The Supreme Court will on December 15, 2017 deliver a landmark judgment in relation to the practice of law, especially as it concerns legal practitioners and the filing and signing of court processes.

In the appeal pending before the court, the issue of proper person to sign processes to be filed in court has come up for review and determination. The appellants in this case are seeking to set aside the judgment of the court of appeal, on the grounds, amongst others, that the notice of appeal was not properly signed by a legal practitioner known to law, in that it was signed “& Co.”

In many of its decisions starting from the case of Okafor v Nweke, the Supreme Court has maintained that only a legal practitioner, whose name appears on the Roll of the Supreme Court, can competently sign any process to be filed in court.

Upon being served with the appellants’ brief in this case, settled by Afolabi Kuti, Esq., the respondent, thorough his counsel, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, Esq., requested for the convening of the Full Court of the Supreme Court, to determine the crucial issues arising in the appeal.

The respondent urged the Supreme Court to depart from all its previous decisions on the point, on a number of grounds. First it was contended that a 1968 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cole v Martins was not adverted to, in the case of Okafor v Nweke, and indeed in many of the decisions that followed it. In that said case, it was held that a process signed by “Lardner & Co.” cannot be said to be defective when the author was sufficiently identifiable and traceable and no possible doubt or confusion can arise from his description as such.

It is also being contended further, by the respondent, that section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act has been wrongly interpreted to guide the practice and procedure of the courts, especially in relation to the filing of court processes, whereas the purport of the Act is simply to regulate legal practice outside and beyond the courts.

In the alternative, the respondent is urging the court to consider the effect of section 4(9) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits retroactive legislation, to apply it to judicial proceedings, and thereby limit the application of Okafor v Nweke and the cases following it, to the dates of those cases, instead of the current practice whereby these cases are being deployed to wake up dead and concluded cases from their well deserved judicial graves.

The respondent is also seeking departure on the ground that these decisions are contrary to public policy of not permitting the trade practice of lawyers to affect the innocent litigants, who are not conversant with the style and procedure of signing and filing of court processes.

When the appeal came up for hearing on September 26, 2017, the Supreme Court panel of seven justices, led by the Honourable Justice Mary Odili, JSC, granted leave to Mr Afolabi Kuti to amend his notice of appeal and the appellants’ brief, to incorporate the issue of jurisdiction newly raised, whilst Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa was granted leave to also amend the respondent’s brief.

After taking arguments from counsel to the parties, the court reserved its judgment till 15th December, 2017.

By Chinyere Obia

Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, counsel to the leader of proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, on Wednesday, September 27, 2017 dragged the Chief of Army Staff, Tukur Buratai, to court, praying for an order to compel him to produce Kanu in court on his next trial date coming up on October 17.

In an originating summons filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, Kanu’s lawyer claimed that the whereabout of the IPOB leader has remained unknown since the military invaded his resident.

It will be recalled that troops of the Operation Python Dance II on September 12, 2017 allegedly invaded the family home of Kanu in Abia State.

“The palace of Kanu’s father, Eze Israel Kanu, who is the traditional ruler of the Afaraukwu community, was destroyed in the course of the operation. The whereabouts of Kanu, his father and his mother during and after the invasion has remained unknown,” the lawyer held.

Kanu’s lawyer in the suit is praying for an order, compelling the Chief of Army Staff to produce Kanu in court on the next adjourned date, to enable him defend himself of the terrorism charges preferred against him by the Federal government.

The lawyer, who anchored the application on five grounds, is asking the court to take judicial notice of the fact that Kanu has lawfully exercised his constitutional right of freedom of association, peaceful assembly and self determination.

According to Ejiofor, Kanu was still enjoying the bail granted him by the court when the prosecution in his trial requested the court to revoke his bail that was granted him by Justice Binta Nyako.

He also accused the Nigerian Army of acting under express command handed down by Buratai by violently invading the applicant’s home, where several people where allegedly killed and others injured.

Part of the grounds for the relief read in part: “On 14th day of September, the Nigerian military led by soldiers of the Nigerian Army invaded the applicant’s house on a murderous raid, where life and mortar bullets were fired on unarmed and defenseless populace, leaving 28 persons dead and abducting many.

“The applicant who was in the house during this bloody onslaught by the soldiers, has not been heard from or seen after this bloody attack in his home by the Agents of the Respondent since the 14th day of September.

“The invading soldiers in their desperate bid to ensure that the Applicant is caught in the attack climbed stairs to his bedroom upstairs to shoot him; walls of his bedroom were riddled with bullets.

“The invading soldiers who had direct contact with the applicant on this fateful day (14th day of September) should be in a position to produce the him before the court. It is either the Respondent’s rampaging soldiers abducted the applicant during this raid or must have killed him in the process.”

Ejiofor added that Section 40 of the Federal High Court Act empowers this court to order that a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum (A Writ directed to someone detaining another person and commanding that the detainee be brought to court) be issued on the respondent, to produce the applicant in court, particularly as his substantive criminal trial is coming up on October 17.

“The court is vested with inherent powers under Section 6(6) (a)- (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as (Amended 2011) to entertain this application and grant reliefs sought herein.

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), had approached the Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdul Kafarati, with an ex-parte application, asking him to proscribe all the activities of IPOB and declare the organisation a terrorist outfit.

The judge consequently granted the application and directed the federal government to gazette the order and publish it in two national dailies.

By Chinyere Obia

A Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday, September 26, 2017 dismissed an application by a former Minister of Aviation, Femi Fani-kayode, seeking transfer of a money laundering case against him.

Fani-Kayode, who was also Chairman, Media and Publicity, of the 2015 PDP Campaign Organisation, is charged alongside a former Minister of State for Finance, Nenadi Usman.

Also charged is a former National Chairman of the Association of Local Government in Nigeria (ALGON) Yusuf Danjuma, and a company, Jointrust Dimensions Ltd.

The accused are charged by The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on 17 counts of alleged N4.6 billion money laundering.

They had, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The accused were first arraigned on June 28, 2016 before Justice Muslim Hassan of same court,  but the judge withdrew from the suit on March 16, (this year) following an application by Fani-Kayode, on grounds of a likely bias.

The case was, therefore, re-assigned to Justice Mohammed Aikawa and the accused were re-arraigned on the charges.

At the last adjourned date on June 21, defence counsel, Mr Norrisson Quakers (SAN), had prayed the court to transfer the case to its Abuja division, adding that the court lacked jurisdiction.

He had argued that the facts of the case showed that all the transactions carried out by the accused while Director of Media and Publicity of the Goodluck Jonathan Campaign Organisation, took place in Abuja.

Besides, he had argued that the accused resides in Abuja and had another trial ongoing at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Meanwhile, in objection, EFCC’s lawyer, Mr Rotimi Oyedepo, had urged the court to refuse the application on the grounds that the transactions as well as cheques and receipts in furtherance of same were done in Lagos.

He had urged the court to dismiss the application for transfer, as a mere waste of time.

Delivering judgement on Tuesday, Justice Aikawa held that some of the authorities cited by defence counsel were delivered before the enactment of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, which he noted had provided exceptions to the issues of venue of court.

“In the case before me, the prosecution avers in its counter affidavit that “the sum of N30 million was paid to PW1 (Olusegun Idowu) of Paste Posters Company Ltd, who has his office in Lagos”.

“This, in my view, shows that all facts leading to the transaction was done in Lagos, and only evidence will prove otherwise.

“In the light of all these, it is clear that the facts and circumstances of this case falls into the exceptions of the law regarding criminal trials.

“There is no justification to warrant a transfer of this case to Abuja; the interest of justice requires that the trial of this case continues in this court.

“This application hereby fails and is accordingly dismissed,” he said

The court also ruled on an objection raised by defence counsel on the last adjourned date, challenging the tendering of photocopies of payment receipts by PW1, who had began his evidence on June 7.

Aikawa held that it was not the business of the court to concern itself with whether a document is original, so long as the document sought to be tendered, is duly certified.

The court accordingly, dismissed the objections, admitted the receipts in evidence and marked same as Exhibits 3 and 3A respectively.

The court then called on prosecution to continue with the examination of his first witness.

Led in continuation of his evidence before the court, Oyedepo asked PW1(Idowu): “You told the court that you printed some posters, now take a look at Exhibit 3 and tell the court if that is the payment receipt.”

In response, the witness echoed “yes” and added that the amount on the receipt was N6 million which payment was made to him in cash, and in the name of “Directorate of Media and Publicity, PDP Campaign Organisation”.

The witness added that, on same day, the sum of N30 million was also remitted to him in cash in the name of same Directorate.

After the conclusion of his testimony, the prosecutor informed the court that he was done with examination in chief of his first witness.

Meanwhile, defence counsel, (Quakers) urged the court to grant an adjournment to enable him study the exhibits and prepare his cross examination.

The court consequently, adjourned the case to Wednesday, September 27 for cross examination and continuation of trial.

In the charge, the accused were alleged to have committed the offences between January and March 2015.

In counts one to seven, they were alleged to have unlawfully retained over N3.8 billion which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of the proceeds of an unlawful act of stealing and corruption.

In counts eight to 14, the accused were alleged to have unlawfully used over N970 million which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of an unlawful act of corruption.

Meanwhile, in counts 15 to 17 Fani-Kayode and one Olubode Oke, who is said to be at large, were alleged to have made cash payments of about N30 million, in excess of the amount allowed by law, without going through a financial institution.

Besides, Fani-Kayode was alleged to have made payments to one Paste Poster Co (PPC) of No 125 Lewis St., Lagos, in excess of amounts allowed by law.

All offences were said to have contravened the provisions of sections 15 (3) (4), 16 (2) (b), and 16 (5) of the Money laundering (prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 2012.

By Chinyere Obia