is wickedness. What we demand from the Minister of Finance is not
palliative measures but an unfolding of her economic agenda for this
country. She has virtually run this country aground; no economic policy,
no economic direction, people do not have access to exchange rate,
children are being withdrawn from schools abroad, middle businessmen and
manufacturers are closing shop – what is she talking about flying first
class? What is our business with that? Will that bring foreign
exchange? Will that increase salaries of workers? Will that put an end
to fuel scarcity?
I believe that the Finance Minister has
not been able to appreciate the enormity of the responsibility imposed
on her office. As we speak today, there is no budget as indeed the
direction of this government; contractors are not paid; most state
governors cannot pay their workers; and the president has gone to China
to beg for N2 billion loan for which we do not know the duration and the
purpose for which it will be dispensed. This kind of policy of denying
government officials the opportunity of flying first class is not worthy
of news given the current crisis we are going through in Nigeria.
Would you describe the decision as a misplaced priority?
I believe the Buhari administration has
lost direction; he is now looking for populism by embarking on
statements that will seem to tie into the minds of Nigerians. The
government has discovered that Nigerians are beginning to be tired out
by the anti-corruption song or national anthem since May 29 (2015, when
Buhari was sworn in as president). Now that the anti-corruption war is
not bringing food to the table of the masses, they now want to go back
to populist programmes; that will not appease us in this country. I
think that the president owes us a responsibility to unfold an economic
agenda that will bring food to the table of Nigerians and not to be
deceiving us by embarking on populist programmes. How much has the
President recovered so far from the Peoples Democratic Party’s regime?
How much has been returned and what are the recovered looted funds being
used for? The government cannot just keep us in darkness. A Federal
High Court made an order that Buhari and Obasanjo should account for the
looted funds of (Gen. Sani) Abacha and the looted funds of
(ex-President Goodluck) Jonathan and he (Buhari) is refusing to do so.
What is our business with whether public
servants are allowed to fly first class or not? We have major economic
challenges in this country that affect virtually every part of our
society. Inflation has gone up while power generation is less than what
the President met when he came into office. It is almost one year since
he assumed duty as the leader of this country and he has no agenda. He
has denied virtually all the promises he made to Nigerians when he was
campaigning. His government has lost credibility and integrity – and the
President does not care. He has been flying up and down. Is it because
he has access to jets? What is our business with first class?
But reductions in government expenses like this are seen to be good for the country.
What Nigerians want is food on their
table. We want electricity and we want an end to fuel scarcity. If we
are subsidising the President by paying his feeding allowance which is
over N1 billion in one year and subsidising his health care, paying for
his medical bill to the tune of more than N4 billion; why can’t he
subsidise fuel for Nigerians? And why is the All Progressives
Congress-led government being hypocritical? In 2012 when Jonathan wanted
to remove fuel subsidy, we occupied Ojota Park every day; (Former Lagos
State Governor, Babatunde) Fashola sponsored the protests. He was there
to give a speech. Today, it is this same Fashola – these same (Bola)
Tinubu people – now saying that Nigerians should bear the brunt of fuel
subsidy removal. This is hypocrisy. I think Nigerians should reject this
APC regime for fraud. We are tired of this and I think the President
should be man enough to resign from office instead of imposing something
on our people. Who is interested flying in first class? All we want is
food on our table; we want education for our children; we want violence
and crimes in our land to reduce. We want people to respect the rule of
law and not to be shooting people who are agitating for Biafra. We want
respect for all our people, not to be killed by herdsmen calling
themselves Boko Haram.
Nigeria is currently at the crossroads
and the solution does not lie in populist programmes or denying people
flying first class. We are not interested in that. I call on the Nigeria
Labour Congress and all activists who protested against Jonathan’s
government back then to wake up now and do the same thing against this
government and not act as hypocrites. There is no difference between
2012 and now; when we insisted that subsidy should remain back then. We
should insist it should remain now.
Are you saying President Muhammadu Buhari is insulting people’s intelligence?
It is beyond insulting people’s
intelligence. Buhari as a person was not prepared for the presidency. He
has no agenda; he has no programme – he has no blueprint.
But, he had contested for
the office of the President on three other occasions before 2015. Does
that not suggest a sign of preparedness?
He was just going to campaign every day
denouncing Jonathan’s regime without a clue of any solution. Every day
now, what we hear is blame; every day he keeps saying the PDP had ruled
and ruined Nigeria for 16 years. What is his solution? As a matter of
fact, his anti-corruption war is not working because it is selective.
The government is taking us for granted. The President told us while he
was in the opposition that it was wrong for Jonathan to send soldiers to
Ekiti during the state’s governorship election. This same Buhari, under
his watch allowed soldiers into Rivers State for the purpose of
elections. We are in a regime of hypocrisy. It is clear that the
president does not have an agenda for this country. We cannot continue
to use anti-corruption crusade to cover up ineffectiveness, ineptitude
and cluelessness (of Buhari). It is clear to all of us that the Buhari
regime has taken us far back beyond what obtained under Jonathan
administration. Violence is ongoing and militancy is back in the Niger
Delta with electricity collapsing totally to zero level which has not
happened in a long while in this country. Obviously, the Buhari regime
has no plan for the progress of this country.
During Jonathan’s administration, ballot
snatching was already becoming history; votes of the people already
counted then. In all the (alleged) corruption of Jonathan, he brought
Prof. (Attahiru) Jega who introduced card readers into the nation’s
electoral process. That innovation can be attributed to have contributed
to the defeat of Jonathan, the then incumbent President. However, with
the emergence of Buhari, the first election conducted under his watch in
Kogi State left much to be desired. There, he allowed the votes of a
dead man to be inherited by somebody who did not participate in the
election. The second election conducted in Bayelsa State was all
violence and ballot snatching. The same thing happened to the third
election in Rivers State. No election ever conducted under the Buhari
administration has been conclusive because of the attempt by the APC to
influence the outcome. It is always violence because the ruling party
does not respect the will of the people. This government engenders
thuggery and chaos. Nigerians should rise up and occupy Abuja; they
should occupy Lagos and other places because the country has actually
collapsed. We are being fed with lies every day.
Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Saturday, 9 April 2016
RAIN DISRUPTS VOTING PROCESS IN ABUJA COUNCIL - RAIN?
Rain disrupts voting process in Abuja councils election
http://guardian.ng/news/rain-disrupts-voting-process-in-abuja-councils-election/
Professor Mahmood Yakubu. INEC Boss
A heavy downpour yesterday, disrupted Council elections process at the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, forcing Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) officials to scamper for shelter in nearby buildings close to the polling units.
The heavy rain, which began at midday, forced electoral officials and agents at polling units to hurriedly dismantle voting materials, including the cubicles already set up for the process.
In many areas, including Gwagwalada, the few voters that turned out for the exercise waited patiently for the rain, even as politicians and their supporters were busy moving from house to house to beg voters to come out, when they observed a low turn out.
INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, had on Friday evening, after inspecting logistics arrangements on ground for the polls, called on the registered voters to come out en mass for the exercise
The INEC boss in company of his National Commissioners and the Resident Electoral Commissioner in Charge of the ,FCT, Prof Jacob Jatau, said that he was impressed with the situations on ground for the smooth conduct of the exercise.
But before the yesterday’s rain, a palpable apathy had characterised the exercise as many residents went about their businesses, with only a few voters at most of the poling units visited by The Guardian, just as officials were seen sitting down idle.
From Karshi, a satellite town in the FCT to Orozo and Karu, black market operators had a field day as they displayed the scarce product.
But Senator Philip Aduda, representing the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) decried the failure of the card reader; he had to resort to manual registration when the device failed to capture his fingerprint at the old Etsu Karu polling where he went to cast his vote.
Aduda, who promised to raise the issue before the Senate for necessary action, also remarked that it was surprising that INEC was yet to perfect the use of the card reader, after putting it to use in the last general election.
Claiming that dozens of supporters of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were being harassed and arrested by security operatives working in tandem with members of the All progressive congress (APC), he expressed optimism that the PDP would triumph in the six councils of the FCT.
A visit to the Unguwar Hausawa polling unit 005 in Karu, in AMAC area council revealed that hundreds of prospective voters were being accredited to cast their ballots.
A presiding official, Ms Victoria Nwankwo said although there were isolated cases of card reader failure, genuine voters were allowed to exercise their franchise after going through the procedure of filling the incidence form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)