REVEALED: WHY SOME LAWYERSS EASILY FAIL IN COURT

Are you one of those legal practitioners who believe that anything goes in the court of law and think that correctness of form, presentation and appearance are unimportant in the conduct of matters?
If so, you need to have a re-think and quickly too. On the good authority of Honourable Justice Ayotunde Adeyoola Philips (Judge of the Lagos State High Court since 1994) the Squib can tell you that filing, ROUGH, UNDATED, UNSIGNED, SMUDGY processes before the court will quickly hasten the determination of your client’s case in his opponent’s favour.
The reason is simple-by your dirty and inelegant processes, you would have put off the adjudicator, who is sure to be irritated and not fascinated by your sloppy work. This revelation was made by Ayo Phillips J. at the dinner organized by the law firms of Kemi Pinheiro & Co and Chief Bolaji Ayorinde & Co on 23rd October 2008 at the Jade Garden – Restaurant, GRA Ikeja, in honour of Mr. Adekunle Ojo the newly elected 2nd Vice –President of the Nigerian Bar Association and Mr. Dave Ajetomobi the chairman of the Nigeria Bar Association, Ikeja Branch.
Other dignitaries at the select party include Honourable Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Mr. Supo Sasore, S.A.N, Honourable Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Lagos State, Honourable Justice Olubunmi Oyewole of the Ikeja High Court, Chief Idowu Sofola S.A.N, Mr. Tunji Ayanlaja SAN, Prince Adebambo Adesanya S.A.N, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde S.A.N, and MR. Kemi Pinheiro S.A.N others are Mr. Seyi Akinwunmi, Mr. Tunde Busari, Mr. G.M.O Oguntade, Mr. Ademola Olaiya and Olusina Sofola
In the entourage of Adekunle Ojo Esq and Dave Ajetomobi esq, the honourees of the day, were three officers of the NBA Ikeja branch-Dare Akande Esq, 1st Vice-Chairman Isa Mohammed Buhari Esq, Secretary and Adesina Ogunlana, Welfare Secretary.
Other members of the entourage are Yinka Faroubi Esq, Ademola Ijaoba Esq, Kembi Adejare Esq, Tajudeen Ibrahim Esq and Gbenga Oniyire Esq.
The dinner started at about 5:45p.m and did not end until almost four hours later. What great, wonderful evening it was as fine jokes and quality advice flowed endlessly ably powered on by the comforting presence of nice wines and drinks and, of course, scrumptious fares! Less than twenty –minutes after the commencement of the programme, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde S.A.N firmly established a fact - he would have been wealthier and more famous were he a comedian, what with his superb turn of phrases, improvisations and tell-me-again yarns?
But the silk had stiff competition in this regard from his brother silk and friend, Kemi Pinheiro S.A.N, with his very witty side comments and interjections. Even the honourable judges present – did not exclude themselves from the banters and teases. For example, when Rhodes-Viviour J.C.A was being introduced, Justice Ayo Philips chipped in to say “Fine Boy” and all through the evening, other guests quietly referred to the Appelate Judge as Justice Fine Boy. It was the turn of Justice Oyewole to be introduced, Justice Philips caused the group’s merriment to climb two notches higher when her ladyship, with an inimitable chuckle said “914.” Of course the joke was on the fact that Justice Oyewole is perharps the best known anti-fraud and corruption Judge in Nigeria and that specie of crime is popularly known as “419”.
Although Honourable Justice Ayo Philips was the only lady on the “high table” the ever witty and lively judge was more than able to hold her own. When it was her turn to give a speech, she was proudly and joyously escorted to her place by Chief Bolaji Ayorinde S.A.N the best comedian impresario that will never be. Phillips J’s speech was an admonition and exhortation to the bar to be better behaved and comported as a class and as an individual.
Said the honourable judge in part-“The Ikeja bar is very dear to my heart, even before Adekunle Ojo became her chairman. I see red in court when I see undated rough processes. Processes should be clean, clear and dated, otherwise you put off the judge. You should always aim to impress the judge-appearance matters. And can you imagine some lawyers still using type-writers to bring out their processes in this age? Please don’t use type-writers again. I think we need to improve our standards. We are the best in West Africa may be excepting Ghana. The leaders of the bar must see to the training and retraining of lawyers.
As for bar-bench relationship, it is clear that it has degenerated. The Chief cause of this, I can tell you is the penchant of some lawyers to be writing petitions with no good cause. It can be very demoralising, for you to be doing your best only for people to be writing petitions against you on frivolous grounds, more so when you, as a judge, you are not in any position to defend your-self.
I am not saying petitions should not be written against judges where genuine reasons exist. People should write and same should be thoroughly investigated. Now because of petitions, some judges are scared of interacting with lawyers.
Since you’ve held out an olive branch out you can call on me anytime (to assist in drawing the bench closer to the bar)”. Earlier on in the evening, Dave Ajetomobi Esq, the chairman of the NBA Ikeja branch had addressed the gathering where he acknowledged the support of both Mr. Kemi Pinheiro SAN and Chief Ayorinde for his administration and the Ikeja bar in general. The chairman assured the gathering that the Ikeja bar is not interested in confrontation with the judiciary or embarrassment of any judge.
The other two judges at the dinner also made speeches, although they ended up disagreeing on the most effective way of curbing corruption in the country. Justice Oyewole advocated for the passage of the freedom of information bill, asking the NBA to sensitize the public as to the crucial value of the bill which is the creation of an enabling environment for the establishment of the culture of transparency in government, especially in the management of public funds. Enthused Oyewole J “Once the government officials know that the press can have access to the way they handle funds, then they will caution themselves (because nobody wants a public exposure of his misdeeds).
On his own part however, Rhodes-Vivour JCA, believed that the major cause of corruption in the country is poverty. Observed the honourable judge “when people are poor and are paid poor salaries they will be corrupt and fraudulent so government must address the issue of poor wages.
It was around 8.00p.m that Mr. Tunji Ayanlaja S.A.N arrived the dinner. He was warmly received by all and sundry. Some other guests also made speeches. Chief Idowu Sofola S.A.N former Secretary General of the Nigeria Bar Association and former secretary of the International Bar Forum admonished the current leaders of the NBA to spend their personal funds, instead of living off the NBA in the discharge of their duties. Before this, Chief Sofola had told the gathering of his titanic battle to become the Secretary General of the I.B.A and why 20 years after he left the office, no other African has occupied the seat.
Another very big masquerade, who spoke at the dinner was Mr. Tunji Ayanlaja S.A.N. The senior advocate who has a reputation for being rigorous and meticulous in practice disclosed that he is all what he is today by the grace of God and that of the foremost Nigerian legal practitioner “Chief G.O.K Ajayi S.A.N., who he disclosed was his mentor. Hear the learned silk.
“All what people say I am and that I do and that I will continue to do, I learnt them from Chief G.O.K Ajayi S.A.N. It was by myself that I went out to seek him out. When I first saw him, he so impressed me that I said I want to be like this man. I approached him and he accepted me.
Immediately I was called to the bar. I went to seek employment under him. He first gave me 25 pounds (in 1972) to celebrate my call-to-bar with my friends. Then he took me to the Lagos High Court and Ikeja High Court and introduced me to all the clerks and registrars of court. He gave me a warning about these category of workers-“Any time you are in court be friends with the messengers. Don’t look down on any of them because they are the ones responsible for getting your files to the judge.
The second thing he told me was that his office opened by 7.30 am but had no closing time. Then he impressed on me to always be neat as a counsel. He said “when you are neat, as counsel, 40% of your advocacy is done. The judge is a human being, if he is impressed with your appearance, half of the job is done”
So that’s where I learnt all what I do now. You must work hard and also play hard. If you practice law as it should be done, the control of your life is in your hands. I tell you for every lawyer there is a jackpot. If you use your jackpot, well, you are up there, if not you are down.
One is not saying everybody must be a millioner but if one is able to look after one’s family, train the children well, what also does one want? The learned silk ended his stirring and thought provoking speech with an appeal to the leadership of the NBA Ikeja branch to improve the standard of the legal profession and urged the Ikeja bar to change her appellation from “Tiger Bar” by which alias it was more popularly known to “Honourable Bar”. According to Ayanlaja S.A.N, the appellation “Tiger bar” is distasteful and inappropriate.
The famous silk ended his speech by promising to “retaliate” the honour of the organization of the dinner by Kemi Pinheiro & Co and Chief Bolaji Ayorinde in honour of the Ikeja Bar. Some of the guests who know Mr. Tunji Ayanlaja S.A.N well, assured their listeners that, that was no idle boast.

COUNTDOWN TO 2008 SAN AWARD: MATTERS ARISING

On 14th October 2008 the Supreme Court of Nigeria, invited 57 lawyers to attend an interview on 30th October, 2008 to determine their final eligibility for the award of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. The fifty seven invitees are:
1. Kola Babalola
2. Emonema B. Ukiri
3. Nella E. Andem-Ewe
4. Henry O. Ogbodu
5. Fredinand Orbih
6. Dan Ose Okoh
7. Arthur Obi Okafor
8. Charles Ajuyah
9. Nelson Ajuzie uzuegbu
10. Karina Tunyan
11. Oguneso Rotimi Oluseyi
12. Olabisi Oluyemi Soyebo
13. Abubakar Malami
14. Lawal Rabbana Rafiu Adeyanju
15. Eyitayo Jegede
16. Kehinde Kolawole Eleja
17. Joy Okungbowa Adesina
18. Suleiman Abdulkadir
19. Prince Orji Nwafor Orizu
20. Anthony Aondoakaa Ijohor
21. Ikechukwu Ezechukwu
22. Adetokunbo Omorogie Okeaya –Inneh
23. Mike Agedor Abu Ozekhome
24. Cyrill Oluwafeyisetan Toyin Pinheiro
25. Falana Obafemi Patrick
26. Olusina Rafiu Sofola
27. Ogunde Oluwemimo Adepoju Revell
28. Clement O. I. Okwusogu
29. Oyesoji Gbolahan Oyeleke
30. Dr. Abiodun Ishola Ismail Layonu
31. Oluseye Samuel Opasanya
32. Sagay Omatsoguwa Mogbeyi
33. Babajide Olatokunbo Koku
34. Fagbohunlu John Babatunde
35. Dr. Joseph Agburuwhua Nwobike
36. Ogunba Adekunle Babatunde
37. Obatosin Ogunkeye
38. Etigwe Uwa
39. Andrew Osaro Eghobamien
40. Norrison Ibinabo Quakers
41. Daramola Lucas Olu
42. Rotimi Jacobs
43. Oladipo Aigbedo Okpeseyi
44. Theophilus Kolawole Esan
45. Adebayo Adeleke Lawal
46. Alhaji Olasunkanmi Alimi Sanusi
47. Akinbiyi Oluseun Tayo
48. Ayoola Olufemi Ajayi
49. Chiesonu Igbojamuike Okpoko
50. Lawal Mohammed Pedro
51. Olumide Sofowora
52. Donald Chika Denwigwe
53. Francis Chukwumaeze Dike
54. Ulasi Raleke Obiefuma
55. Njemanze Ken Chukwuma Ohir
56. Eze Duru-Iheoma
57. Ephraim Thomson Onyewuchi Njoku
The invitation interestingly enough was made public via newspaper advertisement (The Guardian) on Tuesday October 14 2008. Even more interesting is the invitation to the members of the General Public to feel free to comment on the “INTEGRITY AND COMPETENCE” of the invitees and send same to one Usman Alhaji Musala, simply described as “Secretary” (one presumes Musala is the Secretary of the Privileges Committee). Below is the reaction of the Squib to the advertisement.

1st Gossip: Praise God, Nigeria is getting better. Honestly things are changing for the better.
2nd Gossip: I am not too sure about that. Well, why did you say that?
1st Gossip: (Pushing page 88 of the Guardian Newspaper of October 14 2008 into 2nd Gossip’s hand) Read this advertisement.
2nd Gossip: (with a snort). But I have seen it already. Invitation for Senior Advocate Interview. What’s the big deal there?
1st Gossip: There is plenty o! In the past you don’t even know anything about the selection process. Those days, it was the more you look, the less you see. The process was near abracadabra. One day you just woke up and saw that Lagbaja, Tamedo and Lakasegbe had become silk!
2nd Gossip: (Sneeringly). But now you are well informed eh?
1st Gossip: At least better that was the case in the past. Now these short-listed candidates we know them, and they are even asking for our comments on them. Lest I forget, some of them are even activists, radicals, progressives. In the old days they would not touch any radical with a long pole.
2nd Gossip: (Even more sneeringly). And who are these your radicals and progressives?
1st Gossip: Femi Falana and Mike Ozekhome
2nd Gossip: Is Patrick a radical. Is Abu a progressive?
1st Gossip: Who is Patrick, and who is Abu?
2nd Gossip: Look you! So you don’t know that Femi Falana is actually Patrick and Mike Ozekhome has a Muslim name of Abu, Abu Olododo? As far as I am concerned they are no radicals.
1st Gossip: (genuinely alarmed). What? Falana is not a radical, Ozekhome is not a progressive? Such prominent human right activists are not radicals? Then what are they?
2nd Gossip: Smart Nigerians who have become wealthy through the cultivated and calculated practice of eye-catching, safe, social and socialising agitations.
1st Gossip: (dumbfounded) Ah! Ah!
2nd Gossip: Stop pretending my friend. Was it not last week that you appeared on LTV and joined two others to berate “so called human rights activists?
1st Gossip: But did I mention Falana? Did I talk about Ozekhome?
2nd Gossip: Leave matter! Mind you, I have not said they are not good or competent lawyers. What I don’t want to hear is this radical stuff.
1st Gossip: It is only God who can save you! But do you agree it is a good thing that the invitation is made public and the public invited to send comments to the committee. To me, the committee is telling the Nigerian public to be part of the selection process of would be-silks.
2nd Gossip: I guess the term “Public” include members of the legal profession, advocates particularly.
1st Gossip: Yes you are right.
2nd Gossip: Do you think members of the Nigerian Bar are that alive to their social responsibility? Many lawyers are no different from the average Nigerian who has little or no time for public affairs and good. We see evil all around us, but we keep mum. We hear reports of evil, we keep mum. We only talk when evil is visited directly on us.
1st Gossip: But are lawyers like that too?
2nd Gossip: Very much so. In the profession, there is a lot of jankara and jibiti going on, but we keep quiet especially if the pepetrator are senior, elderly lawyers. We know of criminally stupid and stupidly criminal judges, but we look the other way. Nobody wants to rock the boat even though the boat is sinking rapidly.
Even now, how many petitions do you think the Privileges – Committee will receive from the bar against these applicants. Pretty little. Could it be that all of these short-listed candidates are free of valid and tangible indictments?
Yet we own the profession and the general public that responsibility, to speak out against evil and evil doers, so that misfits will not be promoted and glorified, undeservingly.
1st Gossip: But when they said people should send their comments on the candidates’ integrity and competence, it doesn’t mean the comments should only be negative. It can be positive
2nd Gossip: I agree absolutely. The only problem is that I won’t put it pass a smart applicant to hire a band of emergency supporters to flood the committee with flattering praises and recommendation.
1st Gossip: Oh what a cynic you are?
2nd Gossip: I have no apology for that. This is Nigeria. Things hardly are what they silk to be. Don’t you know that this SAN award thing is a project and only those who tackle it as such gets it.
1st Gossip: Project? Project ke?
2nd Gossip: Oh yes, it is a project. Let me tell you some of the steps to take if you are serious about getting the silk.
1st Gossip: (taut with interest) I am all ears.
2nd Gossip: First, beg, borrow or safely steal seven to ten million naira. Then remove your chambers from the “manage-manage” quarters you’ve always been, to a big five bedroom bungalow, or a duplex in a neat, high-brow area. Take at least a three-year, before the third year runs out, you should have become a SAN. That will set you back with about three or four million naira. Thirdly, establish an impressive looking library. With about two or three million naira you should quite a collection of law texts, reports and journals.
Of course another million or two naira will take care of office equipment and furniture. Then ensure you employ at least five well behaved (docile more like it) juniors, who you know have no hert, or nerve or commonsense to undermine your application by the disclosure of certain smelly chambers’ matters and affairs.
Please set down about a million naira to upgrade your wardrobe. A would be silk should not share appearances with wretches. Of course you will need at least one impressive looking car, preferably an armed robbery inducing - Jeep, not the types that resemble towing vans. Of course you should have enough change left to cover at least three year applications (just N200,00:00 per application).
Of course, I assume that by all means necessary, you have the requisite number of briefs in the Superior Courts, and the last but not the least, you possess at least one truly influential MENTOR to ease your way through and knock off obstacles from your path.
And, one more thing. Yes, one more thing. While you are applying for silk, don’t ever get cross with judges, no matter how odious they are. You just be a sweet banana and a cool cucumber. You know your humility is only for a time. The time will come, that you, with your silk firmly under your belt will become a cock of the bar.
1st Gossip: Are you saying all the 57 invitees have taken these steps you mentioned.
2nd Gossip: I cannot say. And, none of them consulted me.
1st Gossip: You that have accused the bar of failing to speak out on issues when necessary, let’s hear your views about these invitees.
2nd Gossip: I object. First I don’t know all of them, in fact I only know a few of them. Then secondly my views, if any are to be sent to the Privileges Committee and not to you.
1st Gossip: Comment on the ones you know and those your comments I can send or forward to the Supreme Court.
2nd Gossip: Very well then. I only know Falana, Ozekhome, Lawal Pedro and Jacobs Rotimi, though he likes to call himself Rotimi Jacobs.
1st Gossip: What about them.
2nd Gossip: Brother Patrick (Femi Falana) is somebody I know very well in the bar; not in the court-room. Very intelligent and an arresting orator. As an activist he is controversial. Some respect, even rever him others deride and dismiss him. But nobody denies his influence. Ogunde Oluwawemimo, I know him more in the court than in the bar. Won’t call him a bar man. He has to change that. But as a lawyer, the man is sure good-meticulous, keenly intelligent, very good delivery. If he were a boxer, I’ll liken him to a Mohammed Ali or a Sugar Ray Leonard. One day in court, he so dazzled one of our more obdurate but less perspicacious Judges of the Lagos State Court that the judge exclaimed in utter bewilderment.
“Mr. Ogunde law! Law! Law, law” Law! Law!” (in the manner of saying must you be full of so much law?) Lawal Pedro, is another good advocate. Very good and has been for at least almost a decade now, the life-wire of the Directorate of Civil Prosecutions in the Ministry of Justice Lagos State where is now the Solicitor General. But one wonders why he was never made a judge in Lagos State all these years despite his interest in the bench then? I’ll like to classify Mike Ozekhome and Jacobs Rotimi in the same league. Whatever they may lack in cerebral elegance and sophistication, they more than make up for by sheer rigour of application and bravura. Theirs is the “whirlwind” approach, and both are graduates of the Chief Gani Fawehinmi Chamber. If they were boxers, they would be a Tyson. I know also Norrison Quakers, but more socially than professionally. He dresses and smells already like a Senior Advocate. I also know Adetokubo Okeaya –Inneh, rather from a distance. But I know Chief G.O.K Ajayi SAN has a good view of his abilities as a lawyer. And, that is something. As for Emonena Blessing Ukiri (Port-Harcourt) and Kehinde Eleja, (Ilorin) I know them only in the bar, not in the court. Nice guys enough although Ukiri has weathered more storms of bar politics than Eleja.
1st Gossip: Well you’ve tried. Your opinions may not be shared by everybody though.
2nd Gossip: Of course. I only speak from my own perspective. Now let us have your own views. You too must know some of the candidates
1st Gossip: (Suddenly in a haste to go away) Ah, let that wait for another day. You see I had to go and pick my son from the school. My wife is out of town.
2nd Gossip: (Sneering) I hear you!

'NOT MY DEED! CHIEF JUSTICE DISOWNS 'FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES 2008

Considering the extreme range of the criminality of the minds of some Nigerians, one may be naïve to think that one has seen it all, in the antics of felons, and holding that “there is nothing new again under the heavens”
One very common way criminals in the country exhibit their anti-social behaviour is by passing off fake items as genuine. Thus we have lots of fake drugs, fake motor spare parts, fake certificates, fake naira notes, as for the professions may be with the exception of prostitution non is exempt from the staining infection of quackery.
Unfortunately a new and quite disturbing dimension has been introduced into the phenomenon of fakery and its first younger sibling, forgery-the publication and sale of non-existing laws. In the run-up to the August 2008 General Elections of the Nigerian Bar Associates, Ikeazor Akaraiwe, Esq, a 1st Vice-Presidential candidate granted an interview to the “The Nation” newspaper where he made reference to a certain Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2008.
That was about the first time a mention of the so called law would be mentioned in the media. For quite some time now the need for a change or at least an improvement on the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979 has been canvassed by concerned lawyers, particularly those with bias for human rights enforcement practice. The general complaint is that the 1979 Rules has certain strictures that makes the practice of the Human Rights Enforcement law, unnecessarily technical and as such on occasion serve to defeat the very essence of its creation-to protect and enhance the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Nigerian citizen.
The office of the creator of the 1979 Rules is the Chief Justice of Nigeria and it is to this honourable office that concerned human right groups, and also the Nigerian bar Association forward draft copies of proposed amendments of the 1979 Rules, for the obvious purpose of serving as reference and resource-materials for his lordship the Honourable Chief Justice of Nigeria in the making of a new Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules.
The widespread belief that a new and more liberal Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2008 is in the pipeline, is what some fraudsters (face-less for now) latched on the make a killing.
Every year the General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (dubbed the largest gathering of lawyers any where in the world) attracts hundreds, if not thousands of law book sellers. The 2008 conference was no exception. Sellers of law texts and materials swamped the International Conference Centre Abuja Venue of the conference with thousands of their “wares”.
One of such ‘wares’ is the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2008. The ware came out in two forms, paper back and hard cover editions. The paper back sold and still sells for #500.00 per copy while the hard-cover sold for #1,000.00 a piece.
Sales were snappy as the 2008 FR Rules, being much awaited sold like hot cake. It was not only lawyers who purchased the ‘law’, judges too. By September 2008 lawyers and judges have started making references to the new Rules, which many commended for the liberalization of the procedure of enforcing the Fundamental Rights of people in the country.
In fact only last week, the Squib in our vol. 9 no 3 edition published an 8 page critique a well-thought out appraisal of the Rules, by Lagos lawyer Adejare Kembi esq. Alas, all those who had spent their money to purchase the 2008 F.R Rules, had unwittingly bought a lie. Likewise the efforts of Adejare Kembi author of the critique of the 2008 F.R Rules, which took him three days of steady application is so much a waste of time. The reason is simple-The so called Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2008 is a mere fabrication, even conjuration of some mischevious fraudulent individuals. The so called law, indeed and in fact, is no law at all but a bogus caricature.
This fact was confirmed by Mr. Masade, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the evening of Wednesday 8th October 2008 via a telephone chat with the editor-in-chief of the Squib. Hear Masade:- “The so called Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2008 law is no law at all. It is the handiwork of some people, who brought the book to sell at the NBA Conference. I am confirming to you that the Chief Justice of Nigeria does not know about the Rules and the Chief Justice did not make those Rules.
You see the NBA has sent a proposed amendment draft of the Rules to the CJN. So when we saw this, the CJN was upset because he thought the NBA had jumped the gun by publishing their proposal and passing of same as the new law. But when we compared what they gave us and the one sold at the NBA conference we found that they were different”.
About a month earlier, one legal practitioner who upon contact with the fake Fundamental Right law suspected its spuriousness, forwarded a letter of complaint to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, requesting for a withdrawal of the illegal Rules (see cover story Exhibit 1).
That lawyer is Femi Falana, the well known human rights activists and author. In a chat with the Squib on Monday the 6th October 2008, Falana explained why he had to write the Chief Justice of Nigeria.
“Before the conference, I had heard about a new 2008 Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2008 being in circulation. A particular candidate in the NBA elections even made reference to it in a Newspaper interview. So when we got to the conference and saw copies of the law, I bought four copies. And other lawyers bought too. Of course I needed to buy and study the ‘new law’ because some of our colleagues were already calling for a review of my book (Fundamental Rights Enforcement) since it examines and discusses the 1979 rules.
However when I read the so called new law, the language of expression was too inelegant. I knew immediately that it could never have issued from the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. I then went to the Supreme Court and met with the Chief Registrar who confirmed my fears. I later wrote the Chief Justice.
Falana’s letter did not go-unanswered. The reply was dated 25th September 2008 and signed by One A.G Sambo, Special Assistant to the Hon. Chief Justice of Nigeria. (see cover story exhibit 2). The content was in line with the position of the Chief Registrar, that the law in question was a fake.
Unfortunately it would appear that the authorities have not done enough to sensitive the public about the existence of the fake law. Although Chief Registrar Masade claimed to the Squib that the disclaimers against the fake law have been put in the print and electronic media, it is doubtful whether any appreciable number of lawyers have come across such.
According to a revered figure in the legal profession, Chief G.O.K Ajayi S.A.N, that such a sordid fraud could be perpetrated on the Bar and Bench in Nigeria, is to blamed on the corruption and maladministration of government.
Explaining further the Chief said, “In the past you get your laws, gazettes from the Government press. But then suddenly those who worked there began to hide away the copies. They rather made photocopies of a single one which they sell to people. That has been the culture now for many years at the Government press and the Ministry of Information”.

NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS [ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE] RULES 2008. A REVOLUTION. By Adejare Kembi

INTRODUCTION

THE NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS [ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE] RULES 2008. A REVOLUTION By Adejare Kembi

INTRODUCTION:
When on the 29th May 1999, a new constitution came into being, some Judicial opinion were that the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules which came into being on the 1st January 1980 and made pursuant to Section 42 subsection. 3 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Hon. Justice Fatai Williams was dead. This position may have been reinforced by the belief of the absence of a saving clause in the 1999 Constitution. It was the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Hon. Justice Muhammed Uwais who drew attention to the provisions of Section 315[4[of the 1999 constitution. That notwithstanding, the need for a review of the rules for the effective administration of the procedure required for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as guaranteed by chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. It is this need that the Hon. Justice Kutigi has fined with the enactment of the 2008 Rules Pursuant to powers granted to him in that respect by Section 46(3) of the 1999 Constitution.

The 2008 Rules - A novelty.
Before a clause by clause preview of the 2008 Rules, it is important that we acclaim that the Rules are different from any other Rules that has ever been enacted for the administration of Justice in Nigeria. In the following respect

a. LANGUAGE

The language of the Rules is simple and shorn of all legal "jingoism". It is clear that it is targeted at the largely uneducated Nigerians whose rights are being trampled upon on a daily bases by the Police, Security Agencies and Government. Intact the simplicity of the language almost made this writer to doubt its genueity. The simplicity is a new but welcome development in legislative drafting.

Beautiful and commendable as the simplicity of language appears to be, one must however point out the carelessness of the draftsman in this piece of legislation. Order (9) (1) stands alone, and follows Order 1 [1] as there is no Order 8 precedent to it. Order 1 on Language actually dealt with interpretation and not Language. - This is because Interpretation is

An attempt to explain the reason for an event, a result, someone's actions etc.
While Language is

The system of communication by spoken words, which is used by the people of a particular community, country or area.

b. SAVINGS
While abrogating the old Rules the new Rule in its Order (9) (1)? Preserves the forms in its Appendices for the purposes pf the new Rules.

c. NOTARISATION
The Rules by Order 1 granted powers to legal practitioners (5 years post call, Attorneys-General, Senior Advocates of Nigeria in addition to the well established commissioner for Oaths. This will reduce the arrogance of commissioners for oaths and thus further enhance the implied urgency in every application for the enforcement of a Fundamental Right.

d. LEGAL REPRESENTATION
In its Order 1, the Rules defines Legal Representative to include "Legal representatives" include any person, whether legally qualified or not, acting for, assisting or representing a party in any suit govern by this rules or which could be so governed. Legal representative may be or include human right activists, advocates, or (interest) groups as well as any non- governmental organizations. The legal representatives may assist an applicant or respondent with preparing their application or defence, or with court appearance or representation.

The liberation of this definition/interpretation [as underlined] may have created a vocation for human rights campaigners as they are now legally recognized to represent applicants / victim even at the High Court. This provision, in a society that is plagued by poverty, may sound heart warning but may be defeated by two situations / circumstances:-

• In a predominantly illiterate society, this may create a new vocation of ill-literate "Legal Practitioner" who will reap off unsuspecting Applicants and

• The Legal Practitioner Act by its Section 2 prescribed the guidance for the entitlement to practice as a barrister and solicitor. Under what rule/law/practice/procedure has this innovation come?

Professional jealousy compelled this writer to initially hastily jump to the conclusion that the courts will throw out this provision by virtue of the constitutional provision which entitles a person to defend himself or by a Legal practitioner of his choice. A careful perusal of Section 36 of the constitution revealed the fallacy of this line of thought.

By Section 36(6)
Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to:

a. Be informed promptly in a language that he understands and in detail of the nature of the offence

b. be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.

c. defend himself in person or by a legal practitioner of his own choice.

A clear perusal of this provision shows that it applies only to criminal litigation.

By Section 36(1) - (3) the Constitution provided safeguards and procedures for the "determination of the civil rights and obligation of her citizens". There is no requirement that citizens for that purpose may not be represented by others who are not legal practitioners.

I dare to submit, that many fake lawyers who are currently facing criminal charges may find a lee way in this provision of the constitution provided they have not appeared in criminal matters. Definitely the last has not been heard on this matter. There is a long list of decided cases by judges on this issue which will definitely be the subject of future discourse.

e. PUBLIC INTEREST
For the first time in Nigeria or it's Jurisprudence, our law or a subsidiary will recognize Public Interest. It infact enlarges the scope of public interest by recognizing the interest of "a segment of it" in promoting, not only human rights, but also the advancement of human rights law!!! Welcome on board more Human Rights Associations. For the first time also, the "Justicability clause" in the 1999 constitution may come under serious threat.

f. OVERRIDING DIRECTIVES
Flowing from (e) is the creation /recognition of a new "overriding Directives" Eleven in number, it covers such diverse areas as:-
a. proactively giving effect to the said directives

b. Recognition of Regional and International Tribunals such as
i. The African Court of Human and People's Rights.
ii. The European Court of Human Rights and
iii. The Inter - American Court of Human Rights.

It is respectively submitted, that by the wording of 3(8) of the Rule, it allows of any decision of ANY Court on Fundamental Rights. The use of the words "must respect" gives the impression of a binding nature. Like Public Policy, the unruly horse, Judges will have a field day giving effect to this provision.

c. The erstwhile position of the Court not being a Father Christmas also died with the old rule. By the provisions of 3(d)

the Court may raise issues suo motu , grant relief not sought, or make a case for the Applicant. Without being sought, it MUST CONSIDER his bail or release whether or not it is raised in the proceedings.

d. Must pursue enhanced access to Justices for all classes of diligent -the poor, illiterate, reinforced, valuable, incarcerated and unrepresented Of all the classes so enumerated the most interesting is the class unrepresented. How can the Court go about this? Will the Court move itself to probe and investigate cases of those in detention without representation even with the liberalization on representation? The practicality remains to be seen.


g. LOCUS STANDI
Generally defined as the "standing to sue" it has been the bane of many litigants. A legal design to keep away busy - bodies it requires a litigant to have sufficient interest (legal) in the subject of litigation. Prior to the commencement of this rule, it is the person whose fundamental rights has been. is being or likely to be violated that can institute an action for its enforcement. This position is dissemble from the provisions of section 46(1) of the 1999 constitution which provides

- Any person who alleges that any of the provision of this constitution has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State IN RELATION TO HIM may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.

This position was upheld by Order 1 Rule2(c) of the extant rule. Infact it is the actual person whose rights have been breached that can bring an application (Alhaji Shugaba vs. Minister of Internal Affairs) (1981) 2 NCLR 459. Then. it is impossible to file an action in the name of any person other than the complainant - Asemota v Yusuf(1981) 1 BCLR 420.

It must however be conceded that the Supreme Court has always struggled to channel a different course from the restrictive approach to locus standi espoused in cases like Abraham Adesanya v The President (1981) 5 SC 113; Thomas vs. Olufosoye (1956) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 669 and a land mark point was reached in the case of Gani Fawehinmi v Halilu Akilu (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt 67) 797.

A review of the previous position is necessary in order to understand the revolutionary position of the new rules. In order 2 Rule 2(f); the Court must encourage and welcome public interest litigation in the human rights filed and no human rights case may be dismissed or struck out for want of locus standi. in particular, human rights activists, advocate, or groups, as well as any non-governmental organization, may launch human rights suits on behalf of any potential applicant In human rights litigation. The applicant may include any of the following:-
i. Anyone acting in his own interest
ii. Anyone one acting on behalf of another person
iii. Anyone acting as a member of or in the interest of a group or class of persons.
iv. Anyone acting in the public interest.
v. Association acting in the interest of its members or other individuals or groups.

With these provisions, class suits has been introduced in Nigeria. Companies involved in services that may affect the lives of members of society must be extra-careful. Brilliant Advocates may cleverly linked such issues with infringement of Fundamental Rights and the present Federal Government initiative against pfizer over the Kano deaths may have unwillingly opened a new Vista in Tortious liability litigation.

Another positive aspect of this provision is the fact that warring Communities in the Niger Delta may find in it the opportunity to leave the war field for the court rooms as the door to the court room has not only been permanently opened but widened. As the Yorubas will say. O gba ole o gba ole . Time will however tell whether his provision will not offend the constitutional provision that insists that - Any person who alleges that any of the provision of this constitution has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State IN RELATION TO HIM may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.

h. TECHNICALITIES
The draftsman's abhorrence of technalities came to the fore in sub rule 3h as the rules deliberately outlawed
- Procedural formulae
- Arid legalism

As a means of hampering, hindering, impeding, inhibiting , obstructing or stalling ( I hope Dr Kole Abayomi is not reading this) human rights enforcement which is now a vehicle for the advancement of Nigeria Democracy, good governance, human rights civilization and realization.


i. PRECEDENCE
A new class of priority was also created as Human Rights Suits MUST TAKE PROCEDDENCE AND PRIORITY OVER ALL other businesses of the court including cases in which ATTORNEY - GENERAL or SAN may appear.

j. FEES
Access to Justice will be incomplete where the fees are exorbitant. The Rules, without any scale, required that it must be as low as practicable. This was the sore area in the review of files fees by the Tinubu Administration with the various bars in Lagos State. A situation where it is cheaper to bribe the Police than to approach the court is definitely not right or helpful to the enforcement of fundamental rights

k. COMMENCEMENT
The new rules also took away the discretion of the Courts in determing whether an action falls within chapter IV OF THE Constitution upon commencement as the requirement for leave is no longer mandatory.

The inelegant manner of the draftsman by incorporating the forms into the rules may however make this a debatable position. This is because the form continually refers to leave of court.

In form 1 - notice of Motion for an Order enforcing a fundamental Right (Order 2 Rule 1(1) it says ......................... Pursuant to the leave of the court given on the .................. day of................ does this mistake? Is repeated in form 2. Talking about inelegance, Form 2 did not take into consideration provisions of Order 2 Rule 10

I. ANCILLIARY OR PRINCIPAL
By virtue of Order 2(3) (b), it would appear that legislative intervention via the new rules has also finally sounded the death knell of Tukor V Government of . Gongola State [1989] 4 NWLR [PT 117] 517. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the position that for an application to come under chapter IV of the Constitution the breach must be principal and not ancillary to the main claim. It thus held that the deposition of the Applicant was the main claim and the absence of fair hearing in the process leading to the deposition is merely ancillary.

Order 2(3) (b) provided that the overriding directive shall be for the purpose of advancing but never for the purpose of restricting the applicants rights and freedoms.

And for the avoidance of doubt reiterated the applicability of international bills of rights cited to it, brought to its attention or of which it is aware and then listed such bills to include:

i. The African Chapter on Human and peoples' Rights and other instructions (including protocols) in the African regional human rights system.

ii. The American Convention on Human Rights and other instructions (include protocols) in the inter - American Regional Human Rights System.

iii. The European Convention on Human Rights and other instruments (include protocols) in the European Regional Human Rights system, and

iv. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments (Include protocols) in the United Nations human rights System.

PROOF OF SERVICE
The rigidity attached to proof of service has been highly relaxed by virtue of Order 2(9). This is a serious improvement on the previous Order2(4) where it was provided

- An affidavit giving the names and address of, and the place and date of service on, all persons who have been served with the motion or summons must be filed before the motion or summons is listed for hearing, and if any person who ought to have been served under paragraph 3 has not been served,, the affidavit must state that fact and the reason why service has not been effected. And the said shall be before the Court or judge on the hearing of the motion or summons as all the court requires now by Order 2[6] is

“Proof of service on any respondent shall not be required where it is evident to the court, by attendance of that party or his representatives, or otherwise howsoever, that the party has been served . The interpretation of the underlined segment is bound to be interesting.

n. DEFENCE
For the first time a detailed procedure for defence is enshrined in the FREP Rules, putting its proactive inclination into good use. This law proceeded, in this area, on the assumption that the respondents) really has a case to answer and then proceeded to make clear provision, for apology and compensation as envisaged by the Constitution. It is important that sub rule 3 is set out in order to appreciate the beauty of the provision

a. The offer of compensation may be in general terms or may specify the amount of compensation offered and the payment schedule, and the tender of apology may be in general terms or may specify the language of the apology, the medium in which it is to be published and the publication deadline.

b. Where the offer of compensation is in general terms, the court must at the hearing order the amount of compensation and the payment schedule.

c. Where the tender of apology is in general terms, the court must at the hearing direct the language of the apology, the medium in which it is to be published and in the publication deadline.

d. Where the offer of compensation or tender of apology is in specify terms, it will be subject to approval by the Court or Judge who may vary the offered compensation or tender apology after taking into account any contributions, submissions or proposals by the applicant or his legal representatives.

o. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
It appears that the interpretation of whether a stay will exist on all actions or matters relating to or connected with the applicants suit is now determinable upon whether the Respondent admits or intend to admit substantially the whole of the Applicant's case See 3[4] unless the Judge specifically orders.

p. WRITTEN BRIEF
Not surprisingly, the new rules have followed the recent trend of filing and serving briefs of argument to help speed up the proceedings.

Found in Order 4 and titled Rocket Docket and Briefs of Argument, it contains detailed provision on written briefs. Out of tandem with it's heading, the section contains only provisions for written briefs and none on dockets which is interpreted as a list of legal cases that will take place in a particular court and is obviously a reference to a court list.

q. APPLICATION TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS
The erstwhile Order 3 is the new Order 5 and save for minor amendments is substantially the same, this may stem from the fact that proceedings rarely proceed under this Order as the provisions for judicial review has adequately covered this area.

r. APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION AND RELEASES OF PERSON RESTRAINED
The first improvement in this area is in the title. The previous rule envisages an application for production and /or release while the new rule envisages an application for production AND release.

Secondly, the application may be exparte or on notice. Where on notice the occurrence of any of the following will ripen the application for hearing
a. where the application is served
b. where the potential respondent or a concerned party is in court (presumably not the Applicant)

The Judge may release forthwith or grant bail or may direct the applicant to file a human rights suit. [One initially thought that every application filed under this rule is a human rights suit]

Thirdly the strict requirement of service is again waived under this provision as the Order may be left with any person working with that officer, superintendent, authority or person. - Sec.(6)

Conclusion
In view of the brevity of time and space, it can be said that the new rules is a substantial improvement on the old rules as it seems to have further simplified the procedure wherein the citizenry can indeed challenge the enormous and coercive powers of the state. Granted that the former rules are compact, direct and detailed in legal material particular, a feature which sadly is missing from the new rules, yet the revolutionary provisions will, in the next few months create such a stir in fundamental rights litigation. A lot will depend on the Judges before whom Advocates will begin an exciting foray into the new rules. This, I dare say will dampen many an advocate as the judicial activism, envisaged by the new rules, may be lacking as our Judges may not be willing to take the 'risks' encouraged by the new rules and 'face the establishment'.

The role of the Nigeria Police, the necessary re-education of many of our security agencies, and possibly a new regime of compensation collection, may be required to give effect to some of the laudable provisions.

All in all, with respect, the incumbent Chief Justice of Nigeria, incidentally a Northerner has blazed a new trail of empowering democracy through the instrumentally of the law.. How far the disciples will follow suit is just a matter of time.

SAMPSON BAMGBOSE: IKORODU BAR UNMASKS FAKE LAWYER AFTER 19 YEARS

In a popular movie, the star actor was fleeing for his life. Hot on his heels were four gun-men with strict orders to bring back the actor’s scalp. Fortunately at the nick of tune, he gained a precious three minutes lead when his pursuers ran into a ditch and fell down.
In the confusion, the quarry disappeared from sight. The hunters knew he could only be in one place, a building some hundred meters away. Soon they were inside but were surprised to see that it was a museum of human statutes and wax works. In all the figures numbered a hundred, all of them life-like human sized and naked.
The hunters knew one of the statutes was their prey, but how to identify him presented a dilemma, for all the figures looked so real. To make matters harder, some of the figures could be seen laughing, yawning, smiling, winking and shaking their heads. One of them even spoke out in clear warm voice “Welcome!”
The killers decided to conduct physical examination of the figures one by one. To save time they split into four units. When the fellow to examine the actor turned emergency statute came to him, the ‘statute’ suddenly stretched out his right and hissed “You care for a handshake”? There was a dead cold glint in his eyes as he spoke. The examiner recoiled in horror and moved quickly to the next figure on the line. And so the day was saved for the lead character.
However one Mr. Sampson Bamgbose, an Ikorodu based, fake lawyer extra-ordinary was not that lucky. Just like the actor in our story, he had put a lot of ingenuity to escape detection. His luck and wits, to be fair, lasted quite a long while, nineteen years, but it could only go on so far.
In the earlier years of his career, Bamgbose, a man who by dint of forgery, ‘graduated’ from the MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY in the UNITED KINGDOM and by further dint of forgery ‘graduated’ from the Nigerian Law School in 1988 and by an additional leap of forgery called him self to the Nigerian Bar in 1989. He later established himself as a legal practitioner at Fadeyi, Ikorodu road area of Lagos State.
About three years ago Bamgbose relocated his ‘practice’ to Ikorodu Town. He set up-chambers in an entire building and at a time had three legal practitioner in his employ. In our story of the actor and his hunters, the escaped defection by blending expertly with his environment. He took to heart the adage. “When you are in Rome, do as the Romans do”.
This was the path Bamgbose also took. He did everything plansible to easily pass off as a truly qualified barrister. When he was a ‘Fadeyi, Lagos based lawyer’ he acted the part well. The story was no different when the impostor relocated his practice to Ikorodu Town (due to a hushed up office rent fraud). Bamgbose for starters set up chamber in an entire story building and did not hesitate let people know that he was called to the bar as far back as 1989.
By his claim, then there were only four lawyers, including the well known silk, Chief B.O.B Benson that were seniors to him in Ikorodu town. Accordingly many junior lawyers in the town gave him a lot of respect, addressing him respectfully as “senior”.
Sampson Bamgbose did not run one-man chambers. Within a year of his arrival in Ikorodu he had three legal practitioners in his employ. For good measure, Bamgbose became quite an active member of the young Ikorodu Bar and by year 2007, he had become important enough to be made the co-chairman of Law Week Committee. Claiming to be a qualified arbitrator, he almost presented a paper on the Practice and Conduct of Arbitration as part of that year’s Law Week Programme of the Ikorodu Bar. Amazingly, the impostor had headed a probe and disciplinary Committee of the Ikorodu Bar which tried some lawyers for certain misconduct! And to the knowledge of the Squib, Bamgbose had, at least one occasion hosted the monthly meeting of the Ikorodu bar.
As appearances go, Bamgbose had no problem in passing himself off as a legal practitioner. He dresses well, speaks good English and comports himself in a likeable manner. This is how a senior lawyer who has known Bamgbose for more than fifteen years described him. “I am shocked to learn that Sampsom Bamgbose is not a lawyer. He comports himself very well. He speaks English fluently. I have had discussions with him and I can say that he is intelligent. He is a likeable fellow, extra-ordinarily lively. There is nothing about him to suggest that he is not a lawyer. I am sure that his wife and children cannot believe that the man is not a lawyer.
Information reaching the Squib explained the downfall of the impositor as occasioned by a persistent rumour that ‘gentleman’ Bamgbose was a fraud. Distrubted by these rumours the Executive Committee, of the Ikorodu Bar mandated Mr. S.O.K. Owosile, the Secretary of the Bar to invite Bamgbose to a meeting with the E.C. so that the truth should be known.
Bamgbose honoured the invitation on 20 August 2008 and came with quite a packet of various certificates numbering 17 in all!
Bamgbose’s bundle of certificates was certainly impressive, but it did nothing to douse suspicious because of some disconnect in them.
For example Bamgbose claimed he got his Bachelor of Law Degree in 1988, from the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Yet by 1989, he was already called to the Nigerian Bar 1989. This simply was not possible under Nigeria’s legal education where students of law who graduated from approved foreign Universities are required to spend two academic years, passing both the Bar Part 1 and Bar part 2 (Final) examinations before getting called to bar. Thus Bamgbose who supposedly graduated from the University of Manchester in 1988 could not have been called to the Nigerian earlier than in 1990.
When the Executive Committee of the Ikorodu Bar took him up on this score, Bamgbose told them that he was exempted by the Council of Legal Education from taking the Bar Part 1 Examinations! But when asked to produce the letter or certificate of exemption, the man got stuck.
Suddenly the Committee noticed another anomaly, this time in the Certificate of call to the Bar of Bamgbose. Please see cover story exhibit. The certificate bears two reference statute at the top, to wit- (i) The Legal Practitioner Act 1975 (ii) Law of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 CAP 207, yet the certificate states that Bamgbose was called to the Bar in 1989, a year before the law of the Federation of Nigeria was enacted!
‘Barrister’ Bamgbose had no answer to this discrepancy. Suddenly the ‘learned senior’ fell on his knees and started weeping like a baby and begging for a soft landing from the leaders of the bar. At a stage he promised to give two plots of land to the Ikorodu Bar if the leaders would be kind enough to save him the rigour of prosecution in the court of law.
The Executive Committee, bothered about participation of their branch in the then forth coming the Annual Conference of the NBA in Abuja (August 25-30) postponed immediate action against Bamgbose but collected the copies of his ‘certificates’ that he brought with him. Those copies were not originals but certified true copies of the forged documents. According to Bamgbose, the originals of his certificates were in the safe custody of Union Homes.
Soon after the NBA conference, the committee “pounced” on Bamgbose and dragged him to the police. Surprisingly Bamgbose offered some resistance before the police, denying that he ever accepted that he had been practicing law without the proper qualifications.
That pose however did not endure in the face of the penetrating questions of both the police and the lawyers. The man broke down and admitted that he was not a lawyer after he was confronted with the fact that his name could not be found on the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria.
He confessed that all his post-secondary school certificates are forged, but insisted the Nigeria Law School only that he stopped after failing the Bar Part I examination twice! Where is ‘Barrister’ Sampson Bamgbose now? As at press time he was still with the police. Although he was at first granted bail but when his sureties later approached the police to withdraw, the police cut his freedom.
All through last week, the police attempted to arraign the impostor to court but the magistrates were not in town (gone for computer training) The police hope to commence the prosecution of the smart alee on Monday, the 22nd September 2008, when the courts presumably will be open.