Connect with us

The Oracle

The Oracle: The Role of Courts in Enforcement of Judgments (Pt. 1)

Published

on

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

Introduction

In Nigeria, the courts under the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Section 6, Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended) 1999), has the power to hear and enter judgment in favour of a party to the matter, who has succeeded in proving his case. For any judgment delivered by a court of competent jurisdiction to become useful, it must be enforced, otherwise, the judgment cannot be used by the party to discharge the reliefs sought in the judgment by the court. There is no doubt, that the age long law is that a judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction subsists until upset or sit aside on appeal. See NCC v. MOTOPHONE LTD & ANOR (2019) LPELR – 47401 (SC). This article shall focus on the role of the Courts in Nigeria, in the enforcement or execution of judgments delivered by the courts in Nigeria.

Therefore, in reviewing the role of the courts in the enforcement of judgement in Nigeria, we shall also review what courts and enforcement really mean, the types of judgments that is enforceable under Nigeria jurisprudence, the challenges encountered by courts in the enforcement of judgments, if any, and when a judgment is said to be fully and legally enforced or executed by a party to the judgment, through the courts.

What Is A Court?

A Court simply put is a forum, place or building where persons or corporate bodies litigants who have a dispute come to state facts and adduce evidence to prove their individual cases or allegations at trials. A court is constituted and established often by government as an adjudicating body or institution, with authority to decide legal disputes between and amongst disputants and running and managing the processes of justice in criminal and civil courts and adhering to the rule of law, equity and natural justice. The presiding person or groups of persons of these courts are usually called Magistrates, Judges, Justices and or Chairmen of Tribunals, which also serve as special courts.

There are various types of courts established under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [as Amended] 2011, [CFRN], from the Supreme Court of Nigeria (being the highest court of record) to customary courts.

Functions of Courts

The courts function as temples of justice, equity and natural law. The courts in Nigeria have many functions, including but not limited to the following:

1. Interpreting the law: The Courts interprets the Constitution and other laws, statutes and case law.

2. Protecting rights: The courts define citizens’ rights and protect vulnerable groups.

3. Resolving disputes: The courts settle disputes between parties through the application of rules and procedures.

4. Adjudicating: The courts determine guilt and administer punishment to those who have breached the law.

5. Guarding the Constitution: The courts are the guardians of the Constitution other laws, statutes and case law and upholds the rule of law.

6. Ensuring access to justice: The courts ensure that judicial services are accessible to everyone.

7. Upholding the rule of law: The courts protect and preserve the rule of law and ensures that laws are in accordance with the constitution and other higher laws.

8. Respecting human rights: The courts respect human rights and follows principles of fairness, equality, impartiality, legality and natural justice.

9. Delivering effective remedies: The courts deliver effective remedies and exercise their remit with the highest level of integrity.

10. Functions imposed by Statute Law: The courts exercises the role imposed by statutes, laws and the inherent powers of the courts.

What Is Judgment?

The word “judgement” can be termed as a pronouncement or a decision reached by a court over a matter that is pending before it. A person who judgment is entered in his favour is called the judgment creditor. The person whom a judgment is entered against is called the judgment debtor. It will suffice to say that judgment must be entered in favour of one party and not both the Claimant and Defendant. The Supreme Court defined the word ‘judgment’ in SARAKI & ANR. V. KOTOYE (1992) LPELR – 3016 (SC) as:

“A binding, authentic, official judicial determination of the Court in respect of the claims and in an action before it.”

Furthermore, UMANAH v. ATTAH & ORS, (2006) LPELR-3356(SC), Per NIKI TOBI, JSC, in defining what a judgment of court is, held that:

“The law is elementary that a minority judgment, as the name implies, is not the judgment of the court. The judgment of the court is the majority judgment.”

There are generally two types of judgments, to wit: Declaratory judgments and Executory judgments.

Declaratory judgments

A declaratory judgment is a court ruling that defines or clarifies the rights of the parties involved in a legal dispute. It’s a binding decision that can be used to resolve disputes, but it doesn’t require the court to order any action to be taken merely proclaims, or declares the existence of a legal relationship and does not contain any order which may be enforced against the judgment debtor. Furthermore, it is correct to state that a declaratory judgment is a binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in a matter before the court.

It is a settled law that, whilst an executory judgment is capable of immediate execution, a declaratory judgment gives no such right. It merely declares the rights of the parties. The rights which it confers on the plaintiff can only become enforceable if another and subsequent judgment, albeit relying on the rights it declared, so decrees. Such a subsequent judgment conferring the power of execution is executor (See David Ogunlade v. Ezekiel Adeleye (1992) LPELR – 23040 (SC)). In such an instance, the date of enforceability will be the date of the subsequent (executory) judgment and not the earlier judgment, which is merely declaratory.

Executory Judgments

An executory judgment declares the respective rights of the parties and then proceeds to order the judgment debtor to act in a particular way, hence, it is enforceable. An executory judgment is a court order that is enforceable immediately after it is pronounced. It is also known as an enforceable judgment.

According to D.I. Efevwerhan¸ “every successful litigant desire to enjoy the fruit of his success, which is judgment.” Execution includes the process of carrying into effect the directions in a decree or judgment.

At this point, it may seem confusing for persons who are not well versed in law. However, this shall now digress to how a successful litigant can enforce a judgment against an unwilling judgment debtor.

Enforcement Of Judgment

Enforcement or execution of judgments can be defined as is defined as: “the process whereby a judgment or order of Court is enforced or given effect to according to law.”(See TUKUR v. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 592) AT 608). The execution of a judgment thus encompasses the enforcement of the various writs provided under the laws for giving effect to a judgment and the most comprehensive laws governing enforcement of judgment are the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, LFN 2004 and the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules. (Ibid).

It is one thing to argue your case before a court successfully and get judgment. It is another thing for the judgment creditor to objectify the fruits of his/her judgment. Often times, aside the psychological gratification of the declaration of’ judgment in winning party’s favour, the winning party ends up with a barren trophy, and the tangible realization of the fruits of the victory becomes a mirage. It is often times resulted from either ignorance or from the tiredness of protracted trial.

Before we progress into enforcement of judgment, it is good we know the law applicable in the enforcement of judgement of Nigeria. Some of these laws are:

a. Judgment Enforcement Rules

b. The Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act

c. The 1999 Constitution

d. Foreign Judgments [Enforcement Reciprocal] Act 2004

e. Administration Criminal Justice Act 2015.

f. The Civil Procedure Rules (Federal or States) of the several courts.

There are different modes of enforcing executory Judgments, as enforcement is according to subject matter. Under enforcement of judgment, the modalities for enforcing monetary judgment are different from the modes of enforcing possessory judgments.

A) Money Judgments

Under monetary judgments, the judgment debtor is expected to pay the judgment creditor the awarded sum. This sum may be damages awarded or a debt the Judgment Debtor owed the Judgment Creditor, which may sometimes constitute the subject matter of the suit.
Modalities for Enforcement of Monetary judgments:

a. Writ of Fieri Facias

This is process is adopted by a judgment creditor in a court to levy execution against the property of the judgment debtor; whether movable or immovable. It should be noted that the property must be within the within the jurisdiction of the court where the judgment was delivered. Under the Enforcement of Judgment, it can only be issued at the expiration of three (3) days from the date of delivery of judgment (see Order IV Rule 1(2) of the Judgment Enforcement Rules).

The initial step is on the movable property of judgment debtor. However, it must be limited to the property that may be seized and exempts wearing apparel, bedding and tools and implements of the judgment debtor’s trade to the value of N10, which is unarguably inconsequential because of the devaluation of the naira (see Section 25 of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act).

Another point to note is that seized property cannot be sold until the expiration of 5 clear days from the date of seizure, unless the goods are of a perishable nature or the judgment debtor requests that they be sold in writing. Where the seized and sold property of the judgment debtor cannot settle the debt, his immovable property may be attached but, with the leave of the High Court first. However, before the said leave can be obtained from a court by the judgment creditor, he must first show sufficient proof from the funds generated by the movable property did not settle the debt and that the property he is seeking to attach actually belongs to the judgment debtor.

To be continued

Thought for the week

The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. (Brett Kavanaugh).

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Oracle

Is the Judiciary Complicit in the Osun State Local Govt Debacle?

Published

on

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

In a landmark decision in ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ABIA STATE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62576(SC) last year, the Supreme Court gave the local government system full autonomy, warning governors to keep their political fingers off Local Government Councils (LGCs). The legal status of the LGCs in Osun State has however been the subject of intense political and judicial debate following the 2022 local government elections. The matter has seen multiple judicial determinations, culminating in two critical Federal High Court judgements; one obtained by the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the other by the Action Peoples Party (APP). While both judgements invalidated the elections conducted by the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSSIEC), the judgement secured by APP remains the extant, binding, and subsisting legal authority, as no superior court has set it aside.

DISTORTION OF THE ESSENCE OF THE JUDGMENTS

In recent times, misinterpretations and misinformation have sought to distort the legal position, with some claiming that a recent Court of Appeal judgement reinstated the sacked local government officials. However, a critical examination of the Court of Appeal’s latest decision shows that it merely struck out the PDP’s appeal on the ground that no cause of action had arisen at the time of its filing. The position of the law in this regard is that when judgements are not to the substance of a case, they do not change the rights and liabilities of parties. See the case of IGBUNBOR V. AFOLABI (2001) FWLR (Pt. 59) 1284 at 165. Importantly, the Court of Appeal did not nullify or overturn the subsisting Federal High Court judgement granted in favour of APP, which therefore remains the authoritative and binding authority affecting the rights of the parties.

It is therefore meet that we clarify the foggy situation by analyzing the relevant judgements, applicable laws, and legal principles that govern the status of the 2022 Osun local government elections. This analysis will demonstrate that the local government councils were legally dissolved and that no subsequent judicial pronouncement had restored them. It will also demonstrate that the latest foiled invasion of many LGCs across Osun State by some APC persons is unconstitutional, illegal and amounted to self-help.

THE 2022 OSUN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS HALLMARKED LEGAL CHALLENGES

The dispute over the Osun local government elections actually commenced in 2022, following the conduct of the elections by OSSIEC. The elections were challenged in court on the basis that OSSIEC had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, specifically sections 28, 29, 32, 98, and 150 thereof.

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the Action Peoples Party (APP) had separately instituted legal actions at the Federal High Court, seeking to have the elections nullified. The basis of these suits was OSSIEC’s alleged non-compliance with statutory provisions and constitutional violations.

THE PDP SUIT IN BRIEF

In the case of PDP, it was alleged that OSSIEC was planning to conduct local government election in Osun State in violation of the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022, specifically sections 28, 29, 30 and 150 thereof. PDP also called on the Federal High Court to apply the decision of the Supreme Court in OSSIEC & ANOR V. ACTION CONGRESS & ORS (2010) LLJR-SC (delivered in 2010), to the effect that any notice of a local government election which is not in compliance with the Electoral Act is null and void. The law in existence as at the time of filing the said suit was the OSSIEC Law, 2015 (as amended).

While the suit was pending, the Osun State House of Assembly repealed the existing 2015 amended OSSIEC Law, and enacted the new OSSIEC Law, 2022, which prescribed 360 days’ notice for election, same as contained in the Electoral Act, 2022. OSSIEC then, during the pendency of the action, published a notice of election prescribing only 60 days as against the 360 days specified by the OSSIEC Law and the Electoral Act.

PDP, then, by an order of court, amended its processes to bring in the new development. OSSIEC still went ahead with the conduct of the election and the All Progressives Congress (APC) participated despite the pendency of the suit at the Federal High Court. It was after the election that the APC and some of its candidates brought a joinder application to the suit in a representative capacity, for all its candidates who reportedly participated at the election. The Federal High Court granted their application for joinder and the whole court processes were amended to reflect all the parties and issues. On 25th November, 2022, the Federal High Court delivered a judgment in the suit, nullifying the election and consequentially sacking all the purported elected officials.

SUMMARY OF THE APP SUIT

The APP’s suit was similar to the PDP suit in all respects; the only difference being that the APP’s suit was filed after the enactment of the OSSIEC Law 2022 and after the publication of the 60-day election notice by OSSIEC, as against 360 days provided by the OSSIEC Law and the Electoral Act.

While both parties obtained favourable judgements, the judgement in the APP suit has become the legally binding decision, as APC’s appeal against it was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the 13th of January, 2025, for want of diligent prosecution. This dismissal rendered the APP judgement the final and only subsisting authority on the matter.

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTIONS

A. The FHC Judgement in APP v. OSIEC (Suit No. FHC/OS/CS/75/2022)

In this case filed by the Action Peoples Party (APP), the Federal High Court (FHC), delivered a landmark judgement that rendered the October 15, 2022, Osun Statw local government elections null and void. The court held that the elections violated the Electoral Act, 2022, and were also inconsistent with the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.

The FHC in the APP case held as follows:

– “The election into local government councils across Osun State held on the 15th of October 2022, pursuant to the notice of election issued on the 15th of August 2022, is hereby declared unconstitutional, invalid, null, and void for violation of the Constitution and breach of Sections 28, 29, 32, 98, and 150 of the Electoral Act, 2022.”

– “All persons or individuals occupying offices in the state local government councils by virtue of the said election are accordingly sacked from holding such offices.”

– “Sections 25 and 26 of the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission Law, 2022, having been enacted in contravention of Paragraph 12 of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Constitution and being inconsistent with Sections 29 and 32 of the Electoral Act, 2022, are hereby struck down.”

I agree with the decision of the FHC because it is trite law that any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void and must be struck down because the Constitution is the grundnorm of the land (see section 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 [as amended]). The Supreme Court, Per JAURO, JSC, pronounced on the supremacy of the Constitution in NPF & ORS V POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (2023) LPELR-60782(SC) (P.154, paras. A-F), thus:

“It is equally imperative to restate the elementary principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the grundnorm, the basic law of the land. It stands head and shoulders above any other law or instrument enacted by the National Assembly, State House of Assembly or any other person or authority empowered in that regard. It is from the Constitution that every other enactment or instrument derive their validity and binding force. The doctrine of the Supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution is traceable to Section 1(1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered), which provides thus: “1. Supremacy of the Constitution (1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.”

Consequently, as was decided by the Supreme Court in the case of PEENOK INVESTMENTS LIMITED V HOTEL PRESIDENTIAL (1982) 12 SC 1, there is undoubted power in the Court to declare null and void any law that conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution”. See also the cases of HON. INAJOKU & ORS V. ADELEKE & ORS (2007) ALL FWLR; OLAFISOYE V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2004) ALL FWLR 1106; AINABEBHOLO V. EDO STATE UNIVERSITY WORKERS FARMERS MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (2007) ALL FWLR 712; PDP v. EDEDE & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57480(CA); PRESIDENT OF THE FRN & ORS v. ISA & ORS (2015) LPELR-25981(CA); and, AG FEDERATION & ORS v. ABUBAKAR & ORS (2007) LPELR-3(SC).

The legal implication of this judgement cannot be overstated. By declaring the 2022 Osun State LG elections unconstitutional, null and void, the court completely erased any legal foundation for the existence of the local government councils elected through that flawed process. The said APP judgement was also a judgement in rem, meaning that it applied to the whole world, all parties and stakeholders, and non-parties alike, irrespective of whether or not they participated in the litigation. In DIKE & ORS V. NZEKA II & ORS (1986) LPELR-945 (SC), the Supreme Court underscored this point most lucidly when it held:

“… A judgment is said to be in rem when it is an adjudication pronounced upon the status of some particular thing or subject matter by a Tribunal having the jurisdiction and the competence to pronounce on that Status. Such a judgment is usually and invariably founded on proceedings instituted against or on something or subject-matter whose status or condition is to be determined. It is thus a solemn declaration on the status of some persons or thing. It is therefore binding on all persons in so far as their interests in the status of the property or person are concerned. That is why a judgment in rem is a judgment contra mundum – binding on the whole world – parties as well as non-parties. ….”

See also the cases of OYETOLA & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2023) LPELR-60392(SC); and, A.G. ABIA STATE & ORS V. A.G. OF THE FEDERATION (2022) LPELR-57010 (SC).

B. The Dismissal of APC’s Subsequent Appeal and the Finality of the APP Judgement

Following the Federal High Court’s judgement, the All Progressives Congress (APC), which had benefited from the October 2022 elections, appealed the judgement in the case filed by APP. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the 13th of January, 2025, for want of diligent prosecution.

The legal implication of that dismissal is that the FHC’s judgement in the APP case remains the extant and binding position of the law. Under section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, all authorities and persons within Nigeria, including government institutions, political parties, and law enforcement agencies are obligated to enforce and abide by the said judgement, the appeal arising therefrom having been dismissed.

The current legal position on the status of the Osun State LGCs following these decisions of both the FHC, Oshogbo, and the Court of Appeal is that the earlier judgment of the FHC, which nullified the local government elections conducted on October 15, 2022, remains binding and validly subsisting. The election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022 therefore stands nullified, while all candidates in that election remain sacked. This will continue to be the position of the law until the judgment is set aside by the apex court of the land at the instance of the APP.

C. The PDP Case and the Court of Appeal’s Technical Dismissal of Same

The PDP had in a separate case similar to APP’s, also challenged the legality of the OSSIEC conducted elections. The FHC sitting in Oshogbo had held in its favour. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal sitting at Akure struck it out on technical grounds. The court held that the PDP’s case was premature and speculative, having been filed prematurely when notice of the election had not yet been issued at the time of filing. This, in the intermediate Court’s view, deprived the FHC of jurisdiction to entertain the case. It is respectfully submitted that the Court of Appeal was right as is trite that where a matter is instituted when no cause of action has arisen, the doctrine of ripeness applies and such a matter becomes merely speculative and amounts to an academic exercise. This position of the law was upheld in the cases of EDEVIE V. OROHWEDOR & ORS (2022) LPELR-58931 (SC); OGBIMI V. OLOLO & ORS (1993) LPELR-2280(SC); and, UWAZURUONYE v. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR-20604(SC).

It must be understood that this judgement did not invalidate the decision earlier obtained by APP at the FHC. Rather, it was a purely procedural decision that had no bearing whatsoever on the substantive matter – the validity or invalidity of the Osun State LG elections. The Court of Appeal held as follows:

“As at the time the PDP brought the suit, the cause of action had not arisen because the notice of election had not been issued. The suit was therefore premature.”

This judgement merely struck out the PDP’s appeal without ruling on the legality or otherwise of the elections. Nor were consequential orders made. More significantly, no declaration or consequential orders were made reinstating the ousted local government officials. When no consequential orders are made in a suit, the status quo remains as contained in the judgement appealed against. See the cases of AKINBOBOLA V. PLISSON FISKO (NIG) LTD & ORS (1991) LPELR-343(SC) and FCDA STAFF MULTI-PURPOSE (COOP) SOCIETY & ORS V. SAMCHI & ANOR (2018) LPELR-444380(CA). The fundamental issues that could have propelled the Court of Appeal to pronounce on the validity or otherwise of the notice of election and the propriety or otherwise of sacking the APC purported elected council officials who had participated in the said election were never considered by the Court of Appeal as they were treated as academic.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: THE INCONTROVERTIBLE DISSOLUTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS

1. The 2022 Osun State LG Elections Were Null and Void

By virtue of the APP FHC judgement, the 2022 Osun local government elections were clearly unconstitutional and void from the outset. As a matter of law, a void act confers no legal right. When an act is void, it is void for all times and is not required to be set aside. In the case of OYENEYIN & ANOR V. AKINKUGBE & ANOR (2010) LPELR-2875 (SC), the apex court held that:

“In law, a void act is an act which has no legal effect or consequence. It does not confer any legal right or title whatsoever, and it does not impose any legal obligation or liability on any one or make any party liable to suffer any penalty or disadvantage.”

In simple terms, one cannot put something upon nothing and expect it to stand. It will collapse. See the cases of LEONARD MACFOY V. UAC LIMITED (1962) AC 152; OKWUOSA V. GOMWALK & ORS (2017) LPELR-41736 (SC); IFEANYI V. OGBA & ORS (2022) LPELR-58787(SC); and, MUSTAPHA & ORS V. ADENOPO & ORS (2020) LPELR-51409(CA). Consequently, no political party, individual or group can lay any valid claim to any Osun State local government offices based on the voided election.

2. All Purported Local Government Officials Remain Legally Removed from Office

Since the FHC in the APP case had expressly sacked all persons occupying the local government positions and no appellate court has reversed that judgement, all the said officials remain legally removed from office. The said judgement remains binding on all parties and the whole world until set aside.

Indeed, the Supreme Court had upheld this position of the law in NGERE & ANOR v. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883(SC), where it held:

“…The judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction subsists until upset on appeal. While the judgment subsists, every person affected by it or against whom an order is made must obey it even if it appears wrong. Judgments take effect immediately they are delivered and every Court has inherent power to proceed to enforce judgments at once. The enforcements on delivery can only be interrupted by a stay of execution provided there is an appeal.”

3. The Court of Appeal’s Judgement in the PDP Appeal Did Not Reinstate Anyone

Contrary to the position of the sacked LG officials who had sought to forcibly gate-crash into their offices, the Court of Appeal never reinstated any sacked LG officials. It merely struck out the PDP’s case without considering or commenting on the validity or otherwise of the voided elections. Consequently, any claim that the Court of Appeal reinstated the ousted chairmen is a deliberate distortion of facts and a result to sophistry.

4. The APP Judgement Is Binding on All Parties

Since APC’s appeal against the APP FHC judgement was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, that judgement remains final and binding on all political parties, individuals and institutions in Osun State. See the case of NOEKOER V. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF PLATEAU STATE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44350(SC), where the apex court held that:

“it is well settled law that the judgement of a competent court subsists and remains binding until it is set aside on appeal”.

5. Any Attempt to Reoccupy Local Government Offices Is Unconstitutional and Amounts to Self Help

Any action taken by political actors to forcefully invade and reoccupy LG offices as was witnessed few days ago is not only illegal but also constitutes a contemptuous disregard of a valid and subsisting court judgement; and indeed a resort to self help, viet armis. The law forbids such resort to self-help by parties in a pending matter with a view to usurping the functions of a court of law. The Supreme Court in AGBAI & ORS V. OKOGBUE (1991) LPELR-225 (SC) 69-70, F-A, trenchantly cautioned that:

“The ratio decidendi of the decision of this Court in Ojukwu’s case is that once there is lis inter partes and the Courts of law are seised with the dispute, no person or authority, whether parties to the lis or not, is allowed by the Constitution to usurp the functions of the Court of law. It is the duty of every person or authority not to interfere with the legal and judicial process from taking its due course.”

The Supreme Court further confirms this position in NWAKIRE v COP (1992) LPELR-2097 (SC) 42-43, A-D, where it held thus:

“That self-help is not allowed in adjudication has been firmly ensconced in the jurisprudence of this nation like the Rock of Gibraltar, which position remains as constant, in Caesar’s words in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “as the Northern Star”.

See the causa celere case of MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE V. OJUKWU & ANOR (1986) LPELR-3186 (SC). See also GARBA V. FCSC (1988) LPELR-1304 (SC) 28-29.

6. The Court of Appeal did not make any consequential Order of Re-instatement of the Sacked LG Officials

It must again be emphasised for the umpteenth time that the Court of Appeal in the PDP appeal decision never validated the election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022 under any guise as the issues on the validity of the election that could have led to a pronouncement on whether or not the APC candidates were rightly sacked were never considered. As a result, there was no consequential order for reinstatement by the Court of Appeal. The only consequential order by the Court of Appeal was an order directing PDP to pay a cost of N250,000 to the Appellants. NO MORE, NO LESS!

CONCLUSION

UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW

The Judiciary’s intervention in both the PDP and APP cases rather than show a Judiciary that is complicit, actually underscored the supremacy of the Electoral Act over state laws in regulating local government elections. Under Nigerian legal jurisprudence, the doctrine of “covering the field” applies here, which provides that all state laws which are inconsistent with federal laws are to the extent of those inconsistencies, null and void. In the case of A.G LAGOS STATE V. EKO HOTELS (2017) LPELR-43713(SC), the apex court expounded on the doctrine of covering the field thus:

“If any law enacted by the House of Assembly of a State is inconsistent with any law validly made by the National Assembly, the Law made by the National Assembly will prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of its inconsistency be void” – Section 4(5) CFRN 1999 {As Amended}. This, in clear language, means that only the law validly enacted by the federal legislature will prevail on that which is also validly made by the state house of assembly but this is only where that State Law is inconsistent with that of the Federal law.”

Similarly, in FRIDAY & ORS v. GOV OF ONDO STATE & ANOR (2012) LPELR-7886(CA), the appellate court held thus:

“…It is thus legal and legitimate for both the National Assembly and a State House of Assembly to legislate on same subject matter provided there is no inconsistency from the State law. Where there is inconsistency however, the State law will be declared null and void to the extent of its inconsistency, and in order not to create any vacuum, resort will be had to the old jurisprudential principle of covering the field, that is to say, that since there is a Federal Legislation on the subject matter, it is not necessary for a Federating State to legislate on that area and the provision made by the National Assembly covers the subject matter in question.”

See also the cases of O.S.I.E.C. V. A.C (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 273; NPF & ORS V. POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION (2023) LPELR-60782 (SC); INEC V. MUSA (2003) LPELR-24927 (SC); and, AIRTEL NETWORKS LTD V. AG OF KWARA STATE & ANOR (2014) LPELR-23790 (CA).

All the judgements involved in these cases actually reaffirmed the necessity for electoral bodies to adhere strictly to established legal frameworks, ensuring transparency and compliance in the electoral process. See the cases of AUGUSTINE & ANOR V. INEC & ORS (2024) LPELR-61876(SC) and BUHARI Vs. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR (1120) 246. Such a judgement serves as a significant precedent for future electoral disputes in Nigeria, thus emphasizing the importance of lawful conduct in the governance process. The Court of Appeal in the PDP appeal having struck out the suit without considering the merit of the decision as regards the validity or otherwise of the election conducted by OSSIEC in 2022, the effect is that the suit filed by the PDP never existed in the eyes of the law.

However, the Court of Appeal in the PDP case did not strike down the judgment of the FHC in the APP case, nor did it validate the 2022 LG election and re-instate the sacked LG officials. The FHC’s decision in the APP case thus remains the only definitive legal authority on the status of the 2022 Osun State LG elections. Until and unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise, the said elections remain null, void, and of no effect whatsoever. No person elected in that flawed process can lay any lawful claim to any office.

Any claim to the contrary is a deliberate misinterpretation of the legal position and constitutes an attempt to undermine the rule of law and subvert the judicial process. Such would also serve as a subterfuge to the powers and decisions of arguably the most important arm of government – the Judiciary.

THE COURT’S DECISION IN THE OSUN LG BROUHAHA MUST BE EXECUTED

It is now the duty of law enforcement agencies and government institutions to ensure that all judicial decisions involved in these cases are respected and upheld. It is trite that all persons and authorities must obey judgements of courts and parties are not permitted to pick and choose which judgements to obey, or which to disobey. This legal principle was emphasised in the case of PDP v. LALONG & ORS (2023) LPELR-61629(CA), where the intermediate court held thus:

“By the provision of Section 287 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, all authorities and persons, including this Court, are expected to observe and ensure the compliance of order/judgments of the Court including High Court particularly orders/judgments that are in rem…An order of a competent Court of law, no matter its nature, is absolute and binding on all and sundry without question until it is legally and legitimately set aside by a competent Court of appellate jurisdiction. The fact of its being final or interim does not therefore affect its application and effectiveness. It remains valid and enforceable and must be obeyed”.

See also the cases of NGERE & ANOR v. OKURUKET & ORS (2014) LPELR-22883(SC); SHUGABA V. U.B.N. PLC (1999) LPELR – 3068 (SC); and, OBOH & ANOR V. NFL & ORS (2016) LPELR-50559 (CA).

THE LAW MUST BE VISITED ON THOSE WHO RESORTED TO SELF-HELP

I watched with dismay and disgust the act of certain LG officials who forcefully barged into the LG headquarters, attempting to reclaim office in the false and erroneous belief that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the PDP case had re-instated them to their official positions, such was nothing short of brigandage and crude resort to self help. It must be condemned in the strongest terms and I so condemn it. It was selfish and uncalled for. In the same vein, all those who aided and abetted this democratic aberration must be fished out and charged before the law courts, however highly placed they are.

ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY?

My above take is not to say that there is no remedy available to the sacked officials; they still have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in the APP case. But until the Supreme Court overturns the valid and subsisting judgment in rem of the FHC in the APP case, the said judgment remains binding on all parties.

The irresistible conclusion to be drawn from these events is that all LG offices across Osun State remain vacant and that the sacked APC officials cannot lay claim to the benefit of any judgement to occupy the council offices until they obtain a different outcome, if any, from the apex court. This is the LAW.

THE WAY FORWARD

To save themselves from needless orchestrated violence, all the political parties in Osun State should go for fresh polls and test their popularity in a free, fair and credible election. Politicians should leave the Judiciary alone by playing clean politics. As to the title of this piece, my humble submission is that the Judiciary was not in any way complicit in the Osun State LG imbroglio. Rather, it acted in good faith, striving fiercely to defend the rule of law and uphold electoral integrity.

Continue Reading

The Oracle

The Oracle: Hon Justice Uwaifo: The Legendary Oracle As a Jurist

Published

on

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

THE GENESIS OF A LEGAL TITAN

There are those whose lives shine as beacons of character and integrity; people whose dedication to the attainment of justice and service to mankind transcend the bounds of the ordinary. They touch the lives of others and leave an indelible badge of honour in the sands of time. Their incisive wisdom echoes the words of the Bible in Proverbs 22:1, “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favour is better than silver or gold.” Such individuals are rare and their legacy is invariably etched in the hearts of all who witnessed their steadfastness and unyielding commitment to the principles that uphold society. One such rare breed of a homo sapien, an oracle of a Jurist,a giant among his peers and a towering pillar of the Judiciary, is the Hon. Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo (JSC, Rtd; CON). We shall hereafter simply call him Justice Uwaifo. On 7th January, 2025, this nonagenarian celebrated his 90th birthday. Brilliant,luminous,strong, hale, hearty, hilarious and witty, Hon. Justice Uwaifo still chats with me on phone even as late as past 12 midnight.

His ever-alert mind and elephant memory take me up on sundry troubling socio-political, economic and legal issues besetting Nigeria, especially the Judiciary and the legal profession. We always argue; disagree; then agree. Many a time, I am forced to yield to either his superior logic or uncommon wisdom, both of which he excels in. Though happily retired as a fulfilled man who gave his all in the service of his fatherland, the living sage strikes me as someone who is greatly worried about the sorry state of things in Nigeria, especially in the Judiciary. He belly-aches about receding standards;about corruption, real or apparent in the Judiciary; about lack of credible recruitment process in the Judiciary; about the vanishing beauty of advocacy; about a litany of problems. Ha, papa hardly sleeps, agonizing about Nigeria. Billy Graham, probably had this legal colossus in mind when he once proclaimed, “when wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost”. The man that fits into the third category and who lost nothing, but gains everything because he has character in tons is papa Justice Uwaifo. He is a Spartan disciplinarian, but oxymoronically a gregarious and laughing humanist.

COMING TO MOTHER EARTH

Born on the 7th of January, 1935, in his father’s house at No. 113, Lagos Street, Benin City, Edo State, where he lived in his formativeyears, Justice Samson Uwaifo grew up in a community that valued honour, dignity, resilience, honesty and the pursuit of excellence. These values, instilled in him from a very tender age, were to serve as his life’s compass. They were to shape his character and define the trajectory of his entire life. It is said in African tradition that “a man’s destiny lies within him, waiting to be uncovered through diligence and purpose.” This apothegm aptly hallmarks Uwaifo’s rise, rise and rise; a journey marked by raw determination, academic brilliance and an unyielding sense of purpose.

THE TENDER FEET: JUSTICE UWAIFO’S FORMATIVE YEARS

The seeds of Justice Uwaifo’s legal prowess were sown during his formative years at the Elementary Government School Benin, where his innate curiosity and intellectual aptitude began to develop. His mother had died during childbirth when he was only 6 years old. The future looked quite bleak in terms of ever furthering his education. He helped his father in household chores. He wanted College Education,but as maters were then, someone in his family, an elder brother by another woman ( who was himself already in college), was bent on scuttling and denying him that opportunity. As matters were, there was no longer a mother to steer his youthful course. His father surprisingly appeared to listen to the curious reasons profered by that brother against him. The fellow told their father that it was better and sufficient for young Odemwingie to end up in Standard Six in Elementary School and become a pupil teacher; and no more. That piece of advice was obviously meant to hinder the young boy in life, a nefarious purpose indeed. After deep thinking on a particular day, the restless boy hired a bicycle for 3 pence and embarked upon a dangerous journey from Benin to NAIFOR, a tortuous journey marked by snaky hilly paths, valleys and dense forests. It was a perilous and risky journey as marauders and other dangerous elements were known to habitually traverse the route. But, Justice Uwaifo was neither scared nor deterred. He had a mission; a goal which he focused on. The mission was to meet his maternal uncle (his mother’s younger brother), to ask for 2 shillings and 6 pence for his entrance examination to a college. He was then in Standard 5 (as it was called in those days); and he was just 12 years old. His uncle was kind enough to give him the requested sum. With this money, little Justice Uwaifo took the entrance examination to the famous Immaculate Conception College (ICC), Benin City. This was one of the premier institutions of that era. He came tops, beating all his peers in the examination. From now on, no one, not even the vicissitudes of life would stop him, he vowed. Here, his fierce discipline and incredible drive manifested and clearly set him apart from his peers. Like Bacchus, the Roman god of wine, Justice Uwaifo’s thirst for knowledge was simply insatiable. It was evident to all who encountered him then that he was destined for greatness. Was it not said by our elders that the dog that would have a curved tail is easily identified whilst still a puppy? Is it not true that it is thunder and lightning that herald rainfall? Is it not true that the morning heralds the day? After one year which was then available in ICC, he could not persuade his father to continue at St. Patrick’s College, Asaba, as was then the case. He had to finish his College education in Niger College, Benin City, where he proved to be the best; and was indeed the Senior Prefect in his last year there.

THE MAKING OF AN ACTIVIST LAWYER

Justice Uwaifo did not grow up liking law. No. He dreaded it. He had a very curious perception of lawyers and the legal profession in general. He never even dared to pass by their Chambers, particularly the two law firms on Lagos Street, Benin City. Their dark suits struck awe in him in his subconscious as a bad omen. He often wondered what they did inside their chambers and how they performed their duty in court. Did they act like spiritualists that converge in dark covens to carry out nefarious activities, he wondered in his innocent mind. He genuinely thought that incantation must be the first of lawyers’ iniquitous tools of trade; that as a second tool, they specialized in fine-tuning the art of tutoring their clients and witnesses to lie in pursuit of their cases. And because one of them who was usually stern-faced, was a known chain smoker often flickering lit cigarette between his darkened fingers, he was surrounded by the joke of always quaffing some large dose of whisky for Dutch courage before entering the court room to harass his opponent’s witnesses. Justice Uwaifo therefore concluded that alcohol and tobacco must be the third tool of their trade. This was particularly buttressed, he reasoned, having heard that lawyers were called to Bar and became members of the Bar. So, he believed they must be drinking alcohol in the Bar. Justice Uwaifo would readily have embraced Dick the Butcher in William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part II (Act IV, Scene II), when he said, “The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers”. These negative impressions of lawyers got Justice Uwaifo scared of the perverted aura they bore in his youthful imagination. He therefore dreaded ever being a lawyer. Rather, he preferred to simply take a degree in Mathematics and quietly teach somewhere, unknown, unsung.
His earlier perception of the Bench about this time did not also help matters. If anything, it exacerbated his fears. First, he could not connect the Bar and the Bench as members of the same legal profession. Although he silently admired members of the Bench, he also trembled whenever he heard of or saw even a Magistrate. He believed then that Judges must never be seen in public. Since they were reputed to have the power of life and death over fellow human beings, he reckoned they must be spiritualists who performed very dangerous and perverted duties.

But as he grew older, his negative perception of lawyers gradually srarted fadng. He began to grudgingly give lawyers some credulity and credibility, though still very minuscule. The scales finally fell away from his eyes the day he looked through the window of a court hall and saw late Hon. Justice Ephraim Akpata (of blessed memory) as a young lawyer taking part in an election petition. For the first time, his ambition to read law was aroused. He was absolutely fascinated seeing Akpata in his sparkling wig and dark gown, with a well adjusted snow-white neckband (bib).

Two weeks later, Justice Uwaifo saw, in the court premises, the Hon. Justice I. O. Aluyi with whom he had worked briefly before Aluyi left for Britain for studies. Justice Aluyi who had returned to Nigeria as a very young lawyer in a well-cut designer suit told Justice Uwaifo he had just argued a case at the Magistrate Court. These were persons he had been familiar with and had known for years and so could relate with. And they certainly did not fall into the category of his negative mental characterization of lawyers. He therefore made up his mind that law was not such a bad profession after all. He finally settled for it.

THE STRUGGLE TO READ LAW ABROAD

To read law in Britain with little or no financial support, Justice Uwaifo was forced to engage in menial jobs whilst studying simultaneously. To the glory of God and due to his tenacity of purpose, Justice Uwaifo obtained his LLB ( Hons) degree from the University of London complete with the Bar Finals at the Inner Temple of England and Wales in a little over two and half years. The Bar examinations took place from October 1961 to April 1964. By June of 1964, he had passed his Bar finals; but there was a snag. He did not have the wherewithal to timeously register in the Inns of Court.
This means that when he passed the Bar finals, he had not done the mandatory minimum dinning terms for the call to English Bar which immediately followed. He was thus later called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in absentia on 9th February, 1965, as he had to return to Nigeria early enough for the compulsory then three months’ course at the Nigerian Law School, Lagos. This he completed in December, 1964. He was thereafter called to the Bar in 1965 with the likes of Chief Gani Fawahinmi, my late mentor of blessed memory.

Justice Uwaifo’s struggles and inner being made him see law, not merely as a career, but as a means to champion the cause of justice, what Professor Dean Roscoe Pound termed “Instrument of Social Engineering”. Serious financial challenges which might have deterred lesser men as he encountered in London, only fuelled his determination to excel. Tell me how many mortals ever completed Bachelors degree in law including Call to Bar in a foreign country in about two years and eight months (October, 1961- June, 1964). I do not know of any; or do you? Please, tell me, if you do. Justice Uwaifo’s journey thus reflects the resilience of a man who believed, as Philippians 4:13 states, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

JUSTICE UWAIFO PRACTISED LAW FOR THE COMMON MAN

Justice Uwaifo’s early career in private legal practice was characterized by an unwavering commitment to fairness and equity. His clientele often consisted of ordinary Nigerians, many of whom lacked the resources to navigate the complexities of the Nigerian legal system. He became their champion, advocating for the voiceless and holding firmly to the belief that the law should serve as a shield for the weak and a restraint against the powerful. This ethos would later define his entire judicial career and elevate him glowingly as a symbol of integrity and judicial rectitude.

LEAVING THE BAR FOR THE BENCH

In 1975, after a little over 10 years of law practice, Justice Uwaifo’s judicial career commenced with his appointment as a Judge of the High Court of the Old Bendel State which now comprises Edo and Delta States. He was barely eleven years at the Bar! His appointment to the bench was met with widespread acclaim as he had already made a name as a man of unimpeachable character, integrity and keen intellect. From the outset, Justice Uwaifo brought to the bench a philosophy grounded in meticulous reasoning and an acute bend for justice-delivery. He was quoted often saying, “Judges must act as God’s nominated agents, delivering justice without fear or favour.” This profound belief underpinned every judgment he delivered and every ruling he gave, ensuring that his courtroom became a sanctuary of justice and and a haven of fairness to all without discrimination.
As a High Court Judge, Justice Uwaifo exhibited an exceptional ability to untangle the most intricate of legal disputes. His rulings and judgments were celebrated for their clarity, precision and moral conviction. In cases involving complex questions of law, he consistently demonstrated a mastery of legal principles, coupled with an empathetic understanding of the human impact of his decisions. Reflecting on his judicial philosophy, he once remarked, “A Judge’s ’s role is not simply to interpret the law but to ensure that justice is served in every sense of the word.”

MY FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH JUSTICE UWAIFO

It was during his High Court days in the Warri Division of the old Bendel State High Court of Justice that I first encountered this colossus of a Jurist in the early eighties. I was then a rookie lawyer in the pro-masses chambers of legendary Chief Gani Fawehinmi in Lagos. Chief Gani had sent me to represent the law firm in a case in Warri as I did virtually across the length and breadth of Nigeria.Justice Uwaifo had patiently and attentively listened to my submission that lasted for over three hours. It was an era of the exhibition of the beauty of the legal profession – oratorical courtroom gladiatorial oral submissions.

When I ended my lengthy submission, Justice Uwaifo with a twinkle in his eyes and a smile playing on his lips, quietly asked me, “young man, how old are you at the Bar?” I was fazed and trepid. I wondered if I had performed poorly as I was barely three years at the Bar then. Had I made a grievous legal blunder? What would I tell my hot-headed principal, Chief Gani? I sat down there, transfixed like an insect rendered immobile by some insecticides. He then openly praised my performance in court. Even then,I was not sure if he was not being merely sarcastic. Thank God the positive result of the courtroom examination was to come later. Justice Uwaifo had actually scored me with distinction in advocacy. How did I know? Chief Gani called me some weeks later and started hailing me, “Ozek baba”;“Ozek the mobile Library”; “Ozek the Dictionary”.

These were Chief Gani’s pet names for me which he echoed repeatedly whenever he was excited by my performance. I enquired what I had done right to merit this adulation. It was then he told me with éclat that he had met Justice Uwaifo at a ceremony in Benin; and Uwaifo had informed him about my superlative performance before him in the courtroom in Warri. When I appeared again before Justice Uwaifo in the same case in Warri,and also later when he was a Justice of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, he generously poured encomiums on me in open court. I always felt extra tallish.But more importantly, unknowingly to him, his kind words always fired the embers in me to continue to excel in my chosen profession. Thank you, sir, for being a silent mentor to me, though very much unknown to you. This you have done for countless others over the years.

JUSTICE UWAIFO AS MAN GIVEN TO LEGAL PRECISION

One of the most striking aspects of Justice Uwaifo’s judicial career was his insistence on the importance of legal precision. In Ekpenyong v. Etim (1990), he criticized the lack of focus in legal arguments presented before him, stating:
“The brief of argument filed on behalf of the appellants… contains ramblings on all sorts of complaints… Counsel should now learn to be precise along well-known guidelines in writing their briefs. It is not the volume of the argument that matters but the care with which the substance of it is presented.”
This statement reflected his demand for excellence and his determination to elevate the standards of legal practice in Nigeria. To Justice Uwaifo, every judgment, every argument and every legal process mattered. There was no room for mediocrity in the pursuit of justice. No stone must be left unturned, nor any turn left unstoned.

EARLY YEARS ON THE BENCH

Justice Uwaifo’s early years on the higher Bench was also marked by deep erudition and an ability to balance tradition and modernity in his interpretation of the law.
In Okpuruwu v. Okpokam (1988), he provided a nuanced perspective on the role of arbitration in Nigerian customary law, observing:
“I do not know of any community in Nigeria which regard the settlement of arbitration between disputing parties as part of its native law and custom… That seems more a common device for peace and good neighborliness rather than a feature of native law and custom.”

This insight reveals Justice Uwaifo’s deep understanding of societal dynamics and his commitment to ensuring that the law evolved to meet the needs of a changing society.

JUSTICE UWAIFO AT THE COURT OF APPEAL

By the time Justice Uwaifo was elevated to the Court of Appeal in 1985, he had already established himself as a j
Jurist of exceptional pedigree. His judgments were not only legally and jurisprudentially sound,but also intellectually profound, often addressing broader societal issues that extended beyond the courtroom and the immediate case at hand. He was a firm believer in the idea that the Judiciary has a responsibility to uphold the moral fabric of society. In this regard, his judgements served as both legal precedents and moral teachings, setting a very high standard for the Judiciary. He believed (he still does) like Professor Dean Roscoe Pound, that law must serve the society as an instrument of social engineering to balance the ever-present societal interplay of centripetal and centrifugal forces. He believed that law exists to serve as a hand-maid to deliver justice( See Bello v AG,Oyo State ( 1986) NWLR.

One of the defining characteristics of Justice Uwaifo’s judicial philosophy was his fierce independence. He was unafraid to challenge established norms or to stand alone if he had to in defence of what he believed to be right. His decisions often reflected a deep-seated conviction that justice must prevail (fiat justicia ruat caelum), no matter the personal or professional cost. This courage, combined with his intellectual rigour, earned him the respect and admiration of colleagues, legal practitioners, and members of the public.

JUSTICE UWAIFO AS A GAME CHANGER

Justice Uwaifo was elevated to the Supreme Court in November, 1998. The period he was posted to the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal could be described as the “apogee of judicial activism”, as he easily became a game changer.

A matter that clearly showed Justice Uwaifo’s judicial activism was the celebrated case of PETER NEMI v ATTORNEY GENERAL LAGOS STATE (1996) 6NWLR)(Pt 452). The case had raised an issue of great constitutional import regarding the interpretation of section 31 of the 1979 Constitution (now section 34 of the 1999 Constitution) relating to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Appellant (Nemi) had in 1982 been arraigned before a Lagos High Court for armed robbery. The High Court convicted and sentenced him to death on February 28, 1986. The appeals against conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal (1990) and the Supreme Court (1994) were all dismissed.

At the Supreme Court, my good friend and fellow in the human rights Community, Dr Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, was counsel to Nemi. He raised for the first time the constitutional issue of whether the delay in the execution of the death sentence passed on his client constituted inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Section 31 of the 1979 Constitution and Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

A full Supreme Court sat to hear the matter presided over by the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Mohammed Bello. After listening to the submissions of amici-curiae such as legal giant Chief Rotimi Williams (SAN); Second Republic Justice Minister, Mr. Kehinde Sofola (SAN); and some select Attorneys-General of states, the apex court on October 14, 1994, held, per Bello, CJN,that the complaint of breach of rights indeed raised issues of “far reaching constitutional importance”, but declined to answer the question under the Nigerian Constitution put before the apex court,noting that only the High Court had the power to entertain first instance complaints of breach of fundamental rights; not the Supreme Court which had only appellate jurisdiction.

Subsequently, a fresh suit was commenced at the Federal High Court,Lagos, in 1995. The Judge declined jurisdiction on the ground that the Supreme Court had already confirmed the death sentence and that the condemned prisoner had no more rights remaining to enable such complaint about alleged breach of fundamental rights. This decision was challenged at the Court of Appeal; and then the Supreme Court.
This was where the rare wisdom and humanity of Justice Uwaifo came in full display. Not only did he make an order remitting the case back to the High Court to be tried by another judge, he made legendary pronouncements.

Hear him: “The proposition that a condemned prisoner has no right to life, cannot enforce any fundamental rights and is therefore as good as dead is quite perturbing. Does it mean that a condemned prisoner can be lawfully starved to death by the prison authorities? Can he be lawfully punished, by a slow and systematic elimination of his limbs one after the other, until he is dead? Could his legs be soaked with petrol and set on fire under a pot to boil rice by someone wearing a smiling face while this is going on since he is as good as dead and without fundamental rights? Would any of these amount to inhuman treatment or torture? Is a condemned prisoner not a person or individual? These are questions which gravely touch not only the heart but which also bring Section 31(1)(a) of the Constitution into focus even in cases of condemned prisoners”. Although Peter Nemi later regained his freedom,that was not the news. The news was Justice Uwaifo’s inerasable pronouncement which hallmarked his jurisprudence and humanity.The Nemi case was to forever change the false impression that because a convict has been sentenced to death, he no longer has fundamental rights worthy of protection. Thank you, sir for widenening the hitherto narrow scope of our civil rights and liberties.

JUSTICE UWAIFO AS MENTOR AND ROLE MODEL

Justice Uwaifo’s ascent through the hierarchy of the Judiciary was marked by an unwavering commitment to the principles of democracy, accountability and the defence of citizens rights and the rule of law. He believed that the Judiciary must remain independent and impartial, serving as a check and bulwark against arbitrariness and abuses of power.

Reflecting on this principle, he warned in his valedictory speech delivered in 2005 that, “There is the unfortunate tendency for some people… to misunderstand the important role of the Judiciary… Those who do not want their official action questioned regard Judges as undeclared enemies.”
These words, spoken with characteristic candour, emphasized the critical role of the Judiciary in upholding good governance and constitutional democracy. Justice Uwaifo’s dedication to this ideal was evident in every judgement he delivered and every principle he espoused whilst on the Bench.

As his career progressed, Justice Uwaifo became not just a Judge, but a mentor and role model for a new generation of lawyers and Judges. His insistence on integrity, character, precision and fairness left an indelible mark on the Nigerian legal firmament. He understood,like Prof Dean Roscoe Pound of the Sociological School of thought, that law was an instrument of social engineering; and not merely a set of rules, but a living instrument of justice, capable of defending the poor and voiceless;transforming lives and shaping societies. His life’s work is a living testament to the enduring power of these principles and a reminder of the profound impact that one individual can make on the course of history and tapestry of lives.

AT THE PINNACLE OF JUSTICE

When Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo perched at the apex court of Nigeria in November 1998, it only marked a natural progression and culmination of decades of dedication to the law and the principles of justice. For many, reaching the highest judicial office in the land would signify the pinnacle of achievement, a career milestone to crown decades of legal service. But for Justice Uwaifo however, his appointment to the apex court was not an end in itself, or a chieftaincy title decoration. It was indeed the beginning of a period marked by groundbreaking judgments, profound contributions to constitutional democracy, good governance and an unwavering commitment to judicial integrity and enlargement of the vistas of our jurisprudence.

Justice Uwaifo approached his role on the Supreme Court bench with the same gravitas, precision, penchant for detailed writing in long hand; intellectual rigour, and the moral conviction that had defined decades of his career at the lower Benches.

He understood that the decisions of the Supreme Court were not just resolutions of disputes; they were guiding principles that would shape policy and the trajectory of the nation’s jurisprudence for generations yet unborn. Each judgment was therefore a rare opportunity for my Lord to reinforce the rule of law, uphold the Constitution, defend citizens’ fundamental rights, enthrone justice and reaffirm the Judiciary’s role as the guardian of democracy and the last hope of the common man.

IS IMMUNITY ABSOLUTE?

One of Justice Uwaifo’s most memorable decisions was his contribution to the landmark case of Gani Fawehinmi v. Inspector General of Police (2002). This case tested the limits of constitutional immunity under section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, which grants certain protections to the President, Vice President, Governors and their Deputies. While many Judges interpreted the provision as granting absolute immunity to holders of such offices as sacred cows that could not be touched at all, Justice Uwaifo disagreed fiercely. He saw it differently. He delivered a judgment that opened up new jurisprudential frontiers and reaffirmed the principles of accountability and the rule of law for office holders. He held that though those officers listed in section 308 cannot be prosecuted whilst in office,they can however be investigated and evidence of such investigation warehoused to be used in prosecuting them after leaving office. Such evidence,he reasoned, may also be used for impeachment purposes against the named officers by the legislators whilst still in office. He elaborated with great erudition:
“To do nothing under the pretext that a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to the society. The evidence may be useful for impeachment purposes if the House of Assembly may have need of it. It may no doubt be used for prosecution of the said incumbent Governor after he has left office.”

This ruling resonated far beyond the courtroom, sending a clear echoing message that no individual, regardless of his high office, is above the law. Justice Uwaifo’s interpretation struck a delicate chord and balance between respecting constitutional protections and ensuring that public officials remained accountable and responsible to the people.

Justice Uwaifo’s tenure on the Supreme Court Bench was marked by judgments and rulings that affirmed his unwavering belief in the supremacy of the Constitution as a living document. In his view, the Constitution was not a rigid framework but a dynamic instrument that must be interpreted in the light of the principles of fairness, equity, societal justice, egalitarianism and societal progress. This deep philosophy is evident in his approach to cases involving fundamental rights, jurisdictional disputes and questions of the exercise of judicial discretion.

THE EVILS OF PERVERSE DECISIONS

In Udengwu v. Uzuegbu (2003), Justice Uwaifo addressed the evil inherent in perverse judicial decisions and the appellate court’s duty in rectifying miscarriage of justice. He lectured professorially thus:
“A perverse decision of a Court can arise in several ways. It could be because the court ignored the facts or evidence; or that it misconceived the thrust of the case presented; or took irrelevant matters into account which substantially formed the basis of its decision… The hallmark is invariably, in all this, a miscarriage of justice, and the decision must be set aside on appeal.”

This view further emphasized his unflagging dedication to ensuring that justice was not only done but also seen to have been done. For Justice Uwaifo, the judiciary has a sacred duty to correct errors and protect the integrity of the legal process. He also believes like Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, JSC (of blessed memory) that though the Supreme Court is “final not because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is final. Justices of this court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be shortsighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth. … This court has the power to overrule itself (and had done so in the past) for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere in error”; he also believes that “Where therefore it appears to learned counsel that any decision of this court has been given per incuriam, such counsel should have the boldness and courage to ask that such decision be overruled” (Adegoke Motors LTD v. Adesanya (1989) 13 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 at page 275A).

According to him, “the Supreme Court is both the final and the constitutional court of the land. I need hardly to avert to the importance of this court in its role in the judiciary as the third arm of government. But I must not fail to emphasise that everything should be done to ensure the continued constitutional relevance and credibility of the Supreme Court. The court needs very capable Judicial Officers at all times to be able to achieve this”. Justice Uwaifo warned:
“Let the day never come when it may be said that the Supreme Court could not be forthright enough but buckled under pressure having regard to the manipulative dimension prevalent in our socio-political environment, but manifesting as an undergrowth, and tending to overshadow with unpredictable consequences our sense of honour and direction as a nation. The Supreme Court must always demonstrate, even more than ever in such an atmosphere, that it can neither bend nor break”.
Does the Supreme Court today still allow bold and courageous lawyers to press forward for revision of earlier judgements and not get damnified with heavy costs? I do not know; or do you?

Justice Uwaifo’s decisions were characterized by their meticulous reasoning, great erudition, intellectual depth and breadth and moral clarity. In Olumegbon v. Kareem (2002) LPELR – SC 147/1997, he provided a timeless exposition on the concept of judicial discretion, asserting:
“Judicial discretion has been described as meaning that judges are to act according to the rules of reason and justice not according to private opinion, and according to law and not humour.”

This statement encapsulated his view that Judges must be guided by objective principles; not personal biases or external pressures. It also reflected his broader philosophy that the Judiciary must remain impartial, independent and firmly anchored in the principles of justice.

APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

Justice Uwaifo who was appointed to the Supreme Court on November 25, 1998, posited that appointment into the nation’s apex court should not be “a court for all comers simply because they have been in the Court of Appeal, nor appointment to it be based on favour or just any other cause”.
He went on in his valedictory speech of January, 2005, “My second suggestion is that lazy Judges should not be appointed to the Court of Appeal. A lazy Judge is easy to identify. Thirdly, an incompetent Judge should be similarly denied appointment. He is as reprehensible and irritating as a corrupt judge. Both are twin evils all said and done”, he submitted.

In expressing his concerns, Justice Uwaifo stated that “if those in charge have a better option and are prepared to apply it, then it can be said we are all travelling in the same direction. But let there be acute awareness that the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, is the hub of stability for this country; and let us not assume that things cannot go wrong if there is no new approach to its well-being”.

JUSTICE UWAIFO’S RAW COURAGE AND SINGLE-MINDEDNESS

Beyond the legal intricacies of his judgments, Justice Uwaifo’s tenure on the Supreme Court was defined by raw courage and independence of mind. He was unafraid to challenge powerful interests, confront societal injustices, or dissent (even with the majority) when he believed that justice demanded such. His judgments often served as a moral compass, offering guidance not only to the Bench and legal practitioners, but also to the broader society.

THE EPIC VALEDICTORY SPEECH LIKE NONE OTHER

On January 24 2005, Justice Samson Odenwingie Uwaifo honorably bowed out of the apex court upon attainment of the constitutional age of 70 years; but not before ruffling some feathers. The man who was never shy of expressing strong opinions whenever the occasion arose, lived up to expectation and his billing. Like most valedictory sessions, the court was jam-packed. Friends, relations, admirers, the Bench, Bar, well wishers and all who wanted to identify with the retiring Justice were present. At 10.00am on the dot, the session had already commenced. As usual, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Hon.Justice Muhammadu Lawal Uwais, presided. It was a regular event. Several speeches were made. All the nice things were, as expected, said about the outgoing judge. A few swipes were directed at the government, the Bar, Bench and a little on some alleged undesirables here and there. Though he had been described as an activist Judge, what many perhaps did not anticipate that day was the penetrating force of the valedictorian’s speech. Unlike most Justices that generally took it easy and massage sundry egos when exiting the apex court,Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo had plenty to say. And in saying them, he bruised toes and gave bloody noses.

JUSTICE UWAIFO’S NUGGETS ON CORRUPTION

In one take-away nugget in the epic speech, Justice Uwaifo admonished all like a priest speaking from the pulpit:

“No Judge worth the name should feel inclined to hide any positive element of his head in the closet through fear or favour, or from corrupt motives or simply on grounds of intellectual compromise when reaching a decision. He must to the best of his ability act as God’s nominated agent.”

He believed that the law should serve as a shield for the vulnerable and a check on the powerful. In his view, the Judiciary’s role extended beyond merely interpreting statutes, to safeguarding the moral foundation of society. His warnings against judicial corruption were particularly resonant in his valedictory speech.

Justice Uwaifo looked straight at the audience inside the imposing Supreme Courtroom and asked a question rhetorically: “who is more harmful to the society between a man who runs amock with a dagger in a crowded street and a corrupt Judge?” Without waiting for an answer, he readily gave his verdict thus:
“A corrupt Judge is more harmful to the society than a man who runs amock with a dagger in a crowded street. He can be restrained physically. But a corrupt Judge deliberately destroys the moral foundation of society and causes incalculable distress to individuals through abusing his office, while still being referred to as ‘honorable.’ It is difficult to bring him to account under our system…”

His speech captured the gravity of his warnings about the dire consequences of corruption within the Judiciary. Justice Uwaifo recognized that the trust placed in Judges was both a privilege and a profound responsibility, one that must never be compromised.

Channels television aired in Benin City on 14th October, 2016, he ruminated on corruption on the Bench and how to tackle it: “I will not say that the Nigerian judiciary is corrupt, but it cannot be denied that there are corrupt judges. If a judge is corrupt, he is no longer a Judge; he is a thief and therefore he should be treated according to law and sent to jail. The substantive issue is corruption: is it true that these people were actually corrupt and that huge sums of money were found in their place? If that is so, the question of the procedure that was taken will be secondary. Well the DSS can be punished for what they did, but the result if the money was actually found particularly when I considered that Court of Appeal Justice who demanded 200 million naira was found to be true,but they retired him. That one is completely unacceptable. They shouldn’t have just dismissed him; they should have dismissed him and then sent him to jail. If you do that – send this one to jail, send the other to jail, those who are really corrupt when you find them, corruption will stop straight because they would be afraid, Judges will be afraid, because it can happen. But if you just retire them, they will simply say, “um, don’t mind them”.

JUSTICE UWAIFO ON CORRUPTION AND INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS AS HARBINGERS OF FEAR

Justice Uwaifo warned that “no judge worth the name should feel inclined to hide any positive element of his head in the closet through fear or favour, or from corrupt motives or simply on ground of intellectual compromise when reaching a decision. He must to the best of his ability act as God’s nominated agent. That has been my personal moral philosophy of the duty call of a judge since I was appointed a High Court Judge. So, a judge should not just write his judgment. He must let it appear he made it with a clear commitment to convince. That must be demonstrated by the quality of its analysis and transparency. An unconvincing judgment is like a song rendered in awkward decibel: it can neither entertain nor can it be danced to”.

JUSTICE UWAIFO ON A COURT’S JURISDICTION

Justice Uwaifo’s judgements on issues of jurisdiction, particularly in cases such as N.D.I.C. v. C.B.N. & Anor (2002), further cemented his legacy as a Jurist of exceptional clarity,erudition and uncommon insight. In that case, he held that jurisdictional challenges could be raised at any stage of legal proceedings, provided that sufficient facts supported the argument. This ruling reinforced the principle that jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that goes to the heart of a court’s authority to adjudicate a matter.

JUSTICE UWAIFO ON DEMOCRACY

While his legal opinions were firmly rooted in the principles of fairness and justice, they also reflected his wit, wisdom, and deep understanding of human nature. He once remarked, “Democracy is most obviously seen to be necessary when the tendency of an autocrat puts justice at risk. But one sure way of making democracy stay on course is to enthrone justice.”

This observation encapsulates his belief in the intrinsic link between justice and democracy. For Justice Uwaifo, the Judiciary was not merely an arbiter of disputes, but a cornerstone of democratic governance. Justice Samson Uwaifo’s time on the Supreme Court bench was a period of profound impact and enduring legacy. His judgements continue to serve as guiding light for legal practitioners, scholars, and judges across Nigeria and beyond. Through his judgements, speeches, and unwavering commitment to the principles of justice, he affirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of democracy, the protector of human rights, the defender of the poor against arbitrariness and repression and the conscience of the nation.

THE LEGACY OF AN ICON IN RETIREMENT

The legacy of Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo transcends the courtroom, reflecting the enduring impact of a life dedicated to justice, integrity and the preservation of democratic ideals. When he retired from the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 2005, his departure marked the end of a golden era of a judicial career unparalleled in its breadth and depth,and unmatched in its plenitude and amplitude. Yet, his work continued to ripple across the nation’s legal landscape and beyond, cementing his status as a symbol of judicial excellence and moral clarity. For example, shortly after he retired from the apex court bench, the Osun State government would not let him rest. It pulled him out of retirement to head the Uwaifo Judicial Commission of Enquiry which was set up to investigate sundry human rights abuses by police officers.
Justice Uwaifo’s post-retirement years exemplify the principle that the pursuit of justice is a lifelong calling; it is a marathon race, not a 100- metre dash race . His transition from the bench to roles as a consultant, arbitrator and mentor showcased his unwavering commitment to fairness and equity. He is often sought after, even at 90, for his wisdom in resolving complex legal and social disputes, his impartiality and moral compass making him an indispensable figure in arbitration. Justice Uwaifo’s role in these capacities demonstrates his belief that the law, when wielded correctly, could serve as a tool for societal transformation.
In addition to his work in arbitration, Justice Uwaifo has become a powerful advocate for judicial integrity. At public addresses and professional engagements, he consistently emphasizes the dangers of corruption within the Judiciary, framing it as a moral and societal cancer. His warnings are clear and uncompromising: a Judiciary tainted by corruption not only fails the people but undermines the foundation of democracy itself. Justice Uwaifo has argued passionately for systemic reforms to safeguard the judiciary’s independence and ensure that its officers remained beyond reproach.
His speeches and writings during this post-retirement period has also focused on the role of the Judiciary in upholding constitutional democracy. He is always deeply concerned with the growing tension between executive overreach and judicial independence, a dynamic he viewed as potentially catastrophic if unchecked. He believes the Judiciary ’s role extends beyond the resolution of disputes to the protection of societal morality and the rights of individuals. His voice has become a clarion call for preserving the balance of power in governance and ensuring that the Judiciary serves as a true check against abuse of power.
In his mentorship of younger legal practitioners and judges, Justice Uwaifo has left a legacy that cannot be erased. His insistence on character, integrity, honesty, hardwork, discipline and ethical conduct has become a guiding light for those entering the legal profession and others. He once remarked in private conversations with mentees that “a Judge’s wisdom is measured not by the length of his rulings but by the fairness of his decisions and the clarity of his reasoning.” This focus on clarity and fairness has become a hallmark of the training he provides to the next generation of legal minds.
Justice Uwaifo’s retirement has also allowed him to reflect on the evolution of Nigerian law and its trajectory. He is a staunch advocate for the continuous education and improvement of judges, emphasizing the need for them to remain intellectually sharp and socially aware. He championed the idea that the judiciary should not only be a repository of legal knowledge but also an engine room for societal progress.
Throughout his life, Justice Uwaifo has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to blend the letter of the law with its spirit. His understanding of justice as a living, breathing principle informed every aspect of his work. He views the judiciary as a sacred trust, charged not only with interpreting statutes but also with protecting the soul of the nation. His influence extends far beyond the confines of the courtroom, shaping public discourse on governance, accountability and the rule of law.
Justice Uwaifo is today a revered elder statesman and dispute-resolution expert. His name is synonymous with hard work, integrity and judicial excellence. His words and deeds continue to inspire generations of legal practitioners and Judges, serving as a reminder of what it means to serve with honour,dignity, character and humility. His life’s work is a testament to the enduring power of strong principles and the transformative potential of justice.
Justice Samson Uwaifo’s legacy is not merely etched in the annals of Nigerian legal history; it is enshrined in the hearts and minds of those who truly believe in the rule of law. His contributions remind us that being on the Bench is not just a profession; it is a calling; one that requires courage, conviction, and an unwavering commitment to the truth. As his life demonstrates, a good name, built on integrity and service, is indeed better than silver or gold.
JUSTICE UWAIFO’S WORKS TO BE CELEBRATED IN LAGOS
On the 19th of February, 2025, there will be a public presentation and launch of a landmark book on the retired Justice S.O. Uwaifo in Lagos. The book is titled “A Legacy of Jurisprudential Wisdom and Substantive Justice”. This book confirms all I have written and reflected above about the judicial career of our legendary Justice Uwaifo.
Through the usual vicissitudes of life and the natural ageing process, Papa Uwaifo, once always clean-shaven, today adorns his handsome face with grey beard. He may carry his tall elegant frame with slight graceful bent, but the quintessence of the man and his huge mental acumen remain intact, uncorrupted by age. He still,like Andrew’s Liver Salt,bubbles with the sap of life like a yam tendril in the rainy season ( thank you, Chinua Achebe,for your epic,”Things Fall Apart”).
Surely sir, you have lived by your name – “UWAIFO” – “Wealth that does not end”. Truly, your wealth of character does not end. What is more, your middle name, “ODEMWINGIE”, has,going by its literal translation, “fortified your prosperity”. Soldier on sir. May God grant papa Justice Uwaifo long life, good health and peace that passeth all understanding as he bravely marches on into the centenarian bracket. Yours is truly Gen 6:3 and Philippians 4: 17.

Continue Reading

The Oracle

The Oracle: There’s No Such Thing As “Diezani Loot”

Published

on

By

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

Nigerians always talk about wanting ‘technocrats’ to be involved in governance and that people with integrity should join politics. However, now and then we allow, and many a time, join the crowd to mob-lynch those who chose to serve. And we often do this insidiously, covertly and overtly, even when there is no concrete or even any iota of proof that such public officers ever stole, or abused their office. It is therefore surprising and of great concern to me, to see the level of vilification of an innocent Nigerian citizen who has not been tried and found guilty of any offence by any court of law whether in Nigeria or abroad.

THE GALACTICA YACHT

As Solicitors to the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke (DAM), we note with concern the recent deliberate attempt to link her with what has been described as a civil forfeiture of a yacht Galactica, the sale of which yielded $52.8,000,000 to the US government; which sum has since been repatriated to Nigeria. This is a clear example of the mischievous and cruel sport of tarnishing the image of the lady through a bouquet of consistent, persistent and unrelenting cocktail of falsehoods and misinformation. The purveyors of this line of misinformation term it “name-and-shame”. To sell the story, the architects ensured they attached Diezani’s name to a recovered yacht which is not in any way linked to her. They now falsely termed it “Diezani loot”. Nothing of the sort ever happened.

The yacht Galactica from information available in the public domain, was purchased by Kola Aluko who had used the vessel until he agreed to its forfeiture to the United States of America through the Justice Department. Our client maintains that the yacht Galactica was neither owned nor ever used by her. She avers sha has in fact never set her eyes on the yacht. Kola Aluko is a knowledgeable businessman who had been in business well before DAM came into office as Honourable Minister of Petroleum Resources (HMPR). The only basis for linking DAM to the said yacht is the false narrative that the Strategic Alliance Agreements (SAAs) entered into between Kola Aluko & Jide Omokore’s Atlantic Energy companies and NNPC were allegedly corruptly awarded to the said companies by DAM.

THE GALACTICA YACHT STORY IS FALSE

The fallacy of DAM’s involvement in an alleged corrupt contract has long been debunked in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/121/2016 Federal Republic of Nigeria vs Olajide Omokore & Others.

In that case, the Federal High Court, coram Hon. Justice Nnamdi Dimgba (now of the Court of Appeal) held that the Strategic Alliance Agreements (SAAs) between NNPC and the Atlantic Companies were validly entered into between the said companies and NNPC. Furthermore, the said companies and its chairman were discharged and acquitted of any offence in relation to allegedly obtaining the contract or monies realized from it through false representations. They were also freed of the offence of money laundering in relation to the said contracts. The case clearly established that the said contracts were properly awarded by NNPC and that the said award followed due process.

To characterize such a forfeiture of a yacht as being linked to DAM simply on account of the SAAs which have since been adjudged and held to have been validly entered into between NNPC and the said companies, is completely preposterous.

DAM WAS NEVER A PARTY TO THE SAAs

Our client states that she was never a party to the contract process, or contract negotiations, or contract selection for the award of the Strategic Alliance Agreements (SAAs) between NNPC and Atlantic Energy Ltd. That contract process, like all others, was handled solely by the NNPC which followed its usual contract award process to the letter.

There was therefore nothing untoward, whatsoever and howsoever about the SAA award process. DAM states as a matter of fact that the terms of the Atlantic Energy SAAs were made even more stringent for the Atlantic companies and a much better deal for Nigeria, than the SSAs which were entered into between the NNPC and the ENI-AGIP Multinational a few years earlier.

DAM MERELY ACTED WITHIN HER STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES

It was our client’s statutory duty as the HMPR at the final stage of a contract process, to make final signatory and approval on behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum Resources (MPR). However, NNPC would, as always, have first carried out all due diligence which include necessary, operational and contractual checks and procedures.

In line with due process and as statutorily required, DAM merely appended her signature to the final approval request letter which was forwarded to the office of the HMPR by the GMD-NNPC. As due process had already been duly followed, the SAAs were signed off by her as required by law. DAM did exactly the same every month for each of the hundreds of contracts that she had to sign-off on without any preferential treatment. And that was an integral part of her statutory responsibilities as HMPR. DAM thus followed due process to the letter. She never engaged in the operational process of negotiating those contracts as this process was entirely and without exception, within the remit of the NNPC.

DAM WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE NON-PAYMENT OF CASH CALLS

Let us be very clear about this: the issues of non-payment of the cash-calls that later arose subsequently in the Atlantic Energy SAAs had nothing to do with the initial contract award. Those issues arose as a direct result of the manner of operational implementation and supervision and had nothing to do with DAM, whatsoever. She was never involved. DAM states that in April 2014, as soon as she was made aware by an external multinational head that there was an issue regarding the Atlantic Energy SAAs, she took strong and direct action immediately by alerting Mr. President and directing, in writing, to the Permanent Secretary (PS), Ministry of Petroleum Resources (MPR) and the GMD-NNPC, that an immediate two-week investigation must take place. Following the resulting investigative report, DAM again directed, in writing, to the PS, MPR and the GMD-NNPC, with Mr. President’s knowledge and approval, that a process for the recovery of the unpaid cash-call should immediately be put in place.

DAM NEVER SOLD OFF OIL BLOCKS CONTAINED IN THE SAAs

It must therefore be emphasized that although a portion of the media severally unfairly vilified and accused DAM of purportedly selling off the oil blocks contained in the SAAs to Atlantic Energy, she never did as she was not party to it.

EARLIER WILD ALLEGATIONS AND THE PET PHRASE “DIEZAN-LOOT”

This is not the first time these types of outlandish allegations have been levelled against DAM. Sometime ago, she was widely accused of owning a diamond-studded bikini underwear allegedly valued at $12,000,000!. Subsequently, this wild and baseless allegation had to be denied by the then Chairman of the EFCC at the time, Abdulrasheed Bawa, as it was not only false but preposterous. Similarly, when certain people were accused of bribing INEC officials, the monies were unjustifiably linked to DAM and labelled, as is always mischievously done, ‘Diezani loot’ when all that she did was to merely coordinate the raising of campaign funds for the then ruling party at the time and readily handed over same to the party, which then determined how the said funds were disbursed.

CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHOUT ANY LINKAGE

DAM was gleefully named on the face of the charge filed against Atlantic Energy in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/121/2016 Federal Republic of Nigeria vs Olajide Omokore & Others. In this said charges preferred by the EFCC in respect of an alleged bribing of some INEC officials, DAM was never made a party to the said charges to enable her defend herself. She even applied to be joined as a Defendant to those charges so that she could clear her name. Yet, the application was strangely opposed by the same EFCC that filed the charge, leading to the striking out of her name from the said charge.

HOW THE WORD “LOOT” EXCITES MANY EVEN THOUGH FALSE

In spite of these clear facts which were available in the public domain, DAM has continued to be the subject of grave allegations that are demonstrably false and ill-motivated. This, notwithstanding the harrowing experience of cancer related health challenges she has gone through in the last ten years of her life. It appears that nothing excites the purveyors and peddlers of these orchestrated misinformation and falsehood more than spinning and heaping all forms of false allegations on her, no matter how palpably disingenuous and unbelievable. It satiates their overbloated egos to tar her with the paint brush of shame.

DAM WAS UPRIGHT

DAM maintains that she remains the only Petroleum Minister to have left behind a staggering sum of $3.6 Billion in the NLNG Account (in the hope of ensuring continuity in the development of the critical Gas sector), for the incoming Buhari administration. This sum saved for the development of the Critical Gas Sector was summarily spent and disbursed by the Buhari administration immediately upon their assumption of office.

THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE HMPR

She informs us that her position as Federal Minister of Petroleum Resources was an extremely sensitive one which had before then and till now been occupied by the Presidents of Nigeria in their personal capacities. This position came not only with its burdens, but also with special privileges which have since become the linchpin and cornerstone of the underlying sundry accusations against her.

DAM HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED FOR 10 YEARS

For the avoidance of doubt, DAM has been kept under full investigation in the United Kingdom by the UK authorities, in collaboration with the Nigerian authorities, since 2nd October, 2015 (almost 10 years ago and just one week after she completed a grueling 8-month series of chemotherapy treatments for Triple Negative breast cancer, during which time she went into a coma, escaping death by the whiskers).

DAM HAS BEEN DEPENDING ON GOODWILL FOR HER SURVIVAL

It was only recently that DAM was actually charged on the 2nd of October 2023, having been held in the United Kingdom for a period of over eight years, whilst their NCA (National Crime Agency) conducted investigations on her. She had no work papers and so could not work to fend for herself. She has not even been allowed to leave the UK from the 2nd of October, 2015 till date. Thus, for nearly ten years, she has had to depend entirely on the goodwill of a few friends and family members to survive.

CERTAIN THINGS TO NOTE ABOUT DAM

DAM believes the following facts are worth noting for posterity:
a. DAM was the most ever senior black woman in the African Oil and Gas Public Sector (between 2010 & 2015).
b. DAM was the first female Executive Director of Shell Petroleum Development Company in its entire history in Nigeria; a position she did not lobby for. She was spotted, recognised and appointed through her sheer dint of hard work and sense of professionalism by the relevant Global Heads of Shell in the Hague, Netherlands,
c. DAM has so far been the first and only female Petroleum Minister in Nigeria’s history. She never lobbied for this position. She states that she was actually nominated without her knowledge.
d. DAM has been the first and only female President of OPEC in the organization’s entire history since its founding in 1960. She also did not lobby for this lofty position.
e. DAM was nominated for and served in various federal ministerial positions under two separate Presidents, positions she never lobbied for.

CONFIRMATION BY THE PAST EFCC CHAIRMAN THAT DAM IS INNOCENT

DAM informs us that on two separate occasions, the immediate past EFCC Chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa, confirmed to her lawyers that no funds from the coffers of the Federal Government of Nigeria were ever stolen or; and that none have been traced to her.

DAM’S TRAVAILS ARE DRIVEN BY MERE SPECULATIONS AND PUBLIC LYNCHING MINDSET

DAM states that her travails over these years have been based on unfounded speculations and vile allegations that she obtained unlawful gifts and favours from operators within the petroleum industry. She had never been accosted or charged with stealing or pilfering government money. These matters of obtaining unlawful gifts and favours are now subject of proceedings against DAM in the United Kingdom.

OUR PLEA

The process of this UK proceedings should be allowed to take its course and the purveyors and peddlers of outrightly false, unfounded, defamatory, unintelligent and indefensible narratives should find better use of their time.

Continue Reading

Trending