The Role of The Courts in Nation Building

Nigeria Bar Association Enugu Branch Law Week/Dinner

“THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN NATION-BUILDING”

SPEECH DELIVERED BY:

TAYO OYETIBO, SAN

As Keynote Speaker

ON 3RD DECEMBER, 2012

2

PROTOCOL

It gives me great pleasure to be invited to be the guest speaker at this

occasion of the 2012 Nigeria Bar Association Enugu Branch Law

Week/Dinner.

When I was informed by the Chairman of the Law Week/Dinner Committee,

Chief C.O.C. Egumgbe, that your Branch would want me to be the guest

speaker at this occasion, it did not take me much time to make up my mind to

accept the invitation because I considered it a great honour and privilege to

have been invited to speak to a distinguished audience made up of members

of a vibrant branch of the NBA.

Having decided to accept the invitation, the next question was the topic on

which your branch would want me to speak but I got a blank cheque for an

answer but with a caveat that the topic should be related to the theme of this

year’s Law Week which is: “ A D M I N I S T R A T I O N O F J U S T I C E I N N I G E R I A :

T H E P A S T , T H E P R E S E N T A N D T H E W A Y F O R W A R D ” .

I have therefore taken into consideration the theme of the Law Week in

choosing the topic on which I would be speaking to you today which is: “ T H E

R O L E O F T H E C O U R T S I N N A T I O N - B U I L D I N G ” .

3

INTRODUCTION

A paper on the role of the Courts in nation building ought to begin by shedding

light on the concept of nation-building so as to provide a foundational basis for

the examination of the role of the courts in that regard. For this reason, it

would be useful to briefly consider the concept of nation-building before

examining the role of the Courts in nation-building.2

THE CONCEPT OF NATION-BUILDING

According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,3 Nation-building refers to the

process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the

state. This process aims at the unification of the people within the state so that

it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can

involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructural development to foster

social harmony and economic growth. It then goes on to define the concept as

“[t]he development of behaviours, values, language, institutions, and physical

structures that elucidate history and culture, concretize and protect the

present and insure the future identity and independence of the nation.”

In his paper: “ The challenges of Nations Building: The case of Nigeria”

presented on 7th February, 2008 at the First year Anniversary Lecture of

Mustapha Akanbi Foundation, Professor Ibrahim A. Gambari4 posited on the

subject of nation-building thus:

“Nation-building has many important aspects. Firstly, it is about

building a political entity which corresponds to a given territory, based

on some generally accepted rules, norms and principles, and a common

citizenship. Secondly, it is also about building institutions which

4

symbolize the political entity-institutions such as a bureaucracy, an

economy, the judiciary, universities, a civil service, and civil society

organisations.

Above all else, however, nation-building is about building common

sense of purpose, a sense of shared destiny, a collective imagination of

belonging. Nation-building is therefore about building the tangible and

intangible threads that hold a political entity together and gives it a

sense of purpose.”

From whatever angle one looks at the concept of nation-building, it must be

borne in mind that there is an unassailable truism that nation-building can only

be properly and truly carried out by the people and institutions of the country

concerned. Any hope that outsiders or foreigners would be the drivers of the

vehicle of nation-building is no more than a political illusion. If anyone

entertains any doubt about this truism, I would urge him to read the speech of

President George Bush of the United States of America which he made on

October 11, 2000 on the intervention of his country in Somalia where he said:

“Somalia ... it started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into

a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong.

The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price and

so i don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation

building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I

think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it’s

in our best interests. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise.

And same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either .... I think what

we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to

build the nations ...”5

I agree entirely with the views of former President Bush that it is the people who live

in a country that have the primary responsibility of building that nation. For this

reason, I have fathomed the notion of “ n a t i o n - b u i l d i n g ” for the purpose of

examining the role of the Courts in Nation-building in this paper as: t h e c o n s c i o u s

5

e f f o r t s o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d p e o p l e o f a c o u n t r y t o e m p l o y t h e n a t u r a l a n d

h u m a n r e s o u r c e s o f t h e c o u n t r y a s w e l l a s s t a t e p o w e r s t o f o s t e r a

h a r m o n i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s t a t e a n d t h e v a r i o u s p e o p l e s t h a t m a k e

u p t h e c o u n t r y u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e v a r i o u s p e o p l e s i n t r i n s i c a l l y f e e l

h a p p y t o b e l o n g t o t h e C o u n t r y a n d f u l f i l t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e i r e x i s t e n c e a s a

n a t i o n a n d a s c i t i z e n s o f t h a t n a t i o n .

It is this definition that would guide us in subsequent discourse of the role of

the courts in nation-building in this paper. But before embarking on that

discourse, it would be useful to highlight two postulates thrown up by this

definition.

These are that:

a) Efforts in nation-building, must be geared towards fostering a

harmonious relationship between the state and the various peoples that

make up the country; and

b) The purpose must be self actualization for the citizens and the

promotion of a feeling of happiness on the part of the various peoples

for being an intrinsic part of the Country.

It is submitted that these two postulates are political derivatives of the political

objective stated in Section 15 (4) of the 1999 Constitution which provides that:

“(t)he state shall foster a feeling of belonging and of involvement

among the various peoples of the federation to the end that loyalty to

the nation shall override sectional loyalties.”

We would now proceed to examine the role of the Courts in nation-building

using these dialectic postulates as our guide or signpost.

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

6

The courts in Nigeria are creations of statutes. This has been so even from

the colonial time before independence. However for the purpose of this paper,

it would be convenient to base our consideration of the constitutional

framework of our courts on the period beginning with the 1960 Independence

Constitution. Both the 1960 Independence Constitution and the 1963

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provided for the establishment

of superior courts of record as an independent arm of government.6

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, on its part provides

in its Section 6(1) and (2) specifically as follows7:

“(1) The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the

courts to which this section relates, being courts established for

the Federation.

(2) The judicial powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to

which this section relates, being courts established, subject as

provided by this Constitution, for a State.”

It is submitted that the judicial implication of the foregoing provisions is that

the Constitution is the fountain of the Court’s authority in the exercise of its

judicial powers and as such, it is the Constitution that the Courts must look up

to and not any of the other two arms of government in playing its role in

nation-building.

CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE

The role of the Courts in nation-building is traceable to the Constitution. Thus

Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution8 provides that:

“The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing

provisions of this Section –

7

(b) shall extend to all matters between persons, or between

government or authority and to any person in Nigeria, and to

all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the

determination of any question as to the Civil rights and

obligations of that person;”

It is clear from the foregoing provision that the role of the Courts in nation-

building can only be “interventionist” and not “originative” in nature. It is

interventionist because, according to the language of the Constitution, there

has to be a matter between persons or between government or authority and

persons before the courts can begin to play any role by exercising their judicial

powers. “P e r s o n s ” here include natural and non-natural persons.

Although the role of the Courts has been encapsulated in forty-two words in

the provision quoted above, it is nonetheless, as wide as Nigeria itself. In this

regard, it has been held by the Courts themselves that it is their duty to

expound but not to expand their (role) in interpreting this provision.9

It is submitted that, in exercising their judicial powers under the Constitution,

the courts in Nigeria must constantly bear in mind the expectation of the

peoples of Nigeria that they wish to enjoy a feeling of happiness for being an

intrinsic part of the Country. Any exercise of judicial power therefore that does

not foster a harmonious relationship between the state and the various

peoples that make up the Country in a manner that promotes a feeling of

happiness on the part of the people for being an intrinsic part of the Country,

is, in my view, a failure of justice. Can it be open to debate that the doing of

justice is the primary role of the Courts in nation-building? Methinks not. What

our Courts need to do therefore is to adopt a pragmatic approach, in the

dispensation of justice, in a manner that would assure the citizenry of its

efforts at nation-building. Our Courts would seem to have, over the years,

strived to accomplish this objective. Permit me to review, a few of such

8

instances, with a view to providing a basis for evaluating how much have been

achieved by the Courts in their efforts at nation-building and charting the way

forward in the administration of justice in Nigeria.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENT The legal system of Nigeria cannot be effectively discussed without reference

to our colonial experience.10 Nigeria gained independence from Great Britain

on 1st October, 1960. Before the attainment of independence, the Colonial

government had effectively introduced into Nigeria the English legal system.

Under the English legal system, the doctrine of stare decisis otherwise known

as judicial precedent is well established. This doctrine postulates that a court

lower in the judicial hierarchy is bound by the decision of a higher court.

The rule is designed to ensure uniformity in decision-making, foster stability

and enhance the development of a consistent and coherent body of laws as

well as assure equality of treatment for litigants similarly situated.11 Following

this doctrine, lawyers as well as the Courts are wont to cite decided cases as

authority for propositions made in a given case.

Nigerian legal system remained in infancy after political independence by

reason of which our courts had to rely mostly on English cases as authority for

decisions being rendered by them due to paucity of local authorities on many

areas of our jurisprudence.

Indeed as at independence, appeals lay to the Privy Council from the

Supreme Court of Nigeria.12 Upon the attainment of a republican status in

1963 however, the Federal Supreme Court became the highest court in

Nigeria.13 Although, appeals no longer lay to the Privy Council under the 1963

Constitution, yet Courts in Nigeria still continued to relish the citing of English

9

cases as authority for their decisions such that even at the Supreme Court,

references are more often than not made to the decisions of the High Courts

in England rather than the Court of Appeal of Nigeria!

The concept of nation-building involves the use of state power such as the

judicial power of the Courts to promote and propagate autochthonous things.

These of course include decisions of local courts. It would seem that the

Supreme Court of Nigeria is in agreement with this view although there has

not been a consistent demonstration of this tendency on its part. In

A T T O R N E Y - G E N E R A L B E N D E L S T A T E V . A T T O R N E Y - G E N E R A L O F

T H E F E D E R A T I O N 1 4 , E S O , J . S . C in an attitude of nation-building expressed

his judicial disgust for the continued promotion and propagation of foreign

judicial decisions in our courts when he said:

“Gone should be the days, if ever they were, when the decisions of

other courts in any common law country are to be accepted in this

country as precedents in the like of the Delphic Oracle. The decisions

of any court, other than those of this Court, are only to be treated as

the respected opinions of those courts, which were given in their

wisdom, under given circumstances and given environmental and

cultural background, and no more. They are, at best, to give a guidance

of what those courts did in those circumstances, and the wisdom to be

drawn from them by this Court would be reflected in its dealing with

the peculiar problems of this country, to which the Constitution which

this country operates, is peculiar.”15

O B A S E K I , J . S . C . was no less repulsive. He said in his contribution:

“just as Australian courts apply Australian Law and American Courts

apply American Law, be they state or federal, Nigerian courts are

enjoined by the Nigerian Constitution to follow Nigerian Law which is

applicable to the cases before them no matter how attractively

10

presented before them, cases and authorities from other countries of

similar judicial system as ours may be.”16

In pursuance of their role in nation-building, our courts particularly the Court of

Appeal and Supreme Court ought to be citing, more frequently, decisions of

the High Courts of Nigeria as authorities on issues on which the Supreme

Court has not made pronouncements rather than decisions of the High Court

of England, which are mainly reported in the King’s Bench Division and

Queen’s Bench Division Law Reports and other Law Reports.

PROMOTION OF INVESTMENTS

The courts in Nigeria ought to use their judicial powers to promote and

encourage investments in the nation’s economy. Citizens and Institutions that

have invested in various sectors of the economy ought not to be made to

regret their investments by reason of oppressive judicial process. There are

many areas of our judicial process that could make investors wish that they

had invested in other developed economies where the judicial process would

be investment friendly.

Take for example a simple case of a pensioner who had invested in real

estate in this country in the hope that the rents accruing from his investment

would be used to sustain himself in his retirement. There have been cases of

recovery of premises that have lasted more than ten years in court in some of

which the tenants had stopped paying rents whilst the case remain pending in

court.

A N I A G O L U , J . S . C had occasion to express his revulsion at the sense of

injustice disclosed by the facts and circumstances of the case in P A N A S I A N

A F R I C A N C O . L I M I T E D V . N A T I O N A L I N S U R A N C E C O R P O R A T I O N ( N I G )

11

L T D 1 7 but ended up being helpless as he was not able to help the

investor/landlord who had purchased a property for its own use but was

unable to recover it from the sitting tenant for over five years after the

purchase.

His Lordship had this to say in expression of his revulsion:

“Finally, it now remains for me to point out that oppressive as the

situation may appear against the respondent-landlords in this appeal

who had been unable to put the premises to the use for which they

bought it since 1977, effect must be given to the law as found. Against

the background of the harsh realities of accommodation difficulties in

Lagos, the 1976 Edict appeared designed by the Lawmakers to give

optimum protection to tenants in Lagos State, against eviction from

their tenements, except upon clearly defined procedure which must be

meticulously followed.

Having said so, the appellants may well ponder the inadvisability of

using the provisions of an Edict, primarily founded upon a desire to do

justice, as an engine of injustice and oppression against their

landlords. It was an Edict designed to protect and do justice to tenants.

In so doing, it was not intended that its provisions should be

manipulated by tenants for infliction of hardship upon landlords.”

It can be seen from the passage quoted from the judgment of his Lordship that

the Court failed the litigant/investor on that occasion. Thus the Court found

that the tenant had invoked the provision of the law to oppress the

investor/landlord (and many tenants do engage in this oppressive conduct in

this Country), but was unable to provide succour to the landlord. An

investor/landlord who found himself in the shoes of the Respondent in this

case is most likely to feel unhappy to have invested in the real estate sector of

the economy and would in all probabilities have wished that his investments

12

were placed in an economy where the legal system could timeously assist him

in deriving benefits from his investments.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

As part of its contribution to the process of nation-building, our Courts ought to

ensure a Criminal justice system in which persons accused of crimes are

promptly tried and commensurate penalty imposed on those found guilty of

criminal offences. It leaves much to be desired in a nation where a poor man

who is accused of stealing a goat is speedily tried and when convicted, is

sentenced to a term of six months or one year imprisonment whilst a former

governor of a state who is accused of stealing over N 1 B i l l i o n of State funds

enjoys the privilege of a criminal process that allows his trial to be prolonged

for a period of over three years during which period he is able to gallivant

across the globe and even when he is eventually convicted, he is sentenced

to a term of imprisonment of say three or six months. I have added to this

speech an addendum of a comparative analysis of some cases involving the

poor and lowly in the society on the one hand and the high and mighty on the

other. From the addendum, you can see the capriciousness of our criminal

justice system.

The use of the criminal justice process as a tool in nation-building cannot be

over-emphacized. If the citizenry are assured of a swift criminal justice

procedure that ensures a three way traffic justice system in which there is

justice to the state, justice to the accused who is alleged to have committed

the crime and justice to the victim of the crime, then the courts would have

succeeded in promoting a feeling of happiness on the part of the people for

being an intrinsic part of the country whenever they come in contact with the

criminal justice process. O P U T A , J . S . C , that former “Socrates of the Supreme

13

Court” aptly encapsulated what I am trying to say here in his notable

pronouncement in the case of J O S I A H V . T H E S T A T E where he said:

“...justice is not a one-way traffic. It is not justice for the appellant

(accused) only. Justice is not even only a two-way traffic. It is really a

three-way traffic-justice for the appellant accused of a...crime...; justice

for the victim... and finally justice for the society at large-the society

whose social norms and values had been desecrated and broken by the

criminal act complained of...”19

I am persuaded in my belief that any criminal justice system in which

decisions being reached by the Courts in criminal cases do not take into

consideration the impact of those judicial decisions on the social norms and

values of the larger society is destructive of the moral fabric of the nation in

which such system is entrenched.

POLITICAL PROCESS

Nigeria as a nation has chosen democracy for herself. From time to time the

Courts would be called upon by politicians and institutions involved in the

democratic process to intervene in disputes arising from the electoral process.

The courts must at all times stand on the side of free and fair elections bearing

in mind that a free and fair election which gives birth to a democratic

government does not begin and end with the act of voting. An election is a

process20 beginning with the registration of voters. The courts must therefore

ensure, when called upon to intervene, that the stream of the electoral

process is not polluted by acts that are contraceptive to the birth of a truly

democratic government. In this regard the courts ought to bear in mind the

observations of A N I A G O L U , J . S . C that the essence of democratic elections is

that they be free and fair and that in that atmosphere of freedom, fairness and

14

impartiality, citizens will exercise their freedom of choice of who their

representatives shall be by casting their votes in favour of those candidates

who in their deliberate judgment, they consider possess the qualities which

mark them out as preferable candidates to those others who are contesting

with them.

Free and fair election which will give birth to a truly democratic government

cannot, therefore, tolerate inflation of the number of registered voters in a

particular constituency, thuggery or violence of any kind, corrupt practice,

impersonation, undue influence, intimidation, disorderly conduct and any acts

which may have the effect of impeding the free exercise by the voter of his

franchise.21 “Democratic governments” founded on elections that are not

free and fair are, in my view, built on political quicksands.

Although such governments may enjoy what I would call a synthetic political

followership, they ultimately weaken the citizenry’s faith in the nation on which

they are foisted. Our courts have an onerous duty of preventing their

emergence.

The Courts also have a duty to ensure that there is popular participation in the

political process. This role was manifested in the decision of the Supreme

Court in I N E C V . M U S A 2 1 a where the court upheld the right of every Nigerian to

form and belong to any political party of his choice. A Y O O L A , J . S . C who

delivered the leading judgment of the court had opined thus:

“...all powers, legislative, executive and judicial must ultimately be

traced to the Constitution. Secondly, the legislative powers of the

legislature cannot be exercised inconsistently with the Constitution.

Where it is so exercised, it is invalid to the extent of such inconsistency.

Thirdly, where the Constitution has enacted exhaustively in respect of

any situation, conduct or subject, a body that claims to legislate in

addition to what the Constitution had enacted must show that it has

15

derived the legislative authority to do so from the Constitution.

Fourthly, where the Constitution sets the condition for doing a thing,

no legislation of the National Assembly or of a State House of

Assembly can alter those Constitution in any way, directly or indirectly,

unless, of course the Constitution itself as an attribute of its supremacy

expressly so authorised.”21b

On the basis of this principle, the court concluded that:

“Section 79(2)(c) of the Act was invalid because it was inconsistent

with Section 40 of the Constitution. In terms of Section 45(1)(a) of the

Constitution, there is nothing reasonably justifiable in a democratic

society in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public

morality or public health in prohibiting a member of the public Service

or Civil Service of the Federation, a State or Local Government or

Area Council from eligibility to be registered as a member of a political

party.”21c

It was the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case that liberalised the legal

regime for the registration of Political Parties and opened up the political

space for popular participation.

CORRUPTION

It is generally said that corruption is a cankerworm that has eaten deep into

Nigeria. I say it is not only a cankerworm but also caterpillar and locust which

have ravaged our economic base and negatively affected the quality of life

which the ordinary citizen would otherwise have been enjoying at the instance

of the State. It is the duty of our Courts to strive to abolish corruption in their

effort at nation–building.

16

Indeed Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution provides that “the State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.” Thus the concept of

nation-building and corruption are antithetical to each other. The objective of

corruption is to steal, kill and destroy, so it is evil.22 But nation-building is aimed

at fostering a harmonious relationship between the State and the citizenry with

a view to promoting a feeling of happiness and belonging to the end that

loyalty to the nation shall override other primordial loyalties. Our Courts must

therefore at all times stand against corruption in all its ramifications. But a

judiciary can only fight corruption if it is peopled by incorruptible personnel.

This means that the role of the courts in fighting corruption in its efforts at

nation-building must begin with the appointment of incorruptible people to the

Bench. A corrupt judge is more dangerous than an armed robber. His activity

strikes at the very root of the fountain of justice. Thus justice is rooted in

confidence and confidence is shattered and destroyed when the dispenser of

justice is revealed to have been motivated by considerations other than law.

In his Valedictory speech delivered on Monday 24th January 2005, Justice

S.O. Uwaifo said:

“a corrupt judge is more harmful to the society than a man who runs

amok with a dagger in a crowded street; while the man with the dagger

can be restrained physically, a corrupt Judge deliberately destroys the

foundation of society and causes incalculable distress to individuals

through abusing his office, while still being referred to as

honourable.”23

The statements of his Lordship quoted above clearly paints a picture of the

danger that a corrupt judge poses to nation- building. For this reason

therefore, our judiciaries ought to adopt a zero tolerance policy for corrupt

judges. But the point must be made that the role of the courts in nation-

17

building in so far as the issue of corruption is concerned goes beyond

cleansing itself of corrupt judges.

The courts must also treat cases relating to corruption with some sense of

urgency. Two independent institutions have been established in this country to

fight corruption. These are the Independent Corrupt Practices and other

related offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes

Commission (EFCC). Whilst maintaining their independence and impartiality in

hearing cases instituted by these two bodies, our courts ought, at all times, to

accord such cases undiminished priority with a view to ensuring that they are

expeditiously disposed of.

This purposive approach to the disposal of corruption and other economic

crimes cases ought to be entrenched in the criminal procedure rules in force in

all our superior courts in order to assure the citizenry of judicial revulsion

against the repugnance of such conduct to our societal values.

CONCLUSION

Distinguished gentlemen of the Bar, I have just finished speaking on the role

of the courts in nation-building as requested by you. In doing so, I have given

a few instances of the role that our courts ought to play in the process of

nation-building. These instances are by no means exhaustive because I do

not wish to bore you by a prolonged discourse of the extensive role that the

courts ought to play in the process of nation-building. I am persuaded however

that the areas I have highlighted would provoke further discourse in this

programme of 2012 Law week of your branch. Having highlighted the role of

the courts, as I have done in this speech, I have advisedly refrained from

passing judgment on the question whether or not the courts have creditably

15 of 16 Tayo Oyetibo & Co; Solicitors & Barristers

18

performed their role because I do not wish to be a Judge in my own cause. I

believe that that judgement or decision should be left for you to make. I thank

you very much for the opportunity to deliver this speech and for your patience

in listening attentively to the end.

God bless Enugu Branch of the Nigeria Bar Association.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING POOR PEOPLE

ON THE ONE HAND AND THE HIGH AND MIGHTY ON THE OTHER IN NIGERIA

1) C O P V . A M O S S I J O : The accused was charged with stealing three bottles of Benylin cough syrup valued at N1,950. He pleaded guilty stating that he stole the drugs because he was sick. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment with the option of paying N3,000 as fine.

Source: Leadership Newspaper 27/09/12: www.leadership.ng/nga/articles

2) C . O . P . V . W A S I U A L A B I : The accused was charged with conspiracy and stealing of his neighbour’s goat. He pleaded guilty, after having spent 3months in custody because he could not meet the bail conditions. He was sentenced to a term of 3 months’ imprisonment on each of the counts. The sentences were to run concurrently. He was, however, given the option of paying a fine of N1,000.

Source: The Punch Newspaper of Tuesday October 2, 2012

E N D

19

3) C . O . P V D A N B A U C H I : The accused was charged with criminal trespass and

theft of a television set valued at N21,000. The court found him guilty and sentenced him to a term of 1 year imprisonment on each count, which terms were to run concurrently.

Source: The Vanguard Newspaper of October 15 2012: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/10/man-convicted-of-stealing-television-set/

4) C . O . P V . T A O F E E Q A B I O D U N : The accused was charged with the theft of tubers of yam from the complainant’s farm and for criminal intimidation. He was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on each count by an Upper Area Court in Omu-Aran.

His jail terms were, however, to run concurrently. He was given an option of paying a fine of N5,000.

Source: News Agency of Nigeria November 20 2012

1 of 3

Tayo Oyetibo & Co: Solicitors & Barristers

C R I M I N A L C O N V I C T I O N S O F S O M E W E A L T H Y N I G E R I A N S

1) F . R . N V . L U C K Y I G B I N E D I O N & O R S : The 1st accused was the former

Governor of Edo State. He was initially charged with 191 offences relating to illegal withdrawals of state funds and money laundering. The charges were subsequently narrowed down by the prosecution to only one charge of neglect by the accused to make a declaration of his interest in a bank account in the declaration of assets form of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. He pleaded guilty and was only fined N3.5million.

Source: Pg 4 Thisday Newspaper of 19th December 2008.

2) E F C C V . C E C I L I A I B R U : The accused was the Managing Director of a commercial Bank. She was charged with 25 counts, bordering on criminal manipulation of bank records and depositors’ funds. The charges were

20

amended and reduced to 3 based on a plea bargaining arrangement with the prosecution. She pleaded guilty to the amended charges of negligence, reckless grant of credit facilities and mismanagement of depositors’ funds. The court convicted her on the three counts and sentenced her to six months imprisonment on each of the counts. The terms were to run concurrently. She was also to forfeit over N191 billion in assets.

Source: The Vanguard Newspaper October 9 2010. http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/10/cecelia-ibru-goes-to-jail/

3) F . R . N . V . D S P A L A M I E Y E S E I G H A : The accused was the former Governor of Bayelsa state. He was impeached from office in 2005 on allegations of corruption and arraigned on the December 21 2005 on a 40- count charge of money laundering, illegal acquisition of property and false declaration of assets. The charge was subsequently narrowed down to 6 counts of fraud and false declaration of assets. He pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced, on 26th July 2007, to a term of two years imprisonment on each of the counts. The terms were however to run concurrently from the day of his first arrest which was December 9, 2005. The accused was also to forfeit over N1 billion in shares and cash to the Federal Government as well as several choice properties.

Source: Pg 6 Thisday Newspaper of July 27, 2007

2 of 3

Tayo Oyetibo & Co: Solicitors & Barristers

4 ) E F C C V . C H I M A R O K E N N A M A N I : The former Governor of Enugu State was arraigned on 26th July 2007 on 105 counts of fraud, conspiracy, concealment and money laundering. The case is pending in court till date.

Source: Page 6 Thisday Newspaper of Friday July 27 2007

5 ) F . R . N V . J O S H U A D A R I Y E : The former governor of Plateau state was arraigned in 2007 before an Abuja High Court sitting at Gudu, on a 23 Count charge of stealing N700 million.

The charges bordered on stealing, misappropriation of public funds and criminal breach of trust, while serving as Governor of Plateau state. He was granted bail.

21

After taking his Plea his lawyer challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court. Upon the ruling of the lower court that it had jurisdiction, he appealed, albeit, unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal. Trial in the suit was stalled because of another suit instituted by the Defendant. The cases have not been concluded till date. Joshua Dariye is currently a Senator representing Plateau Central senatorial district.

Source: Nigeria Tribune of Friday November 23 2012

www.tribune.com/ng/index.php/politics

6 ) F R N V . S A M I N U I B R A H I M T U R A K I : The former Governor of Jigawa State, Senator Saminu Ibrahim Turaki was first arraigned in 2007 on charges of money laundering before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja. He brought an application through his counsel for the suit to be transferred to the Dutse, Jigawa State Division of the court. In July 2011, the EFCC re-arraigned him, before the Federal High Court sitting in Dutse, on a 32-count charge of fraud of over N36 billion. Some of the charges included N12 billion alleged to have been withdrawn from the state government’s treasury and used for financing political activities of the PDP. During the pendency of these proceedings he contested for and was elected to the Senate, the upper legislative house of National Assembly. The suit is still pending before the court.

Source: Nigeria Tribune of Friday November 23 2012 www.tribune.com/ng/index.php/politics www.allafrica.com/stories

3 of 3

Tayo Oyetibo & Co: Solicitors & Barristers

NOTES

1. Tayo Oyetibo, SAN is the Chief Counsel of Tayo Oyetibo & Co; a multi-service Law

Firm based in Lagos, Nigeria. I am grateful to Mobisola Akerele, LL.B (Hons) B.L of

Tayo Oyetibo & Co, a vibrant Barrister who extracted the information contained in the

second addendum for me from various Newspapers and the internet.

2. Many writers on the topic have provided various definitions.

22

3. Wikipedia “Nation-building” [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-building] accessed 27

November, 2012

4. Professor Ibrahim A. Gambari [Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser to the

United Nations Secretary-General]: “The challenges of Nations Building: The case of

Nigeria.” Being a paper presented at the First year Anniversary Lecture of Mustapha

Akanbi Foundation held at Sheraton Hotel Abuja, Nigeria on 7th February 2008

5. James Joyner: Bush on Nation-building [www.outsidethebeltway.com/bush_on_nation-

building] 17th July, 2009

6. See Sections 114,115 and 119 of the 1960 Constitution and Sections 111,122 and 126 of

the 1963 Constitution

7. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999: Section 6 subsections (1) and (2)

8. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

9. Judges have no duty and no power to expand the jurisdiction conferred on them but

they have a duty and indeed jurisdiction to expound the jurisdiction conferred on them:

Per OBASEKI J.S.C in TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4

NWLR (Part 117) 517 @ 549

10. Nigeria was colonised by Great Britain and as such our legal system follows

substantially the English legal system.

11. EPEROKUN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 34) 162 @ 193

12. See Section 114 of 1960 Constitution

13. See Section 120 of 1963 Constitution

14. (1981) 10 SC 1

15. Ibid at pages 187 – 188

16. Ibid at page 115

17. (1982) 9 SC [Reprints] 1

18. (1985) 1 NWLR (Part 1) 125

23

19. Ibid at page 141

20. IDRIS V. ANPP (2008) 8 NWLR (Part 1088) 1 @ 163.

21. See OJUKWU V. ONWUDIWE (1984) 1 SCNLR 247 @ 285 – 286 per ANIAGOLU

J.S.C

21a. (2003) 3 NWLR (Part 806) 72

21b. Ibid at pages 157

21c. Ibid at page 161

22. The Holy Bible [KJV] John 10:10: “The thief cometh not, but to steal, and to kill and to

destroy”

23. Hon. Justice S.O. Uwaifo: “The Imperative of an Untainted Judiciary”: THISDAY

Newspaper [January 30, 2005 page 32]