Some issues were unresolved by the judiciary last year.
Will they be resolved this year? ROBERT EGBE asks
Religious garment and the right to legal
practice
The place of a mandatory religious attire such as a
scarf or hijab in law practice
Should a law school graduate, who has fulfilled all the
requirements necessary to becoming a lawyer be prevented from
participating in the call to bar ceremony merely because she
refused to contravene her faith by exposing her hair?
The Council of Legal Education has made its position clear. Last
December 13, it barred a University of Ilorin Law graduate, Firdaus
Amasa, entry to the International Conference Centre, Abuja, venue
of the Call to Bar because of her refusal to take off her
hijab.
On December 21, another Muslim Law graduate, Aisha Zubair, said
she was victimised and forced to remove her hijab by officials of
the Council of Legal Education and the Law School immediately after
the same call-to-bar exercise.
According to a report by Premium Times, Zubair had already
received her call-to-bar certificate when the alleged incident
occurred.
“When I got to my seat, a law school lecturer was waiting there
and she started shouting at me and hurling insults at me for daring
to wear the hijab in the hall, saying I wanted to disgrace them.
She demanded I remove the hijab and throw it on the floor, which I
did. Then she started to rub the hijab on the floor. She kicked it
around several times before asking a guard to guard the hijab and
not allow me retrieve it. Then she came back with another lecturer
to seize the certificate I had just collected from me. I begged but
they didn’t listen. After the ceremony, I went to them and after so
much pleas, I was given back the certificate with a stern warning,”
she said.
There was no suggestion that the alleged action of the officials
was authorised or approved by the Council of Legal Education or the
Nigerian Law School. The Council’s strict position on dress code
for aspiring lawyer, which is in line with its practice from
inception, has drawn divergent reactions from many lawyers, rights
groups and the House of Representatives.
It is certain to generate more reactions before or during the
next call-to-bar ceremony later this year.
Several lawyers reasoned, among others, that Amasa deliberately
breached the rules on dress code for the ceremony, but others
disagreed, saying there was no such rule.
The incident drew the attention of Muslim rights groups, which
described the action as unconstitutional and a violation of her
fundamental human rights.
The groups include Muslim Media Practitioners of Nigeria (MMPN);
Muslim Lawyers Association of Nigeria (MULAN); Federation of Muslim
Women Association in Nigeria (FOMWAN); Muslim Students’ Society of
Nigeria (MSSN); Muslim Consultative Forum (MCF) and Muslim Ummah of
Southwest of Nigeria (MUSWEN).
MMPN National President Abdur-Rahman Balogun said: “We have
taken our time to study, listen and hear all shades of opinion on
this matter and we are of the opinion that despite
Firdaus’compromise of adorning a harmless and simple Hijab, her
refusal to be called to the Bar is an infringement on her
fundamental human right.
“One is not sure of what is the Nigerian Law School and the
Council of Legal Education are afraid of. The world is moving away
from that rigid thinking and leaving Nigeria behind as wig on hijab
are allowed in countries, such as United States, United Kingdom and
Kenya to mention just a few.”
Justice delivery and court officials
How can the culture of lawyers having to part with money before
they can get service from court workers be eradicated?
Many lawyers say they have lost clients or had to turn down
briefs relating to bail because of the problem of inducing court
workers.
Last December 22, a lawyer from Badagry, Lagos State branch of
the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) tried to perfect the bail of his
client at a magistrate’s court. The bail conditions were stiff: N5
million with two sureties in the like sum, one of whom must be a
bank manager. Each surety was required to deposit N1million in the
chief registrar’s account and both were asked to surrender their
international passports to the court. A court official advised him
that the going rate in that courtroom to secure his client’s
release “without necessarily complying with the bail conditions”
was N450,000, which would be shared between the magistrate and the
registrar. It came down to ‘last price’ of N300,000 after
negotiations. But after pretending that his client could only
afford N200,000, the talks broke down and his client remained in
detention. Following advice from other lawyers, he petitioned the
state’s Chief Judge, who is now investigating the matter.
The experience of the lawyer appears to be the norm. Two
Facebook posts on December 28, 2017 and January 4 this year, by
lawyers involved in the matter garnered 94 comments from over 50
lawyers from different NBA branches, mostly lamenting their
difficult experiences while trying to get service from court
workers without providing financial incentives.
Convener of Fight Against Corruption in the Judiciary (FIACIJ),
Bayo Akinlade, noted that he has been “laughed at, mocked and
ridiculed by unprofessional and less educated court officials, who
will boldly tell me that I can’t get a service in court without
parting with some money”.
“I still recall my first experience. It was sometime in 2010.
The first case I handled after relocating to Nigeria. I was briefed
by a family member to get me going. I was in the Sheriff’s
Department, Ikeja High Court where a sheriff of court treated me
like crap. I had gone to inquire about serving my process and he
showed me my process and told me bluntly that I must pay him before
he goes to serve the process and I must pay him before I collect
the proof of service. Nothing I said moved him. I tried to see the
person in charge, but I was given the run around,”he said.
Akinlade, however, noted that Chief Judges and other judicial
officers are now warning both lawyers and judiciary staff against
encouraging such practice.
Last May 31, a Judge of the Federal High Court, Lagos, Justice
Mojisola Olatoregun, cautioned lawyers against giving court
bailiffs money to serve court processes on parties.
The judge said it amounted to bribery and condemned the practice
where bailiffs have to be tipped or mobilised before they agree to
deliver processes to parties.
Justice Olatoregun gave the warning following complaints by a
counsel, who appeared before her in a suit and complained that the
defendants were yet to be served even though he mobilised the
bailiffs.
The judge asked: “Did you say you mobilised them? How much did
you give them? Let me know if it was enough.”
The counsel said he gave the bailiffs N8,000.
The judge then threatened to order the lawyer’s arrest for
offering a bribe. She also sent for the court’s registrar and
bailiff.
“When you give a bribe, both of you are liable. We’ll get the
Chief Registrar. You will be handed over to the police for bribing
a bailiff. You will explain how you have been bribing bailiffs.
That is how you will be collecting money from Senior Advocates of
Nigeria (SANs) when you become a judge,” she said.
Lawyers as Supreme Court justices
Is this the year lawyers will be appointed directly from
the Bar to the Supreme Court?
On January 30, 2017, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter
Onnoghen asked the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to nominate
lawyers for appointment as justices of the Supreme Court.
The NBA recommended nine senior lawyers, including former NBA
President Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN); former Abia State
Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Prof Awa Kalu (SAN);
Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN); Yunus Usman (SAN) and Babatunde
Fagbohunlu (SAN). The shortlisting was said to have been done by a
committee chaired by NBA President Abubakar Mahmoud.
Strange as this may seem, the practice is not without precedent
in the Nigerian judicial system. Under the military a couple of
appointments to the Supreme Court were made directly from the
bench, the first being Justice Teslim Elias, an academic, who was
appointed CJN by Gen. Yakubu Gowon in 1972, having been
Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice at
various times since 1960.
Another lawyer so appointed was Justice Augustine Nnamani (SAN),
who was nominated by Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo to the Supreme Court in
1979 from his position as the Attorney-General of the Federation
and Minister of Justice. He was at the Supreme Court for 11
years.
One of the reasons for Justice Onnoghen’s decision was that the
Supreme Court can have a full complement of 21 Justices. This will
enable three of its courts to sit separately every day, a measure
that will reduce drastically the backlog of cases pending before
it. Presently, there are 17 justices of the court.
However, nothing has been heard on the matter since then.
How will the special anti-corruption courts
fare?
In September 2017 the CJN directed heads of various courts to
designate some courts as corruption courts. This move was applauded
by several prominent lawyers including Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), who
is the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against
Corruption (PACAC), and Mr. Femi Falana (SAN). They saw it as part
of the CJN’s reforms aimed at tackling the delay and other ills
associated with the trial of high-profile personalities.
But not much else has been heard about it since.The special
anti-corruption courts are particularly important because several
corruption cases have dragged for many years. For instance,
corruption trials involving several former governors have lingered
for 10 years.
Former Chairman of the Calabar branch of the NBA, Mba Ukweni
SAN, urged the CJN not to relent in his drive to aid the
anti-corruption war this year. He encouraged him to consolidate on
the gains already made.
Ukweni said: “He has taken proactive steps on the issue of
ensuring that we have an impeccable judiciary. He is following in
the footsteps of his predecessor in ensuring that there is little
or no corruption. He is taking complaints about judges and justices
very seriously.
“Just last December, the National Judicial Commission
disciplinary committee sanctioned some judges. So, I feel that the
judiciary must continue in that light in 2018. The CJN should be
fair and firm. If we have a corrupt judiciary, public confidence in
the judiciary as the last hope of the common man will be eroded.
So, he has started well on that platform and we also see that this
year he should consolidate on the gains of 2017, such as ensuring
that we have a reasonable number of judges to dispense justice
quickly, appointing judges when the need arises. Of course, there
should be proper screening in the appointment of judges, because
without this there cannot be a proper judicial system.”
Culled: The nation
Some issues were unresolved by the judiciary last year.
Will they be resolved this year? ROBERT EGBE asks
Religious garment and the right to legal
practice
The place of a mandatory religious attire such as a
scarf or hijab in law practice
Should a law school graduate, who has fulfilled all the
requirements necessary to becoming a lawyer be prevented from
participating in the call to bar ceremony merely because she
refused to contravene her faith by exposing her hair?
The Council of Legal Education has made its position clear. Last
December 13, it barred a University of Ilorin Law graduate, Firdaus
Amasa, entry to the International Conference Centre, Abuja, venue
of the Call to Bar because of her refusal to take off her
hijab.
On December 21, another Muslim Law graduate, Aisha Zubair, said
she was victimised and forced to remove her hijab by officials of
the Council of Legal Education and the Law School immediately after
the same call-to-bar exercise.
According to a report by Premium Times, Zubair had already
received her call-to-bar certificate when the alleged incident
occurred.
“When I got to my seat, a law school lecturer was waiting there
and she started shouting at me and hurling insults at me for daring
to wear the hijab in the hall, saying I wanted to disgrace them.
She demanded I remove the hijab and throw it on the floor, which I
did. Then she started to rub the hijab on the floor. She kicked it
around several times before asking a guard to guard the hijab and
not allow me retrieve it. Then she came back with another lecturer
to seize the certificate I had just collected from me. I begged but
they didn’t listen. After the ceremony, I went to them and after so
much pleas, I was given back the certificate with a stern warning,”
she said.
There was no suggestion that the alleged action of the officials
was authorised or approved by the Council of Legal Education or the
Nigerian Law School. The Council’s strict position on dress code
for aspiring lawyer, which is in line with its practice from
inception, has drawn divergent reactions from many lawyers, rights
groups and the House of Representatives.
It is certain to generate more reactions before or during the
next call-to-bar ceremony later this year.
Several lawyers reasoned, among others, that Amasa deliberately
breached the rules on dress code for the ceremony, but others
disagreed, saying there was no such rule.
The incident drew the attention of Muslim rights groups, which
described the action as unconstitutional and a violation of her
fundamental human rights.
The groups include Muslim Media Practitioners of Nigeria (MMPN);
Muslim Lawyers Association of Nigeria (MULAN); Federation of Muslim
Women Association in Nigeria (FOMWAN); Muslim Students’ Society of
Nigeria (MSSN); Muslim Consultative Forum (MCF) and Muslim Ummah of
Southwest of Nigeria (MUSWEN).
MMPN National President Abdur-Rahman Balogun said: “We have
taken our time to study, listen and hear all shades of opinion on
this matter and we are of the opinion that despite
Firdaus’compromise of adorning a harmless and simple Hijab, her
refusal to be called to the Bar is an infringement on her
fundamental human right.
“One is not sure of what is the Nigerian Law School and the
Council of Legal Education are afraid of. The world is moving away
from that rigid thinking and leaving Nigeria behind as wig on hijab
are allowed in countries, such as United States, United Kingdom and
Kenya to mention just a few.”
Justice delivery and court officials
How can the culture of lawyers having to part with money before
they can get service from court workers be eradicated?
Many lawyers say they have lost clients or had to turn down
briefs relating to bail because of the problem of inducing court
workers.
Last December 22, a lawyer from Badagry, Lagos State branch of
the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) tried to perfect the bail of his
client at a magistrate’s court. The bail conditions were stiff: N5
million with two sureties in the like sum, one of whom must be a
bank manager. Each surety was required to deposit N1million in the
chief registrar’s account and both were asked to surrender their
international passports to the court. A court official advised him
that the going rate in that courtroom to secure his client’s
release “without necessarily complying with the bail conditions”
was N450,000, which would be shared between the magistrate and the
registrar. It came down to ‘last price’ of N300,000 after
negotiations. But after pretending that his client could only
afford N200,000, the talks broke down and his client remained in
detention. Following advice from other lawyers, he petitioned the
state’s Chief Judge, who is now investigating the matter.
The experience of the lawyer appears to be the norm. Two
Facebook posts on December 28, 2017 and January 4 this year, by
lawyers involved in the matter garnered 94 comments from over 50
lawyers from different NBA branches, mostly lamenting their
difficult experiences while trying to get service from court
workers without providing financial incentives.
Convener of Fight Against Corruption in the Judiciary (FIACIJ),
Bayo Akinlade, noted that he has been “laughed at, mocked and
ridiculed by unprofessional and less educated court officials, who
will boldly tell me that I can’t get a service in court without
parting with some money”.
“I still recall my first experience. It was sometime in 2010.
The first case I handled after relocating to Nigeria. I was briefed
by a family member to get me going. I was in the Sheriff’s
Department, Ikeja High Court where a sheriff of court treated me
like crap. I had gone to inquire about serving my process and he
showed me my process and told me bluntly that I must pay him before
he goes to serve the process and I must pay him before I collect
the proof of service. Nothing I said moved him. I tried to see the
person in charge, but I was given the run around,”he said.
Akinlade, however, noted that Chief Judges and other judicial
officers are now warning both lawyers and judiciary staff against
encouraging such practice.
Last May 31, a Judge of the Federal High Court, Lagos, Justice
Mojisola Olatoregun, cautioned lawyers against giving court
bailiffs money to serve court processes on parties.
The judge said it amounted to bribery and condemned the practice
where bailiffs have to be tipped or mobilised before they agree to
deliver processes to parties.
Justice Olatoregun gave the warning following complaints by a
counsel, who appeared before her in a suit and complained that the
defendants were yet to be served even though he mobilised the
bailiffs.
The judge asked: “Did you say you mobilised them? How much did
you give them? Let me know if it was enough.”
The counsel said he gave the bailiffs N8,000.
The judge then threatened to order the lawyer’s arrest for
offering a bribe. She also sent for the court’s registrar and
bailiff.
“When you give a bribe, both of you are liable. We’ll get the
Chief Registrar. You will be handed over to the police for bribing
a bailiff. You will explain how you have been bribing bailiffs.
That is how you will be collecting money from Senior Advocates of
Nigeria (SANs) when you become a judge,” she said.
Lawyers as Supreme Court justices
Is this the year lawyers will be appointed directly from
the Bar to the Supreme Court?
On January 30, 2017, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter
Onnoghen asked the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to nominate
lawyers for appointment as justices of the Supreme Court.
The NBA recommended nine senior lawyers, including former NBA
President Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN); former Abia State
Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Prof Awa Kalu (SAN);
Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN); Yunus Usman (SAN) and Babatunde
Fagbohunlu (SAN). The shortlisting was said to have been done by a
committee chaired by NBA President Abubakar Mahmoud.
Strange as this may seem, the practice is not without precedent
in the Nigerian judicial system. Under the military a couple of
appointments to the Supreme Court were made directly from the
bench, the first being Justice Teslim Elias, an academic, who was
appointed CJN by Gen. Yakubu Gowon in 1972, having been
Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice at
various times since 1960.
Another lawyer so appointed was Justice Augustine Nnamani (SAN),
who was nominated by Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo to the Supreme Court in
1979 from his position as the Attorney-General of the Federation
and Minister of Justice. He was at the Supreme Court for 11
years.
One of the reasons for Justice Onnoghen’s decision was that the
Supreme Court can have a full complement of 21 Justices. This will
enable three of its courts to sit separately every day, a measure
that will reduce drastically the backlog of cases pending before
it. Presently, there are 17 justices of the court.
However, nothing has been heard on the matter since then.
How will the special anti-corruption courts
fare?
In September 2017 the CJN directed heads of various courts to
designate some courts as corruption courts. This move was applauded
by several prominent lawyers including Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), who
is the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against
Corruption (PACAC), and Mr. Femi Falana (SAN). They saw it as part
of the CJN’s reforms aimed at tackling the delay and other ills
associated with the trial of high-profile personalities.
But not much else has been heard about it since.The special
anti-corruption courts are particularly important because several
corruption cases have dragged for many years. For instance,
corruption trials involving several former governors have lingered
for 10 years.
Former Chairman of the Calabar branch of the NBA, Mba Ukweni
SAN, urged the CJN not to relent in his drive to aid the
anti-corruption war this year. He encouraged him to consolidate on
the gains already made.
Ukweni said: “He has taken proactive steps on the issue of
ensuring that we have an impeccable judiciary. He is following in
the footsteps of his predecessor in ensuring that there is little
or no corruption. He is taking complaints about judges and justices
very seriously.
“Just last December, the National Judicial Commission
disciplinary committee sanctioned some judges. So, I feel that the
judiciary must continue in that light in 2018. The CJN should be
fair and firm. If we have a corrupt judiciary, public confidence in
the judiciary as the last hope of the common man will be eroded.
So, he has started well on that platform and we also see that this
year he should consolidate on the gains of 2017, such as ensuring
that we have a reasonable number of judges to dispense justice
quickly, appointing judges when the need arises. Of course, there
should be proper screening in the appointment of judges, because
without this there cannot be a proper judicial system.”
Culled: The nation
Read more https://nairalaw.com/2018-issues-for-judicial-determination/