EFCC Advises Fayose To Face Task Of Governing Ekiti And Stop Baseless Accusations

Following the accusation of the Governor of Ekiti State, Ayodele Fayose saying the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had given Femi Falana properties from the recovered pension funds, the commission has released a statement to address the accusation.

Read the full statement below;

‘The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) takes exception to the attempt by the Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, to impugn the integrity of its Chairman, Ibrahim Magu, over the management of assets recovered from pension fraud suspects. The governor, who addressed the media today in Ado Ekiti, was quoted as saying that respected Lagos lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Femi Falana, “was one of many highly placed Nigerians who allegedly were compensated by the EFCC and Ibrahim Magu with properties retrieved from corrupt government officials.’

‘This is the most irresponsible allegation, coming from a governor of a state. Will Fayose, in good conscience be able to name the “prominent Nigerians’, that the EFCC and Magu supposedly ‘dashed seized properties to curry their favors’?

‘The EFCC does not need to ingratiate discerning Nigerians to win their support. The Commission’s record and the uncommon commitment of Magu to the fight against corruption is the reason why patriots like Falana would openly identify with the Commission’.

‘Magu and the EFCC did not give out any property, being suspected proceeds of crime, to anybody. The Commission never received any property from Abdulrasheed Maina and could not be compensating people for what does not exist. If Fayose has evidence to the contrary, he is at liberty to call another world press conference to expose all the prominent Nigerians’.

‘Otherwise, he should face the task of governing Ekiti and the challenge of accounting for his stewardship as his tenure hits the homestretch’.

NNPC Operates Outside The Law! By Femi Falana

In his defence of the allegations of unilateral award of $25 billion contracts and sole management of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to the exclusion of the Board and the Minister of State in the Ministry of Petroleum Resources, the NNPC GMD, Dr. Maikanti Baru has categorically stated that he has the power to award contracts without any reference to the NNPC Board. He also pointed out Dr. Ibe Kachukwu, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Petroleum Resources had equally awarded contracts without the approval of the Board when he was the NNPC GMD. As far as Dr. Baru is concerned the NNPC Tenders Board is competent to award contracts in line with the NNPC Handbook.

For reasons best known to him, Dr. Baru did not deem it fit to respond to the unilateral appointments of key staff in the NNPC without the approval of the Board of Directors. Since this particular allegation was not denied it is reasonable to conclude that it is admitted by the NNPC management even though the appointments in question were made in utter violation of the Federal Character Commission Act. It is however germane to review the matter within the ambit of the law notwithstanding the report that the presidency has thrown its weight behind the NNPC GMD in the face off with the Minster of State in the Petroleum Ministry. But for the national issues involved in the ongoing imbroglio one would have wanted to say that it serves Dr. Kachukwu well. After all, sometime in 2015, I had requested for information on the huge fund collected from the NLNG but which was not transmitted to the Federation Account. I was flabbergasted when Dr, Kachukwu who was then the GMD refused to accede to my request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act on the grounds that the NNPC is not a public institution!

However, the defence of Dr. Baru has failed to take cognizance of the provision of section 6 (c) of the NNPC Act which has vested the Board of the NNPC with the exclusive power to “enter into contracts or partnerships with any company, firm or person which in the opinion of the Corporation will facilitate the discharge of the said duties under this Act.” For the avoidance of doubt, section 1 (2) of the NNPC Act states that the affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Since it is conceded by Dr. Baru that some contracts are subject to the approval of either the Board or the Federal Executive Council he is yet to inform the Nigerian people who approved the $25 billion contracts.

It is pertinent to state, without any fear of contradiction, that by virtue of section 3 of the NNPC Act the GMD as the chief executive of the Corporation shall be responsible for the execution of the policy of the Corporation and the day to day running of the Corporation’s activities and its associated services. But contrary to the erroneous impression conveyed by the management of the NNPC there is no conflict whatsoever between the provisions of the NNPC Act and the Public Procurement Act, 2007 to justify the usurpation of the powers of the NNPC Board by the Tenders Board of the NNPC headed by the GMD. Therefore, the unilateral award of multi-billion dollar contracts in the NNPC by Dr. Baru or the Tenders Board is illegal, null and void in every material particular.

With respect, the totality of Dr. Baru’s defence was anchored on the mistaken belief that the NNPC Act does not require him to report to the Minister of State but to President Buhari in his capacity as the Minister of Petroleum Resources. Dr. Baru must have forgotten that upon the removal of Dr. Kachukwu as the NNPC GMD in 2016 the President appointed him as the Chairman of the reconstituted Board of the NNPC in line with section 3 of the NNPC Act. Therefore, the decision of Dr. Baru to bypass the Chairman of the Board in the award of the contracts and appointment of NNPC staff cannot be justified either under the NNPC Act. Since Dr. Kachukwu was not removed as the Chairman of the Board the President ought not to have encouraged Dr. Baru to treat him and with such pompous disdain and arrogance.

In saying that he followed due process in the award of the $25 billion contracts Dr. Baru gave the highly misleading impression that once the President was briefed with respect to the award of the contracts due process was observed in line with the PPA. With respect, such position is neither backed by the NNPC Act nor the PPA. But as far as the PPA is concerned, the competent authorities that have the final say in the award of contracts and disposal of public assets under the current political dispensation are the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) and National Council of Public Procurement (NCPP). The NCPP is not chaired by the President but by the Minister of Finance. The other members of the NCPP include some officials of the federal government and representatives of relevant professional bodies and civil society organizations.

Apart from constituting the NCPP and the BPP the President has not been empowered to approve any contract whatsoever. In fact, there is no reference whatsoever to the Federal Executive Council in the entirety of 61 sections of the PPA. To that extent, the FEC presided over by the President cannot approve the award of contracts which is the exclusive duty of the NCPP and BPP. Although the PPA was enacted in 2007 the President or the Federal Executive Council (FEC) has been approving multi-billion dollar or naira contracts, albeit illegally. Such illegality was perpetrated by the Yaradua and Jonathan regimes. Even the Buhari administration which has loudly undertaken to fight corruption has ignored calls from many civil society organizations to set up the NCPP.

Since neither the President nor the Federal Executive Council is competent to approve the award of contracts under the PPA the claim of the NNPC GMD that the controversial contracts were approved by the President cannot be justified under the PPA. To avoid a situation whereby the $25 billion contracts and others being awarded by the Buhari administration are annulled and set aside on the grounds that they were awarded by either the President or the FEC without any legal authority I hereby call on President Buhari to constitute the NCPP without any further delay. If this call is ignored, once again, the civil society anti corruption bodies ought to approach the Federal High Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the President to inaugurate the NCPP.

Apart from breaching the NNPC Act and PPA the NNPC has conveniently ignored the National Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Act. Hence it has refused to comply with the directive of the NEITI to remit $21.7 billion and N376 billion illegally withheld from the Federation Account. Even though Dr. Kachukwu recently disclosed that the nation had lost $60 billion due the NNPC has refused to recover same by implementing the provisions of the Deep Offshore and Inland Basin Production Sharing Contracts Act. And instead of directing the NNPC to recover and remit the the huge fund to the Federation Account the Federal Government is busy piling up external loans. It is also worthy to note that the NNPC does not subject its budgets to the National Assembly for appropriation as stipulated by the Constitution and the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Shortly before proceeding on its annual vacation the Senate disclosed that the NNPC and 33 other agencies of the federal government had failed to submit their 2017 budget to the National Assembly. Characteristically, the NNPC management ignored the disclosure knowing that the Senate would not pursue the matter.

Finally, Dr. Kachukwu owes it a duty to react to the allegation of the management of the NNPC that as NNPC GMD he too had engaged in the unilateral award of multi -billion dollar contracts. Even if the allegation is true it cannot justify the reckless impunity that has characterized the management of the affairs of the NNPC since 1999. No doubt, the allegations and counter-allegations of Dr. Kachukwu and Dr. Baru over contract awards have reinforced my call on President Mohammadu Buhari to relinquish the post of the Minister of Petroleum Resources and appoint a full-fledged Minister to run and coordinate the affairs on the oil and gas industry in strict compliance with the law. Furthermore, the NNPC Board should be reconstituted because it is currently constituted by 9 members instead of the 6 persons provided for by section 1(2) of the NNPC Act.

Electoral Justice in Nigeria, Kenya

By Femi Falana

Both Nigeria and Kenya have been battling with electoral malpractice and political violence for over a decade. The 2007 general election in Nigeria was truly a “do or die” affair as declared by President Olusegun Obasanjo. Hundreds of people were killed by security forces for protesting the brazing manipulation of the results of the general elections. The Ahmed Lemu presidential panel set up by President Goodluck Jonathan to probe the mayhem that greeted the announcement of the result of the 2011 presidential election found that 943 people were killed while 838 others were injured. While the Federal Government paid over N10 billion as reparation to the victims of the riots, it failed to prosecute the 626 who were arrested in connection with arson, culpable homicide and other grave offences perpetrated due to official impunity.

In 2008, the brutal killing of over 1000 people in Kenya over post election violence led to the setting up of a panel of inquiry headed by Mr. Kofi Anan, a former Secretary-General of the United Nations. Based on the report of the inquiry Messrs Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto were charged with crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for allegedly masterminding the politically motivated killings. Notwithstanding the election of both suspects as President and Vice President of Kenya respectively in the 2013 general elections the cases continued and were eventually struck out due to want of diligent prosecution.

Many Nigerian commentators have commended the Supreme Court of Kenya for the revolutionary decision to annul a presidential election. Not unexpectedly, such critics have censored the Nigerian judiciary for invoking the nebulous doctrines of substantial compliance to uphold the results of fraudulent elections. Some lawyers have gone to the extent of blaming Nigerian judges for the undue delay in the hearing of election petitions. With respect, the comparison of the decisions of the Supreme Courts of Nigeria and Kenya on election petition is rather odious. Hence it has become necessary to review recent developments in the electoral jurisprudence of both countries.

Fidelity to the Kenyan Constitution

Based on gross irregularities and violence which had marred the 2007 general elections which led to political violence in Kenya the members of the political class decided to use the instrumentality of the law to sanitize the political system. Thus, in 2010, Kenya decided to enact a new Constitution through a popular and democratic process. At the end of the day, the Kenyan people produced one of the best constitutions in Africa. To prevent a delay in the hearing of election petitions section 140 of the Constitution stipulates that presidential election petitions shall be heard and determined within 14 days. It is pertinent to recall that the Supreme Court of Kenya had dismissed the petition filed by Mr. Raila Odinga against the 2013 presidential election won by President Uhuru Kenyatta on the ground that it was conducted in accordance with the Electoral Act. See Raila Odinga & 2 others v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2013] EKLR.

That decision was largely influenced by Nigerian cases, which were relied upon by the Court. But the Kenyan parliament decided to review the electoral system by enacting the Electoral Act 2016 to provide for electronic voting and the appointment of the chairman and members of the Independent Election and Boundary Commission through an interview conducted by a selection board as well as the Offences Act 2016 to provide for electoral offences and penalties. It was on the basis of such progressive review of the relevant laws that the Supreme Court had no difficulty in upholding the petition of Raila Odinga against the election of President Uhuru Kenyatta which held in Kenya on August 8, 2017. See Petition 1 of 2017.

Although the petition was filed on August 18, 2017 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment two weeks later. That was made possible with the aid of technology. The Court allowed a live coverage of the proceedings by the media. Instead of spending precious time on calling hundreds of witnesses to give oral evidence or adopt written depositions and be cross examined by opposing lawyers the electoral body was ordered by the Court to produce the uploaded results of the election. The registrar of the court was directed to collect the results and other election materials from the IEBC for examination by the parties and the court. In the historic judgment the court validated electronic voting. However, the court found that the massive irregularities in the transmission of election results had compromised the integrity of the election.

In annulling the results of the presidential election the Supreme Court held that the IEBC had “failed, neglected or refused to conduct the presidential election in a manner consistent with the dictates of the Constitution.” Although the “reasoned and considered judgment” would be made available not later than 21 days the summary has confirmed the unqualified commitment of the court to the rule of law. Before the judgment was delivered, Chief Justice Maraga had rightly set the tone for the business of the day when he noted “the greatness of any nation depends on its fidelity to its Constitution and adherence to the rule of law and above all respect to God.”

Since it is the first time that any court has annulled the result of a presidential election in Africa the judgment has far-reaching implications for democracy and rule of law in the continent. Although the details of the judgment have not been provided, the summary of the findings and orders made by the Court have sufficiently confirmed the independence of the judiciary of Kenya. It is particularly significant to note that the Court rebuffed pressures from local and foreign economic interest groups who had wanted a judicial endorsement of the malfeasance, which marred the presidential election.

While reacting to the judgment, the petitioner, Mr. Raila Odinga of the National Super Alliance (NASA) said that it “marked a historic day for the people of Kenya and by extension for the people of the continent of Africa.” He faulted international election observers who had attempted, in their reports, to legitimise the electoral fraud by saying that the election was credible, fair and free. One of the election monitoring groups, the Jimmy Carter centre led by former United States Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry was particularly patronizing in its endorsement of the results of the election. While asking Mr. Odinga to move on and stop protesting the election results Mr. Kerry said the election was fair and free.

The election observers of the Commonwealth and African Union equally claimed that the election was credible and that its results should not be challenged. But the judgment of the Supreme Court has questioned the credibility of the choreographed sanitisation of the fraudulent election results by the so-called representatives of the international community. Not a few interest groups called Mr. Odinga a bad loser for approaching the Supreme Court for legal redress. But it turned out that the filing of the petition doused tension in the country as angry protests had led to the killing of not fewer than 24 people by security forces.

Electoral Injustice in Nigeria

Although the petition against his election was dismissed by the Supreme Court, President Umaru Yar’Adua said that the election was fraudulent and proceeded to set up the Mohammed Uwais-led panel to probe the conduct of the election and make appropriate recommendations. The panel recommended inter alia that appointment of the chairman and members of INEC should be by advertisement, setting up of electoral offences tribunal and conclusion of all petitions before the inauguration of elected governments. The Ahmed Lemu presidential panel set up by President Jonathan in 2011 made additional recommendations to guarantee credible elections. But the Peoples Democratic Party and the All Progressives Congress have refused to implement the recommendations of both panels.

However, amendments were made to the Constitution in 2010 and 2011 while a new Electoral Act was enacted in 2010 by the National Assembly. The Electoral Act has been subjected to many amendments. Pursuant to section 52 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2015 the effect that “voting at an election shall be in accordance with the procedure determined by the Independent National Electoral Commission” INEC introduced the use of card readers for accreditation of voters. In spite of the opposition of the then ruling party, (the Peoples Democratic Party) the Attahiru Jega-led INEC conducted the 2015 General Elections with the aid of card readers. Manual accreditation of voters was however allowed if the card reader machine malfunctioned.

Accordingly, many tribunal and judicial divisions of the Court of Appeal nullified elections where voters deliberately ignored the use of card readers for accreditation. Curiously, the Supreme Court set aside the annulment of some governorship elections on the ground that INEC acted illegally by introducing the use of the card reader. In a critique of such judgments, I was compelled to challenge the apex court for not making any reference to the relevant provision of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2015 which had empowered INEC to determine the procedure of voting at an election. (Seehttp://www.thisdaylive.com /index.php /2016/04/05/the-legality-of-card-reader)

But it is pertinent to point out that while election petition tribunals and the Court of Appeal have not hesitated to quash the results of elections conducted in contravention of the Electoral Act, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the results of controversial presidential elections since 1979. While conceding that such elections were not properly conducted the court has always validated them by relying on the doctrines of substantial compliance with the enabling law or failure of election petitioners to prove allegations of electoral fraud beyond reasonable doubt. At the Commonwealth Lawyers Conference held in Lagos in 1981, the late Graham Douglas, SAN, who was the nation’s Attorney-General during the 1979 general election revealed that the Supreme Court had no choice but to dismiss the case of Awolowo v Shagari (1979) 6-9 S.C 37 as the Obasanjo military regime had concluded the handing over of power to the President-elect, Alhaji Shehu Shagari.

But since 1999, election petitions have always been determined a year or two after a general election. Thus, at the time the judgment in an election petition is delivered, the elected President would have had the first budget passed, represented the country in international fora and announced major decisions which may include the approval of the appointments of federal judges and performed other presidential functions. Therefore, election petitions, which are determined in the middle of the term of sitting Presidents, are usually thrown out on grounds of public policy. Indeed, if the election petition is upheld and the result is annulled on grounds of electoral malpractice the apex court is likely to be accused of deliberately promoting political instability in the country!

Unlike the Kenyan Constitution, which provides that election petitions shall be determined within 14 days, section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended provides for 180 days for the trial of petitions at the election petition tribunals and 120 days at the appellate courts. Whereas presidential and legislative election petitions are determined by two courts those arising from governorship elections alone are determined by three courts. Pre-election matters have no time limit. Hence, over two years after the 2015 general elections some pre-election matters are still pending in the appellate courts!

Although high court judges are competent to hear pre-election matters filed in the courts manned by them, they are disqualified from hearing election petitions filed in the same courts on the ground that they could be influenced by local political interest groups. Therefore they are posted to other states for 180 days in an election year while other cases being handled by such judges are adjourned sine die. The Electoral Act favours elected persons whose returns are being challenged in court. Having taken oaths of office the respondents usually frustrate expeditious determination of election petitions. The respondents also collude with INEC to make it impossible for petitioners to prove electoral malpractice as they are denied access to election materials. In the circumstance, they are compelled to apply to election petition tribunals for permission to inspect election materials. Other dilatory tactics designed to prolong the hearing of election petitions are employed by the respondents’ lawyers.

 

The Road to Electoral Justice

From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the Supreme Court of Kenya has freed itself from the dangerous influence of Nigerian courts by jettisoning the doctrines of substantial compliance and proof of election petitions beyond reasonable doubt. In line with the provisions of the Electoral Act 2016 it has also embraced technology to facilitate the hearing and determination of election petitions within 14 days. Instead of blaming Nigerian judges for our out-dated and unjust electoral justice system, the National Assembly should be prevailed upon to take advantage of the on-going review of the Constitution and the Electoral Act to make provisions for electronic voting, speedy determination of election petitions, appointment of electoral umpires through advertisement in the media, prosecution of electoral offenders and live coverage of the hearing of election petitions by the media.

Source: Thisday

EDITORIAL: Democracy, Licentiousness And Free Speech

The legal luminary and activist Femi Falana (SAN), has correctly pointed out that there are enough laws in the statute books to confront hate speeches and utterances which are clearly constructed to promote discord amongst ethnic and religious groups as well as cause disaffection within the Republic. It is therefore superfluous in the views of many people that the federal government now sees a need to, tighten the screws by putting more laws on the statute books to curtail the promoters of hate speeches.

From our perspective, it might be superfluous, nevertheless, in view of what is in reality a very calculated promotion of hate speeches often to achieve a political advantage which the government must respond.

A key problem here is the very interpretation of the concept of free speech for mostly self-serving reasons by members of the contending political factions. Free speech is a clearly guaranteed component of a democracy. We, however, make bold to point out, that this does not equate with licentiousness. For a democracy to survive there must be clearly enforceable laws against sedition, treason and using the communication media to foment discord which could end up undermining the state and destroying our hard-earned democracy.

We are aware for example, as to how the use of demagoguery and hate speeches propelled the Nazi party led by Adolf Hitler to victory in Germany in 1938. The end result was that 60 million people ended up dead as a result of an avoidable war instigated by the Nazis and their allies. Countries in Europe and elsewhere sensibly responded by saying NEVER AGAIN!!

They enforced this position by passing stringent anti-defamation laws with strong penalties to deter those who use speeches and imagery to target groups. This has had salutary effects. Till date in Germany, it is illegal to wear insignia depicting support for the Nazi party. This in no way tramples on free speeches but guarantees it. Groups must be protected in a democratic setting and the state has a moral duty and political obligation to move against those who wish to undermine it by sowing discord. In contemporary terms, the sad example of the misuse of Radio Rwanda should serve as a warning to those who equate licentiousness with democracy. Within a week 800,000 innocent souls were laid to waste as a result of the inability or unwillingness of the state to regulate the broadcasting station.

Regulation is key. It has to be stated here, that self-regulation is not working assiduously as it should. Everyone in the formal and the informal media must realise that they have a duty to modulate extreme views in order to preserve their own freedom to operate. Let no one be in doubt, the proponents of hate speeches have an authoritarian disposition which is irreconcilable with the ethos of democracy. Once they have achieved their aim, out goes any pretence of democracy. This is a vital and recurring decimal in contemporary history. We must be forewarned. For It is the inadequacy of self-regulation that has led to the development of this toxic atmosphere in the first place.

It’s Unlawful For Military To Arrest Hate Speech Offenders – Falana

Human Rights Lawyer, Femi Falana, says it is unlawful for the military to arrest perpetrators of hate speech in the country.
Falana said this while reacting to the purported directive of the federal government to the military to clamp down on purveyors of hate speech.

Earlier this week, the military had announced that it will be on the lookout for comments and utterances that could threaten the nation’s peaceful co-existence.

In a statement, Falana said it is only the Nigerian police force that is empowered to carry out such a directive in line with their responsibility of maintaining law and order.

The senior advocate of Nigeria (SAN) also called on President Muhammadu Buhari to also respect the rights of those seeking the negotiation of Nigeria’s unity “within the ambits of the law”.

“While the federal government is entitled to continue to defend the corporate existence of Nigeria, the right of any group to disagree with the official stand within the ambit of the law should be respected,” he said.

“Therefore, the purported presidential directive authorizing armed soldiers to arrest civilians involved in ‘subversive activities’ should be withdrawn. More so, that it cannot be justified under any law in Nigeria.

“Since it is the constitutional responsibility of the police to maintain law and order in our democratic society, members of the armed forces should not be permitted to arrest alleged purveyors of hate speeches.

“For the avoidance of doubt, section 4 of the Police Act has empowered the Nigeria Police Force to arrest and prosecute criminal suspects in the country.

“However, section 47 (1) of the CyberCrimes (prohibition, prevention etc) Act provides that law enforcement agencies shall have power to prosecute offences under this act while section 58 thereof defines law enforcement agencies to include ‘any agency for the time being responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this act.’

“As the Nigerian Army is not one of the law enforcement agencies envisaged by the Act and other penal laws it should not be permitted to enforce any of the laws against hate speeches.”

Falana also said what Nigeria needs is the political will to enforce pre-existing laws targeted at dealing with hate speech and not establishing new ones.

 

What Constitution Says About President Buhari’s Return – Falana

Activist and Human right lawyer, Femi Falana has disclosed that the Nigerian constitution has no time limit for when President Muhammadu Buhari is expected to return and resume his duties.

Falana made the disclosure while reacting to protest by some cross section of Nigerians in Abuja, who were demanding the immediate return or resignation of the President.

Recall that, after initially spending over 50 days on medical vacation in London, the President had in May returned to London for a follow-up medical check-up and is yet to return.

Against this backdrop, some youths led by ace musician, Charlyboy asked the President to return and resume his duty or resign.

Speaking yesterday, the constitutional lawyer maintained that the constitution is silent on how long the president can be away on medical vacation.

He said, “As at the time the constitution was amended in 2010 it took cognizance of the president leaving the country without handing over hence the constitution was amended compelling the president to transmit a letter to the National Assembly. And once he does that, the Vice President shall automatically become the Acting President.

“If he does not transmit a letter after 21 days, the vice president shall automatically become the president, ditto for the states. But as to the duration the president can be absent, the constitution is silent.

“So it is therefore hoped that the ongoing review of the constitution will address that because you may have a situation where an elected president will be away for three and half years out of his four years tenure or even the entire four years tenure. It is a possibility.”

 

 

Restructuring Nigeria Must Be About The Economy, Not Only Political – Falana

Human rights activist, Mr. Femi Falana has said Nigeria’s restructuring, should focus more on the economy rather than on political change alone. He made this assertion at the tribute and colloquium in honour of Late Prof. Abubakar Momoh, organised by the Academic Staff Union of Universities, Lagos State University (ASUU-LASU) held at the Main Auditorium, Lagos State University Ojo, Lagos. Mr Falana chairman at the event lambasted Chief John Oyegun, chairman, All Progressive Congress for denying his party’s earlier promise to restructure the country, noted that restructuring of Nigeria has

Mr Falana chairman at the event lambasted Chief John Oyegun, chairman, All Progressive Congress for denying his party’s earlier promise to restructure the country, noted that restructuring of Nigeria has ro encompassing to reflect true federalism. His words, “Restructuring should also be an opportunity for us to challenge the Chairman of APC Chief John

“Restructuring should also be an opportunity for us to challenge the Chairman of APC Chief John Oyegun , restructuringwho came out publicly to say that the APC neto restructure, I refer him to the manifesto of APC which promised to restructure Nigeria in order to realise the federalism that our forefathers talked about.

In article 25 of that manifesto, APC said it was going to initiate programmes that will lead to the restructuring of Nigeria so that true federalism can be realised but you know once you get to power in Nigeria you want to retain the status quo”, he said. The erudite lawyer also frowned at the jumbo pay by political leaders especially governors called for a review of the remuneration system. His words, “There is no section of the

“There is no section of the Constitution that describes governors as Executive Governors but what we have today is executive governors. This is where restructuring must face as Nigeria is the only country in the world where if you serve as governor for four or eight years, you will get a house in your State and in Abuja aside other benefits, “added Mr Falana. In his tribute to the late Prof. Momoh, Falana said Nigeria has lost a principled comrade. “One of our most consistent and principled

“added Mr Falana. In his tribute to the late Prof. Momoh, Falana said Nigeria has lost a principled comrade. “One of our most consistent and principled comrades is gone. We have lost a gem in the struggle. It is difficult to replace him. If we are honouring Momoh today, we must agree to rededicate ourselves to the struggle. Do not agonise, but, we must be organised”, he stated. In his own tribute, Prof Lai Olorode, who spoke on”Nigeria in Crisis: Rethinking Economic Policies and Posing Alternative Developmental and Political Options” described crisis as a paradigm in which an old system is dead or moribund and a new one cannot be born. Olorode who faulted Nigerians for believing the manifesto of the present administration on free feeding for school children when it was the same Buhari during his tenure as Head of State

If we are honouring Momoh today, we must agree to rededicate ourselves to the struggle. Do not agonise, but, we must be organised”, he stated. In his own tribute, Prof Lai Olorode, who spoke on”Nigeria in Crisis: Rethinking Economic Policies and Posing Alternative Developmental and Political Options” described crisis as a paradigm in which an old system is dead or moribund and a new one cannot be born.

Olorode who faulted Nigerians for believing the manifesto of the present administration on free feeding for school children when it was the same Buhari during his tenure as Head of State cancelled free feeding for school children which led to the sack of over 10,000 Nigerian caterers, called for the inclusion of young people in governance. “Nigeria is dying because true patriots are dying and there is no replacement for them. We are confronted with genuine cultural and political disaster of not being able to recruit young people into our movement”. On his part, Prof Abiodun Ogunyemi. National

“Nigeria is dying because true patriots are dying and there is no replacement for them. We are confronted with genuine cultural and political disaster of not being able to recruit young people into our movement”. On his part, Prof Abiodun Ogunyemi. National President, the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU enjoined his members not mourn the death of Momoh. But that they should remember him for the landmark he set. “For us in ASUU, we are not going to mourn but celebrate Prof. Momoh for the indelible marks he left, and for his

“For us in ASUU, we are not going to mourn but celebrate Prof. Momoh for the indelible marks he left, and for his footprints on the sand of life that taught us great things. As a lecturer, he demonstrated leadership and humbled himself as a follower. He was also an advocate of rights to education.

It is our belief that education shall be the right of every Nigerian. added Prof Ogunyemi. Other who paid tribute to the late LASU Dean of Law, include ,Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Prof. Olumuyiwa Noah who represented the Vice Chancellor, Professor, Olanrewaju Fagbohun and host of the event, Chairman, ASUU-LASU, Dr. Isaac Oyewunmi who both described Momoh as a master strategist, a skilful tactician, and a setter of landmarks.

 

 

Source: Vanguard

2017 Budget: Falana Free To Go To Court Says Senate

Senate spokesman, Senator Sabi Abdullahi, who spoke on behalf of the red chamber, said that Falana was seeking relevance, adding that he was free to take the Senate to court if he felt strongly about his views.

 

The Senate, chided the Lagos lawyer, Mr Femi Falana, over the statement credited to him, in which he insisted that the National Assembly lacks the power to increase the budget.

 

“He (Falana) is entitled to his opinion. We have been hearing so much from him these days. It’s like he wants to comment on everything. I liken him to those they call Charlie, Charlie lawyer. He is looking for attention. Let him take us to court if he so wishes.

 

“In any case, 2019 is by the corner, let him contest and come to the National Assembly so as to show us the legal things. Let him come and consolidate and do the legal things, he can come to point out the illegal things to us,” he said.

 

Falana had, in media reports, on Sunday, advised Acting President Yemi Osinbajo to withhold his assent to the 2017 budget forwarded to him by the National Assembly on Friday.

 

According to Falana, the budget was “illegally” increased by the National Assembly.

Media reports quoted the lawyer, who spoke in Ilorin, Kwara State, at a colloquium organised by the Movement for Genuine Change, to mark the 50th anniversary of the creation of Kwara State, as saying that the National Assembly lacked the power to increase the budget.

The report also quoted Falana as saying that President Muhammadu Buhari could not sign the budget as of now, because he had written the National Assembly, intimating the lawmakers he was on medical vacation.

Falana Advices Osinbajo Not to Sign 2017 Budget

Popular legal luminary and human rights activist, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), has advised the Acting President Yemi Osinbajo not to sign the 2017 budget since it was illegally increased by the National Assembly.

Speaking during a colloquium organized by the Movement for Genuine Change to mark the 50th anniversary of the creation of Kwara State Falana said “The President is not competent to sign any bill into law while he is on vacation. The constitution did not envisage that a President who is on a vacation and an acting president, who is standing proxy for him will be exercising presidential powers simultaneously.

“To that extent, pending the resumption of duties by President Buhari, the Acting President, Prof. Osinbajo, is competent to sign all bills validly passed by the NASS.

“If President Buhari did not exercise powers during his vacation even though he was in the country, why would he want to do so while he is on medical vacation abroad?

“Instead of dissipating energy over the competence of an appropriation bill signed into law by the Acting President, Nigerians should subject the 2017 budget to scrutiny.

“We are therefore calling on the Acting President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, who is a professor of law not to endorse and sign the illegal appropriation bill of 2017 into law.”

Falana also charged authorities in the military to fish out her members who are involved in the planned coup that has been making the rounds since Army Chief Buratai sounded the alarm.

Falana Tells Ambode, You Can’t Execute Rev. King

Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), has asked Governor Akinwunmi Ambode of Lagos State to commute the death penalty passed on death row inmates in the state to life imprisonment instead of executing them.Those on death row upon the judgment of the court of Lagos State included the General Overseer of Christian Praying Assembly, Chukwuemeka Ezeugo, a.k.a. Rev. King.

Falana argued in his letter dated April 19, 2017 and addressed to Ambode that the planned execution of death row inmates in the state would violate a subsisting judgment delivered in 2012 by the High Court of Lagos State which ruled that it was illegal and unconstitutional to execute condemned inmates.

He reminded the governor that the judgment of the court of the state had held that to hang or subject death row inmates to firing squad would lead to the violation of their fundamental right  to freedom from torture guaranteed by the constitution.

The judgment was said to have been delivered by Justice Mufutau Olokooba of the Lagos State High Court on June 29, 2012.

The Lagos lawyer advised the state government to explore the only available option of commuting the death penalty passed on the inmates to life imprisonment.

Falana stated, “On the basis of the valid and subsisting judgment of the Lagos High Court on the illegality of the execution of the death penalty in Lagos State we urge Your Excellency not to sign a death warrant authorising the killing of any condemned prisoner either by hanging, firing squad or any other means whatsoever.

“In the circumstance, Your Excellency may wish to commute the death sentences of all condemned prisoners in Lagos State to life imprisonment forthwith.”

The Attorney General of the state, Mr. Adeniji Kazeem, was said to have stated at a press conference on Tuesday that unlike previous administrations, Ambode would sign the necessary documents to execute those on death row in the state.

Kazeem reportedly said the development was at the instruction of Ambode and that the state had begun reviewing the matter after prison officials complained of the highhandedness of some death row inmates who felt that they had certain rights which excluded them from being executed.

But Falana stated that the planned execution would negate the subsisting court judgment.

Falana stated, “Although many persons have been convicted of armed robbery and murder and sentenced to death by the Lagos State High Court since 1999, your predecessors did not sign death warrants for the execution of any person on death row.

“Accordingly, all the convicts on death row have had the death sentences imposed on them commuted to life imprisonment.

“It is pertinent to draw the attention of Your Excellency to the case of Ajulu & Ors. v. Attorney General of Lagos State (unreported), Suit No: ID/76M/2008 of 29th June 2012,  wherein the  Lagos State High Court held that while a person who commits murder may be sentenced to death, it is illegal and unconstitutional to execute such death sentence by hanging or firing  squad as it will lead to the violation of his fundamental right  to freedom from torture guaranteed by the constitution.

“According to the learned trial judge, Olokooba, death by hanging and firing squad amounts to a violation of the condemned’s right to dignity of the human person and amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and is consequently unconstitutional being a violation of Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

“Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Law of Lagos State and any other law which provides for hanging by the neck till death are accordingly declared unconstitutional. Section 1(3) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act in so far as it seeks to be implemented by the respondent is also declared unconstitutional and void.”

 

Source: Punch

$43.4m Cash Haul, Handle With Care, Falana Advises Govt

Femi Falana Activist Lawyer yesterday expressed reservations over the controversies trailing the cash found in a residential apartment on Osborne Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, by operatives of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

According to him, like the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) claimed the ownership of the $9.3 million, the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) has come out to claim the sum of $43 million, N22 million and £27,000 seized by the EFCC last week.

He urged the authorities to handle the matter with transparency to avoid a repeat of what happened to the $9.3 million ferried to South Africa in a private jet in 2014.

Falana’s statement reads: “In 2014, two businessmen (an Israeli and a Nigerian) smuggled $9.3 million to South Africa from Nigeria. It was alleged that the private jet with which the fund was hauled was leased from the then President of Christian Association of Nigeria, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor.

“Both suspects were arrested while the fund was seized.  The additional sum of $5.7 million sent to South Africa through a bank by the duo was also seized. Although the Federal Government was not implicated in the transfer of the fund, the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) later claimed that the $15 million was meant for the purchase of arms from a firm in South Africa.

“As the ONSA could not justify the brazen contravention of the Money Laundering Act of South Africa, the fund was confiscated on the orders of a High Court in Pretoria. When tried last year to confirm from the Attorney-General of the Federation if the forfeited sum of  $15 million had been recovered from the President Jacob Zuma regime, I was asked to direct my enquiry to the ONSA.

“It is hoped that history is not repeating itself with respect to the embarrassing  attempt by the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) to claim the sum of $43 million, N22 million and £27,000 seized by the EFCC last week from a flat at a building in Osborne Road, Ikoyi.

“The Federal Government owes the nation a duty to handle this matter with utmost transparency and circumspection. The NIA should not be allowed to play on the collective intelligence of the Nigerian people. If the Federal Government believes the cock and bull story of the NIA, the danger is that similar hidden funds are going to be officially protected, thereby making a mockery of the whistle-blowing policy of the government.

“We must avoid a situation whereby huge funds hidden in abandoned buildings and apartments are said to be “operational funds” kept by certain security agencies. If the EFCC had refused to seize the fund last week, the whistle-blower could have rushed to the media to accuse the Buhari administration of keeping stolen money for the 2019 general elections.

“Apart from the NIA, the Rivers State government is also laying claim to the fund. But instead of giving the Federal Government a seven-day ultimatum to hand over the money to the Rives State government, Governor Nyesom Wike should instruct his attorney-general to file an affidavit at the Federal High Court.

“But before doing that, he should carefully study the case of FRN v CBN (unreported) where the application of the Delta State government to claim the bribe of $15 million paid to the then EFCC chairman, Mr. Nuhu Ribadu, by a former governor of the state was dismissed as the applicant was unable to prove that it owned the money.

“On a more serious note, are Nigerians to believe that an agency of the federal government kept about $50 million in an apartment without adequate security personnel to guard the money? Why was the fund not kept in a safe in the well-fortified ONSA?  When was the National Intelligence Agency exempted from the Treasury Single Account (TSA)?

“If the DG of NIA has just gone to brief President Buhari that the fund was collected from former President Goodluck Jonathan for a special project, why did the briefing not take place before now? Since the NIA is in charge of external security why was it necessary to execute projects in the country? How much of such fund is being kept in private homes by the NIA and other security agencies?

“Since the whistle-blowing policy of the Federal Government commenced why has the NIA not deemed it fit to take the anti-graft agencies into confidence with respect to the fund being kept in Ikoyi for the so called covert operations?

“Is the Federal Government not being exposed to ridicule when corrupt public officers are competing with government departments to hide millions of United States dollars in dump sites and ‘safe’ apartments? Anyway, since the Federal High Court has granted the application filed by the EFCC for an interim forfeiture of the fund, it is no longer an internal affair of the Buhari administration.  Let the National Intelligence Agency approach the court with convert proof to claim the money.”

 

Source: The Nation