A Talk Given by Kehinde Adegbite Esq[1] at the End-of-the-Year-Get
Together of the Law Office of Dr Akin Onigbinde, SAN & CO,
David Chambers, 8 Rotimi Williams Avenue, Off Awosika Avenue, Old
Bodija, Ibadan on 22nd December, 2017
Introduction
We will recall that it was the Military Government of General
Muhammadu Buhari that introduced War Against Indiscipline, WAI, in
1984 and today, the aversion that the President, Muhammadu Buhari,
has for acts of indiscipline of which financial corruption is one
has not diminished.
Since the President came on board for the second time on 29th
May, 2015, he has not hidden his avowed determination to fight and
defeat corruption. We all still remember his quotable quote –
“If Nigeria does not kill corruption, corruption will
kill Nigeria.”
In his current rampaging (or is it a selective war?) war against
corruption, the judiciary has not been spared. In October, 2016,
some judges of superior courts and justices of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria were rounded up for corrupt practices in an operation later
christened as “sting operation”. As we speak here today, many cases
of corruption initiated from the inception of the Buhari
Administration are still in court and one of them is the case
against Hon Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa.
However, unlike other similar cases, an interesting and shocking
development has emerged in this case. A division of the Court of
Appeal sitting in Lagos has delivered a judgment to the effect that
a serving judge cannot be tried like a “common criminal”. Mixed
reactions have followed this judgment. Some say it is a travesty of
justice and a set-back for the war against corrupt practices
especially among public officers, while some others say it is a
victory for the rule of law, the Constitution, the independence of
the judiciary, the principles of separation of powers, and
democracy.
What do you say? Let’s hear you. But before we come to you,
allow me to share my own thoughts.
Brief Facts of Nganjiwa Vs Federal Republic of
Nigeria
Hon Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa of the
Federal High Court, Bayelsa Judicial Division, was charged with a
14-count information dated 8th June, 2017 before a Lagos State High
Court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
However, instead of standing for his trial, the Hon. Judge
decided to file a Preliminary Objection, PO, dated 13th June, 2017
challenging the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court to try him on
the ground that, as a serving judge, his case ought to be first
referred to the National Judicial Council, NJC, before being
brought to court for prosecution.
The charges against the judge bordered squarely on official
corruption (named in the charge as “unlawful enrichment”) committed
in the course of discharging his functions as a judicial officer.
It was alleged that sums of $260, 000 and N8.65 million were paid
into his bank account between 2013 and 2015 under suspicious
circumstances, among other acts of criminal misconduct.
The PO failed at the High Court level as Justice
Akintoye of the Lagos State High Court dismissed the PO in
his ruling of 23rd June, 2017 and ruled that he has jurisdiction to
try the indicted judge.
Justice Nganjiwa subsequently filed an appeal against the ruling
of the Lagos State High Court and on the 12th December, 2017, the
Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division delivered its ruling
setting aside the earlier ruling of the Lagos High Court.
Justice Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, struck out the
charge against Justice Nganjiwa on the basis that the condition
precedent was not followed by the EFCC before filing an information
against him in court for criminal prosecution, maintaining that a
serving judge must first be reported to the NJC and let the body
act before filing a criminal charge in court.
Key Authorities Relied on by the Court of
Appeal
In delivering the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos
Judicial Division, Justice Abimbola Osarugue
Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, relied on the following authorities
–
- Section 153 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999 –
“There shall be established for the Federation the
following bodies, namely – [h] National Judicial
Council…”
- Section 158 (1) of the Constitution –
“In exercising its power to make appointments or to
exercise disciplinary control over persons, the Code of Conduct
Bureau, the National Judicial Council, the Federal Civil Service
Commission, the Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Revenue
Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission, the Federal Character
Commission, and the Independent National Electoral Commission,
shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other
authority or person.”
- Paragraph 21 (b) of the Third Schedule, Part I, of the
Constitution –
“recommend to the President the removal from office
of the judicial officers specified in sub-paragraph (a) of this
paragraph, and to exercise disciplinary control over such
officers…”
- Paragraph 21 (h) & (i) of the Third Schedule, Part
I, of the Constitution –
“control and disburse all monies, capital and
recurrent, for the services of the Council; and”
“deal with all other matters relating to broad
issues of policy and administration.”
- Rules 1, 2, and 10 of the Revised Code of Conduct for
Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, February,
2016 –
“The code applies to all categories of Judicial
Officers throughout the Federation as defined in this
Code.”
“Violation of any Rules contained in this code shall
constitute judicial misconduct and or, misbehaviour and shall
attract disciplinary action.”
“A Judge shall not give or take and shall not
encourage or condone the giving or taking of any benefit,
advantage, bribe however disguised for anything done or to be done
in the discharge of a judicial duty.”
- Justice Opene v. NJC & Ors (2011) LPELR-CA/A/324/07
and Elelu Habeeb v. AG Federation (2012) 13 NWLR Pt. 1318,
423
“…The word misconduct used as a reason for removal of
Judicial Officer is known to those who framed the constitution to
be a criminal offence and yet the responsibility to recommend to
the president, the removal of such officer is given to the National
Judicial Council. If the Constitution intended that such misconduct
must be subject to trial by court it would have said so… rather the
Constitution gave the court power to try criminal offences also
gave the NJC power to investigate allegations of misconduct against
Judicial Officers and make recommendations for their removal. It is
my firm view that the procedure adopted by the NJC is sustainable…
The Appellant has the constitutional power to investigate the
criminal allegations made against the Appellant and to make a
finding that the allegations are proved… ”
Per Justice Galinje, JCA in Opene v. NJC, pp.
40-50
Some Germane Questions
- If a judge commits misconduct in the course of performing
judicial functions and he is taking straight to court for
prosecution, how will the NJC be able to exercise its disciplinary
powers?
According to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, disciplinary
remedy through the NJC must be explored before initiating a
criminal proceeding against a judge who commits a criminal
misconduct in the course of discharging his judicial functions.
Disciplinary and criminal proceedings cannot go simultaneously.
- If a judge commits misconduct in the course of performing
judicial functions and he is reported to the NJC, how will the NJC
investigate? Does it have control over the Police?
What the NJC does is more of fact-finding than the kind of
investigation carried out by law enforcement agents. NJC will
simply look into a petition submitted to it against a judge and
thereafter, obtain the response of the affected judge before
forming its own opinion whether to indict such judge or clear him
of any wrongdoing.
- Is the Court of Appeal judgment in conflict with the decision
of the Supreme Court in Gani Fawehinmi vs IGP (2002) 7 NWLR
Pt. 767, 606?
“It is only and only when, the NJC has given a
verdict and handed over such judicial officer… to the prosecuting
authority that he may then be investigated and prosecuted by the
appropriate security agencies.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 29
“Whenever a breach of judicial oath occurs, it is a
misconduct itself, then the NJC is the appropriate body to
investigate such breaches by the judicial officer and if found to
be so, such judicial officer shall face disciplinary action and the
NJC may recommend the removal of such a judicial officer to the
appropriate authority which is either the President in the case of
a Federal Judicial Officer or the Governor of the State in the case
of a State Judicial Officer and/or take other actions
appropriately.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 17
The decision of the Supreme Court in Gani Fawehinmi vs.
IGP, supra, states that a Governor who is immune by
Section 308 of the Constitution from court proceedings while in
office can still be investigated.
I am of the opinion that these pronouncements appear to be in
conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in Gani
Fawehinmi vs. IGP, supra, but that is only on the
superficial consideration. A deeper examination will show that,
unlike Governors who cannot be prosecuted during their tenure,
judges may be investigated before retirement, provided a petition
is first forwarded to the NJC and the latter is allowed to act on
such petition.
- If a judge is taking straight to court, can he still continue
to discharge his functions as a judge?
A judge may not on his own cease to perform his judicial
functions unless placed on suspension by the NJC and by the NJC
Rules, it may scarcely suspend a judge, if no petition has been
submitted to it.
- Is this case about judicial immunity or independence?
“For the avoidance of doubt, may I state clearly
that no judicial officer is covered by immunity from prosecution
under the Constitution as the Constitution only grants the powers
to discipline judicial officers for official misconduct to the
NJC”.
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 26
- If a judge commits a crime outside his judicial functions, can
he be treated like an average Nigerian?
“It must be expressly stated that if a judicial
officer commits theft, fraud, murder or manslaughter, arson and the
likes, which are crimes committed outside the scope of the
performance of his official functions, he may be arrested,
interrogated and prosecuted accordingly by the State DIRECTLY
without recourse to the NJC.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 19
- What happens if the NJC does not indict, in spite of
overwhelming evidence, after a complaint is lodged against a
judge?
“… if at the end of the measures taken by the NJC,
anyone is aggrieved, such a person who feels dissatisfied may apply
to court for judicial review in accordance with laid down
provisions of law.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 33
My Understanding of the Court of Appeal Judgment and My
Opinion
To start with, it must be pointed out that this judgment
establishes two major principles –
- that EFCC, ICPC (Independent Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Commission) and other prosecuting agencies can
investigate and prosecute a judicial officer but the condition
precedent must be first followed. A complaint must first be made to
the NJC.
“Whenever there is an allegation of official
misconduct against a judicial officer and the above stated process
is not adhered to, it amounts to jumping the gun and ipso facto a
direct violation of the Constitution. Recourse to the National
Judicial Council is a condition precedent as clearly set out by the
Constitution, and any attempt by any Agency of Government to
by-pass the Council will amount to failure to observe condition
precedent thereby leading to flagrant violation of the
Constitution.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p.18
- that there are two types of misconduct that a judicial officer
may commit in the course of discharging his judicial functions.
One, misconduct which is just a wrongdoing, unbefitting of a
judicial officer, e.g. having sexual affairs with a litigant in a
matter before him. This misconduct is not criminal but punishable
by the NJC and after such punishment, the judge may not have any
question to answer in court.
Two, misconduct which is criminal in nature and an example is
financial corruption. When a judge receives gifts from any party
before him, it amounts to a criminal misconduct but the judge
cannot be investigated nor be prosecuted without being reported
first to the NJC.
There are two penalties for a judge in the latter scenario.
First, he may be disciplined by the NJC through either suspension
or being recommended to the President (as in the case of a federal
judicial officer) for removal. Second, he may be prosecuted for the
criminal act of corruption or bribery and be jailed or fined, if
found guilty.
It may be argued that this is a bad judgment as it may
constitute a set-back to the war against corruption to some extent.
However, that is a different point entirely.
I am aware that the NBA has set up a committee to review the
judgment of the Court of Appeal and report to it within a week. The
committee is headed by Mallam Yussuf Alli, SAN.
But the question is – is this a healthy development for the
integrity of the Nigerian judiciary? Will the committee uphold or
upturn the judgment?
The judgment appears to be correct on the surface but a deeper
and more critical examination may reveal some shortcomings –
- the judgment rests squarely on subsidiary regulations, though
made pursuant to the Constitution. These regulations may fall on
appeal in view of relevant provisions of the EFCC Act which empower
the agency to investigate and prosecute corrupt practices. - judicial review procedure which the Court proposed as a measure
to challenge unfavourable decision of the NJC may not be a viable
option. Judicial review is not an appeal. It is a procedure to
review the correctness of the process leading to a decision and not
the merits of the decision arrived at. So, a court cannot, through
judicial review, substitute its opinion for the decision of a body
whose decision is being reviewed.
So, I opine that the judgment may be affirmed by the Supreme
Court, if appealed or be varied but may not entirely be set
aside.
I have said my own. It is time for you to say your own.
[1] Private Legal Practitioner
based in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria; Tel: +2348038556525, Email:
barrykehinde@yahoo.co.uk & Blog: www.kennyadegbite.blogspot.com
A Talk Given by Kehinde Adegbite Esq[1] at the End-of-the-Year-Get
Together of the Law Office of Dr Akin Onigbinde, SAN & CO,
David Chambers, 8 Rotimi Williams Avenue, Off Awosika Avenue, Old
Bodija, Ibadan on 22nd December, 2017
Introduction
We will recall that it was the Military Government of General
Muhammadu Buhari that introduced War Against Indiscipline, WAI, in
1984 and today, the aversion that the President, Muhammadu Buhari,
has for acts of indiscipline of which financial corruption is one
has not diminished.
Since the President came on board for the second time on 29th
May, 2015, he has not hidden his avowed determination to fight and
defeat corruption. We all still remember his quotable quote –
“If Nigeria does not kill corruption, corruption will
kill Nigeria.”
In his current rampaging (or is it a selective war?) war against
corruption, the judiciary has not been spared. In October, 2016,
some judges of superior courts and justices of the Supreme Court of
Nigeria were rounded up for corrupt practices in an operation later
christened as “sting operation”. As we speak here today, many cases
of corruption initiated from the inception of the Buhari
Administration are still in court and one of them is the case
against Hon Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa.
However, unlike other similar cases, an interesting and shocking
development has emerged in this case. A division of the Court of
Appeal sitting in Lagos has delivered a judgment to the effect that
a serving judge cannot be tried like a “common criminal”. Mixed
reactions have followed this judgment. Some say it is a travesty of
justice and a set-back for the war against corrupt practices
especially among public officers, while some others say it is a
victory for the rule of law, the Constitution, the independence of
the judiciary, the principles of separation of powers, and
democracy.
What do you say? Let’s hear you. But before we come to you,
allow me to share my own thoughts.
Brief Facts of Nganjiwa Vs Federal Republic of
Nigeria
Hon Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa of the
Federal High Court, Bayelsa Judicial Division, was charged with a
14-count information dated 8th June, 2017 before a Lagos State High
Court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
However, instead of standing for his trial, the Hon. Judge
decided to file a Preliminary Objection, PO, dated 13th June, 2017
challenging the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court to try him on
the ground that, as a serving judge, his case ought to be first
referred to the National Judicial Council, NJC, before being
brought to court for prosecution.
The charges against the judge bordered squarely on official
corruption (named in the charge as “unlawful enrichment”) committed
in the course of discharging his functions as a judicial officer.
It was alleged that sums of $260, 000 and N8.65 million were paid
into his bank account between 2013 and 2015 under suspicious
circumstances, among other acts of criminal misconduct.
The PO failed at the High Court level as Justice
Akintoye of the Lagos State High Court dismissed the PO in
his ruling of 23rd June, 2017 and ruled that he has jurisdiction to
try the indicted judge.
Justice Nganjiwa subsequently filed an appeal against the ruling
of the Lagos State High Court and on the 12th December, 2017, the
Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division delivered its ruling
setting aside the earlier ruling of the Lagos High Court.
Justice Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, struck out the
charge against Justice Nganjiwa on the basis that the condition
precedent was not followed by the EFCC before filing an information
against him in court for criminal prosecution, maintaining that a
serving judge must first be reported to the NJC and let the body
act before filing a criminal charge in court.
Key Authorities Relied on by the Court of
Appeal
In delivering the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos
Judicial Division, Justice Abimbola Osarugue
Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, relied on the following authorities
–
- Section 153 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999 –
“There shall be established for the Federation the
following bodies, namely – [h] National Judicial
Council…”
- Section 158 (1) of the Constitution –
“In exercising its power to make appointments or to
exercise disciplinary control over persons, the Code of Conduct
Bureau, the National Judicial Council, the Federal Civil Service
Commission, the Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Revenue
Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission, the Federal Character
Commission, and the Independent National Electoral Commission,
shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other
authority or person.”
- Paragraph 21 (b) of the Third Schedule, Part I, of the
Constitution –
“recommend to the President the removal from office
of the judicial officers specified in sub-paragraph (a) of this
paragraph, and to exercise disciplinary control over such
officers…”
- Paragraph 21 (h) & (i) of the Third Schedule, Part
I, of the Constitution –
“control and disburse all monies, capital and
recurrent, for the services of the Council; and”
“deal with all other matters relating to broad
issues of policy and administration.”
- Rules 1, 2, and 10 of the Revised Code of Conduct for
Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, February,
2016 –
“The code applies to all categories of Judicial
Officers throughout the Federation as defined in this
Code.”
“Violation of any Rules contained in this code shall
constitute judicial misconduct and or, misbehaviour and shall
attract disciplinary action.”
“A Judge shall not give or take and shall not
encourage or condone the giving or taking of any benefit,
advantage, bribe however disguised for anything done or to be done
in the discharge of a judicial duty.”
- Justice Opene v. NJC & Ors (2011) LPELR-CA/A/324/07
and Elelu Habeeb v. AG Federation (2012) 13 NWLR Pt. 1318,
423
“…The word misconduct used as a reason for removal of
Judicial Officer is known to those who framed the constitution to
be a criminal offence and yet the responsibility to recommend to
the president, the removal of such officer is given to the National
Judicial Council. If the Constitution intended that such misconduct
must be subject to trial by court it would have said so… rather the
Constitution gave the court power to try criminal offences also
gave the NJC power to investigate allegations of misconduct against
Judicial Officers and make recommendations for their removal. It is
my firm view that the procedure adopted by the NJC is sustainable…
The Appellant has the constitutional power to investigate the
criminal allegations made against the Appellant and to make a
finding that the allegations are proved… ”
Per Justice Galinje, JCA in Opene v. NJC, pp.
40-50
Some Germane Questions
- If a judge commits misconduct in the course of performing
judicial functions and he is taking straight to court for
prosecution, how will the NJC be able to exercise its disciplinary
powers?
According to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, disciplinary
remedy through the NJC must be explored before initiating a
criminal proceeding against a judge who commits a criminal
misconduct in the course of discharging his judicial functions.
Disciplinary and criminal proceedings cannot go simultaneously.
- If a judge commits misconduct in the course of performing
judicial functions and he is reported to the NJC, how will the NJC
investigate? Does it have control over the Police?
What the NJC does is more of fact-finding than the kind of
investigation carried out by law enforcement agents. NJC will
simply look into a petition submitted to it against a judge and
thereafter, obtain the response of the affected judge before
forming its own opinion whether to indict such judge or clear him
of any wrongdoing.
- Is the Court of Appeal judgment in conflict with the decision
of the Supreme Court in Gani Fawehinmi vs IGP (2002) 7 NWLR
Pt. 767, 606?
“It is only and only when, the NJC has given a
verdict and handed over such judicial officer… to the prosecuting
authority that he may then be investigated and prosecuted by the
appropriate security agencies.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 29
“Whenever a breach of judicial oath occurs, it is a
misconduct itself, then the NJC is the appropriate body to
investigate such breaches by the judicial officer and if found to
be so, such judicial officer shall face disciplinary action and the
NJC may recommend the removal of such a judicial officer to the
appropriate authority which is either the President in the case of
a Federal Judicial Officer or the Governor of the State in the case
of a State Judicial Officer and/or take other actions
appropriately.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 17
The decision of the Supreme Court in Gani Fawehinmi vs.
IGP, supra, states that a Governor who is immune by
Section 308 of the Constitution from court proceedings while in
office can still be investigated.
I am of the opinion that these pronouncements appear to be in
conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in Gani
Fawehinmi vs. IGP, supra, but that is only on the
superficial consideration. A deeper examination will show that,
unlike Governors who cannot be prosecuted during their tenure,
judges may be investigated before retirement, provided a petition
is first forwarded to the NJC and the latter is allowed to act on
such petition.
- If a judge is taking straight to court, can he still continue
to discharge his functions as a judge?
A judge may not on his own cease to perform his judicial
functions unless placed on suspension by the NJC and by the NJC
Rules, it may scarcely suspend a judge, if no petition has been
submitted to it.
- Is this case about judicial immunity or independence?
“For the avoidance of doubt, may I state clearly
that no judicial officer is covered by immunity from prosecution
under the Constitution as the Constitution only grants the powers
to discipline judicial officers for official misconduct to the
NJC”.
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 26
- If a judge commits a crime outside his judicial functions, can
he be treated like an average Nigerian?
“It must be expressly stated that if a judicial
officer commits theft, fraud, murder or manslaughter, arson and the
likes, which are crimes committed outside the scope of the
performance of his official functions, he may be arrested,
interrogated and prosecuted accordingly by the State DIRECTLY
without recourse to the NJC.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 19
- What happens if the NJC does not indict, in spite of
overwhelming evidence, after a complaint is lodged against a
judge?
“… if at the end of the measures taken by the NJC,
anyone is aggrieved, such a person who feels dissatisfied may apply
to court for judicial review in accordance with laid down
provisions of law.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p. 33
My Understanding of the Court of Appeal Judgment and My
Opinion
To start with, it must be pointed out that this judgment
establishes two major principles –
- that EFCC, ICPC (Independent Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Commission) and other prosecuting agencies can
investigate and prosecute a judicial officer but the condition
precedent must be first followed. A complaint must first be made to
the NJC.
“Whenever there is an allegation of official
misconduct against a judicial officer and the above stated process
is not adhered to, it amounts to jumping the gun and ipso facto a
direct violation of the Constitution. Recourse to the National
Judicial Council is a condition precedent as clearly set out by the
Constitution, and any attempt by any Agency of Government to
by-pass the Council will amount to failure to observe condition
precedent thereby leading to flagrant violation of the
Constitution.”
Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA, p.18
- that there are two types of misconduct that a judicial officer
may commit in the course of discharging his judicial functions.
One, misconduct which is just a wrongdoing, unbefitting of a
judicial officer, e.g. having sexual affairs with a litigant in a
matter before him. This misconduct is not criminal but punishable
by the NJC and after such punishment, the judge may not have any
question to answer in court.
Two, misconduct which is criminal in nature and an example is
financial corruption. When a judge receives gifts from any party
before him, it amounts to a criminal misconduct but the judge
cannot be investigated nor be prosecuted without being reported
first to the NJC.
There are two penalties for a judge in the latter scenario.
First, he may be disciplined by the NJC through either suspension
or being recommended to the President (as in the case of a federal
judicial officer) for removal. Second, he may be prosecuted for the
criminal act of corruption or bribery and be jailed or fined, if
found guilty.
It may be argued that this is a bad judgment as it may
constitute a set-back to the war against corruption to some extent.
However, that is a different point entirely.
I am aware that the NBA has set up a committee to review the
judgment of the Court of Appeal and report to it within a week. The
committee is headed by Mallam Yussuf Alli, SAN.
But the question is – is this a healthy development for the
integrity of the Nigerian judiciary? Will the committee uphold or
upturn the judgment?
The judgment appears to be correct on the surface but a deeper
and more critical examination may reveal some shortcomings –
- the judgment rests squarely on subsidiary regulations, though
made pursuant to the Constitution. These regulations may fall on
appeal in view of relevant provisions of the EFCC Act which empower
the agency to investigate and prosecute corrupt practices. - judicial review procedure which the Court proposed as a measure
to challenge unfavourable decision of the NJC may not be a viable
option. Judicial review is not an appeal. It is a procedure to
review the correctness of the process leading to a decision and not
the merits of the decision arrived at. So, a court cannot, through
judicial review, substitute its opinion for the decision of a body
whose decision is being reviewed.
So, I opine that the judgment may be affirmed by the Supreme
Court, if appealed or be varied but may not entirely be set
aside.
I have said my own. It is time for you to say your own.
[1] Private Legal Practitioner
based in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria; Tel: +2348038556525, Email:
barrykehinde@yahoo.co.uk & Blog: www.kennyadegbite.blogspot.com