Making And Amendment Of The RPC For Lawyers In Nigeria: Questions Arising, Answers That Work

By Sylvester Udemezue (udems)

MEMORY VERSES:

(A)   Finally, on this point, I wish to say that
in all countries of the world which operate under the rule of law,
politics are always adapted to the laws of the land and not the
laws to politics. Let our political operators allow this
time-honoured principle to sink well into their heads and
hearts.” (per PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JSC,
in AMAECHI V. INEC & 2 ors (2008) 1 SCNJ
1; (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227)

(B)  “The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule
of law, the primary meaning of which is that everything must be
done according to law. Nigeria, being one of the countries in the
world which profess loudly to follow the rule of law, there is no
room for the rule of self-help by force to
operate.” (MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS
STATE VS. OJUKWU (2001) FWLR (Part 50) 1779 at 1802 &
1799)

(C) “I should have thought that fairness, even
handedness and above all respect for rule of law would characterize
the behaviour and standards of such men who found themselves in
public offices” (per His Lordship, IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA
SAULAWA, JCA, in WHYTE V
KWANDE (APPEAL NO.CA/PH/161/99^[1]), in a judgment
delivered on January 4, 2007, the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt
division)

NOTE: RPC stands for Rules of
Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners In Nigeria,
2007

TWELVE QUESTIONS AND TWELVE BEFITTING
ANSWERS

(1)     ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR (HEREINAFTER CALLED “The Bar Council” or
the GCB”)? Section 1 of the Legal Practitioners Act,
1975, Cap L11, LFN 2004 (Revised Edition) dealing with
“Establishment of Bar Council” provides:

“(1) There shall be a body to be known as the General
Council of the Bar (in this Act   referred to as “the Bar
Council”) which shall be charged with the general management
of   the affairs of the Nigerian Bar Association (subject
to any limitations for the time being  provided by the
constitution of the Association) and with any functions conferred
on the   Council by this Act or that
constitution. (2) The Bar Council shall consist of‐
(a) the Attorney‐General of the Federation, who shall be the
president of the Council; (b) the Attorneys‐General
of the States; and (c) twenty members of the Association.
(3)The persons mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this
section shall‐ (a)be elected to serve on the Bar Council at
elections in which all members of the   Association are
entitled to vote in such manner as may be provided by the
constitution of the Association; and (b) hold office for such
period as may be determined by or under that constitution, and not
less than seven of those persons shall be legal practitioners of
not less than ten years’ standing.”

(2) CAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR (GCB) UNILATERALLY EXERCISE
A MANDATORY DUTY/POWER
EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED FOR ONLY THE GCB? Section 12(4)
of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975, Cap L11, LFN 2004 (Revised
Edition) provides:

“It shall be the duty of the Bar Council [General Council of
the Bar] to make rules from time to time on professional conduct in
the legal profession and cause such rules to be published in the
Gazette and distributed to all Branches of the [Nigerian bar]
Association.”

Examining the position of the law where statute confers
specific powers on any person or authority in the case
of KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC,  ILORIN
& IR V. SALIU & ORS (2012) LPELR-9695(CA), the
Court of Appeal said (per OGBUINYA ,J.C.A ( Pp. 68-69, paras.
C-B):

“It is trite law that, if an enactment bestows on a
particular person or authority the power to do a specific duty, it
is only that person or authority, and none other, that can perform
the assignment before it will receive the imprimatur of the law,
see section 10(1) of the interpretation Act, Emuze vs. V.C.,
University of Benin (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 828) 378; NPA vs. Lotus
Plastic Ltd (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 158; Balonwu vs. Gov. Anambra
State (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 236; UBN vs. Ayodare & Sons (Nig)
Ltd. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 567/ (2007) 4 KLR (Pt. 235)
2002.”

(3) WHO HAS THE POWER TO AMEND THE
RPC? HOW CAN THE RPC 2007 BE VALIDLY AND EFFECTIVELY
AMENDED? The RPC, 2007, in order to be
validly amended, must be AMENDED by only the General Council of the
Bar, at a duly-convened meeting of the Bar Council, and thereafter
published in the Official Gazette by or on
the prior authority of the Bar
Council.  The RPC 2007 cannot be validly
amended by any member of the GCB and cannot be amended by the
President or Chairman of the GCB; it makes no difference that the
person purports to be acting for the GCB or that he or she purports
to have “consulted” a member or some members of the
GCB. Only a GCB MEETING duly convened, and an
advance notice of which must have been extended to ALL members of
the GCB, can effectively amend the RPC. See section 12 (4) LPA
(supra). In A.G BENDEL STATE V. A.G FEDERATION &
ORS (1981) LPELR-605(SC), the Supreme Court (Per
OBASEKI ,J.S.C ( Pp. 128-129, paras. F-B) said:

“A Bill that has not gone through the procedure prescribed by
Sections 54 and 55 of the Constitution cannot become an Act of the
National Assembly and if such bill be assented to by the President,
the Act is unconstitutional as the President has no constitutional
duty to assent to a bill not passed by the National Assembly. See
Attorney General of St. Christopher Nevis and Arquilla v. Reynolds
(1980) AC 637. Bribery Commissioners v. Ranasinghe 1965 AC 172 at
193. Attorney General, New South Wales v. Trethowan 1932 AC 526.
Princes Case 77 ER 496 at 505. Gallant v. The King 1949
2 D.LR^[2] 425 at 428.”

(4) Where a statute prescribes that an act
MUST be done by a particular authority and in a particular way,
that act can only be validly done by the relevant authority and in
the prescribed manner. True or False? In SANUSI V.
AYOOLA & ORS (1992) LPELR-3009(SC), the Supreme Court
said (Per KARIBI-WHYTE ,J.S.C ( Pp. 19-20,
paras. F-C):

“It is well settled principle of our jurisprudence and an
important requirement of our administration of justice that where
the exercise of a power is statutory, such power can only be
exercised within the limits prescribed by the statute. – See Bowaje
v. Adediwura (1976) 6 S.C.143.”

(5) Every Breach of a MANDATORY Statutory
Provision Renders the Act So Done VOID AB INITIO. True or False?
In AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD V. ASSOCIATED DISCOUNT
HOUSE LTD (2007) LPELR-454(SC),  the
Supreme Court said (Per OGBUAGU ,J.S.C ( Pp. 75-76, paras. F-A
):

       “It is settled that not every
breach of a statutory provision, renders an act void and that to be
void, it must not be merely directory, but mandatory. See Odu’a
Investment Co.             Ltd.
v. Talabi (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 523) 1; (1997) SCNJ 600 at 649 – per
Ogundare,            JSC (of blessed
memory).”

(6) For Any Amendment of the RPC 2007
to have any effect at all or to be valid, whoever purportedly
amended it must prove that he or she has
the statutory power to amend it. In other words, he
or she must point to the specific provision of extant law that
empowers him/her to so amend it  and to so do in the way
he has done. True or False? In AGU V.
OKPOKO  (2009) LPELR-8286(CA), Per NWODO ,J.C.A
( P. 25, paras. E-F) the Court of Appeal said:

“It is trite that where a statute vests specific powers in
an institution and the exercise of such powers becomes an issue the
institution vested with such powers must provide proof that the
powers were exercised in the manner provided by law. EJIOFOR V.
OKEKE 2000 7 NWLR (PT. 665) CA 363.”

(7) DOES ANYONE NEED TO GO TO LAW
(GO TO COURT) TO CHALLENGE AN ILLEGAL AMENDMENT OF THE RPC? In
ORAKWE V. ORAKWUE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44763(CA), the
Court of Appeal answered the question thus (Per BOLAJI-YUSUFF
,J.C.A ( Pp. 30-34, para. E ):

“as a legal concept, an act, a document, or an instrument
which is a nullity is incurably bad and is characterized by want of
force or efficacy. Just as parties to a null marriage are treated
as though they were never married (for which see RE WOMBWELL’S
SETTLEMENT (1922) 2 CH. 298, p. 305). Parties to an instrument of
grant which is a nullity are treated as though such an instrument
never existed. A deed of conveyance which is a nullity is
absolutely without any effect and there is often no need to take
formal steps to set aside.”

(8) A Void Act Need Not Be Set
Aside Because, Being Void Ab Initio, There Is Nothing to Be Set
Aside. A purported amendment of the RPC, if not done
by the AUTHORITY that has the sole/exclusive ststautory power to
make/amend the RPC, is void, ineffective, of no effect whatsoever,
and NEED NOT BE CHALLENGED IN COURT. In KPEMA V.
STATE(1986) LPELR-1713(SC), the Supreme Court said, (Per
KARIBI-WHYTE ,J.S.C ( Pp. 31-32, paras. G-E):

“It is well settled that where an act is void and a nullity
in law it is stricto sensu unnecessary for the person concerned by
the act, because no legal effect results from such an act, to apply
to have them set aside…. – See Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 QBD
764; Craig v. Kansen (1943) 1 All ER 108; Forfie v. Seifa (1958) AC
59; Lazard Brothers & Company v. Midland Bank Ltd. (1933) AC.289.
This Court has similarly declared in Animashawun v. Osuma (1972) 4
S.C. 200 at p. 212 where it was said, “In the first place, when a
party believes or has reason to believe that a transaction liable
to affect his rights is null and void, he is under no obligation to
ask for a declaration that the transaction is null and void.
Moreover, we observe with respect that a void transaction cannot be
set aside because being void ab initio there could be nothing set
aside.” This view was adopted and applied in Akpene v. Barclays
Bank (1977) 1 S.C.47 and N.H.D.S. v. Mumuni (1977) 2 SC. 52. These
cases cited and relied upon the dictum of Denning LJ. in Macfoy v.
United African Company Ltd. (1961) 3 All E.R. at p. 1172.”

(9) YOU CANNOT PUT SOMETHING ON
NOTHING AND EXPECT IT TO STAND. True or false? The learned
jurist (Hon Justice TOBI) had in OWNERS VS
ADENIJI (1993)2 NWLR(Pt 274) held as thus:

“One can add something to something, but one cannot add
something to nothing because there will be nothing to receive the
something. The something which will have nothing to support it will
fall away, following Newton’s law of gravity or gravitation.” See
also Lord Denning’s declaration in the case of Mcfoy v. U.A.C.
(1961) 3 All ER 1169 at pg. 1172 that ‘you cannot put
something on nothing and expect it to stay there, it will
collapse.’”

(10)         EFFECT
OF A VOID ACT/ACTION, AND WHY THERE IS NO NEED TO SEEK TO SET IT
ASIDE. In the case of LADOJA V
INEC (2007) LPELR-1738(SC), the Supreme Court said
that:

      “when an act is declared null and void,
the position is settled that from the angle of the   
      law, the act never took place. It is
completely wiped off and considered as extinct and   
       deemed never to have existed.”

Explaining the meaning of “null and void”,
in EKANEM V. AG AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE AKWA
IBOM STATE & ORS (2014) LPELR-24250(CA), the Court of
Appeal said, (per OTISI, J.C.A (p. 22, paras. C-E)

“In Adefulu v. Okulaja (1996) LPELR-90 (SC), (1995-1996) ALL
NLR 318, the Supreme Court, per Ogundare, JSC quoted with approval
the meaning of null and void defined in the American case of Zogby
v. State 53 Misc 2d 740; 279 NYS 2d 665, 668 as follows: “‘Null and
void’ means that which binds no one or is incapable of giving rise
to any rights or obligations under any circumstances, or that which
is of no effect.”

Further, in NZOM & ANOR V.
JINADU (1987) LPELR-2143(SC), THE Supreme Court said
(Per KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C ( Pp. 44-45, paras. E-A):

“It is now well settled that where an act is void, it is
void and nothing can be added to it. It is expressed in the Latin
ex nihilo nihil fit. Hence if the writ of summons against a
non-juristic person is void, it admits of no additions or accretion
of other persons. As Denning L.J. expressed it commenting on
nullity succinctly in U.A.C. Ltd. v. Macfoy (1961) 3 ALL E.R at
p.1172. “If an act is void then it is in law a nullity. It is not
only bad, but incurably bad…And every proceeding which is founded
on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on
nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”

(11) THE QUESTION OF CONSULTATION,
MEETING OF THE GCB AND ISSUE OF QUORUM?  Section
1(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975, Cap L11, LFN 2004
(Revised Edition)

    “The quorum of the Bar Council shall be
eight, and the Council may make standing   
         orders regulating the
procedure of the Council and, subject to the provisions of any
such     orders, may regulate its own
proceedings; and no proceedings of the Council shall  
be         invalidated by any
vacancy in the membership of the Council, or by the fact that
any         
     person took part in the proceedings who
was not entitled to do so”

I have earlier stated as follows

“I repeat, SEPARATE, PRIVATE CONSULTATIONs with individual
members of the GCB is not the same thing as “CONSULTATION with the
GCB itself as a body.” Consultation with the GCB as a body can only
be made at a meeting of the GCB properly convened and held with a
quorum formed. On the issue of quorum, you argued that the Quorum
for any GCB meeting is 8 members, which I agree with. However, with
due respect, you failed to mention that in the present instance,
whether or not a quorum has been formed is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT
because the issue of formation of quorum can only arise after you
have fixed a meeting and delivered prior Notice of the proposed
Meeting to all GCB members who are entitled to ATTEND the meeting.
It’s on the day of the meeting, at the venue of the meeting, at the
time of the meeting, that one now begins to talk about whether a
quorum has been formed or not. Once you have up to 8 members
present, the meeting may proceed to take valid decisions. It’s only
then it’d become immaterial that (1). other members didn’t come or
(2) that there is any vacancy in any part of GCB membership. If a
meeting has NOT been validly convened, the issue of whether a
quorum has been formed is irrelevant. To further illustrate this,
let’s assume that the GCB has a total of 57 members and the law
requires that a formal meeting must be held. Now, if you choose to
put telephone calls across separately and privately to say 40
members, could you be said to have complied with the law? The
answer is “no” because you’ve not called nor HELD any meeting as
required by law. The fact you’ve spoken privately to majority of
the members is beside the point. And even when you decide to comply
with the law by calling a meeting of the GCB, you must send a prior
Notice of the proposed meeting to EVERY MEMBER who is entitled to
attend the meeting.” (See Udemezue,
Sylvester, ‘2020 Amendment to RPC 2007: Where Mr.
Kayode Ajulo Missed IT ‘ (BarristerNG, 18
September 2020) <
https://www.barristerng.com/2020-amendment-to-rpc-2007-where-mr-kayode-ajulo-missed-it-by-sylvester-udemezue/>
accessed 15 November 2020)

(12)         FURTHER
WRITINGS BY UDEMS, ON THIS ISSUE:

(a)  Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘The
General Council Of The Bar Has
Exclusive Powers To Issue And Amend The RPC For Lawyers In
Nigeria.’ (LawAndJustice, 23 September 2020)
<
https://www.lawandjustice.ng/2020/09/the-general-council-of-bar-has.html>
accessed 15 November 2020

(b) ThisDay Lawyer, ‘Can the AGF Amend the
RPC?’ (ThisDayLive, 22 September 2020) <
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/09/22/can-the-agf-amend-the-rpc/>
accessed 15 November 2020

(c)  Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘2020
Amendment to RPC 2007: Where Mr. Kayode Ajulo Missed IT
‘ (BarristerNG, 18 September 2020) <
https://www.barristerng.com/2020-amendment-to-rpc-2007-where-mr-kayode-ajulo-missed-it-by-sylvester-udemezue/>
accessed 15 November 2020

(d) Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘An Expository
Inquisition into The Hallowed Place Of Nigerian Bar Association As
The Most Far-Reaching Regulator In Nigeria`s Legal
Profession’ (LawAndJustice, 30 August
2020) accessed 15 November 2020

(e)  Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘NBA
Membership & Quod Approbo Non Reprobo: A Lawyer Files His Process
in Court With NBA Seals & Then Turns Around To Claim To Not Belong
To The NBA’ (TheNigerialawyer, 30 August 2020)
<
nba-membership-quod-approbo-non-reprobo-a-lawyer-files-his-process-in-court-with-nba-seals-then-turns-around-to-claim-to-not-belong-to-the-nba/>
accessed 15 November 2020

(f)   Falana, Femi & Udemezue,
Sylvester, ‘NEW NBA: Falana, Udemezue
Disagree’ (Judicial Sketch, 31 August 2020 )
<
https://judicialsketch.com/2020/08/31/new-nba-falana-udemezue-disagree/>
accessed 15 November 2020

(g) Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘A Dispassionate
Disquisition On The Incommodious Upshots Of NBA`S Innocuous
Disinvitation Of Governor
El-Rufai’ (TheNigerialawyer, 24 August 2020)
<
a-dispassionate-disquisition-on-the-incommodious-upshots-of-nbas-innocuous-disinvitation-of-governor-el-rufai/>
accessed 15 November 2020

Long live the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)!

God help Nigeria!

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (udems), 08021365545.
udemsyl@gmail.com
(15 November 2020)

By Sylvester Udemezue (udems)

MEMORY VERSES:

(A)   Finally, on this point, I wish to say that
in all countries of the world which operate under the rule of law,
politics are always adapted to the laws of the land and not the
laws to politics. Let our political operators allow this
time-honoured principle to sink well into their heads and
hearts.” (per PIUS OLAYIWOLA ADEREMI, JSC,
in AMAECHI V. INEC & 2 ors (2008) 1 SCNJ
1; (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1080) 227)

(B)  “The Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule
of law, the primary meaning of which is that everything must be
done according to law. Nigeria, being one of the countries in the
world which profess loudly to follow the rule of law, there is no
room for the rule of self-help by force to
operate.” (MILITARY GOVERNOR OF LAGOS
STATE VS. OJUKWU (2001) FWLR (Part 50) 1779 at 1802 &
1799)

(C) “I should have thought that fairness, even
handedness and above all respect for rule of law would characterize
the behaviour and standards of such men who found themselves in
public offices” (per His Lordship, IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA
SAULAWA, JCA, in WHYTE V
KWANDE (APPEAL NO.CA/PH/161/99^[1]), in a judgment
delivered on January 4, 2007, the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt
division)

NOTE: RPC stands for Rules of
Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners In Nigeria,
2007

TWELVE QUESTIONS AND TWELVE BEFITTING
ANSWERS

(1)     ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR (HEREINAFTER CALLED “The Bar Council” or
the GCB”)? Section 1 of the Legal Practitioners Act,
1975, Cap L11, LFN 2004 (Revised Edition) dealing with
“Establishment of Bar Council” provides:

“(1) There shall be a body to be known as the General
Council of the Bar (in this Act   referred to as “the Bar
Council”) which shall be charged with the general management
of   the affairs of the Nigerian Bar Association (subject
to any limitations for the time being  provided by the
constitution of the Association) and with any functions conferred
on the   Council by this Act or that
constitution. (2) The Bar Council shall consist of‐
(a) the Attorney‐General of the Federation, who shall be the
president of the Council; (b) the Attorneys‐General
of the States; and (c) twenty members of the Association.
(3)The persons mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this
section shall‐ (a)be elected to serve on the Bar Council at
elections in which all members of the   Association are
entitled to vote in such manner as may be provided by the
constitution of the Association; and (b) hold office for such
period as may be determined by or under that constitution, and not
less than seven of those persons shall be legal practitioners of
not less than ten years’ standing.”

(2) CAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR (GCB) UNILATERALLY EXERCISE
A MANDATORY DUTY/POWER
EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED FOR ONLY THE GCB? Section 12(4)
of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975, Cap L11, LFN 2004 (Revised
Edition) provides:

“It shall be the duty of the Bar Council [General Council of
the Bar] to make rules from time to time on professional conduct in
the legal profession and cause such rules to be published in the
Gazette and distributed to all Branches of the [Nigerian bar]
Association.”

Examining the position of the law where statute confers
specific powers on any person or authority in the case
of KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC,  ILORIN
& IR V. SALIU & ORS (2012) LPELR-9695(CA), the
Court of Appeal said (per OGBUINYA ,J.C.A ( Pp. 68-69, paras.
C-B):

“It is trite law that, if an enactment bestows on a
particular person or authority the power to do a specific duty, it
is only that person or authority, and none other, that can perform
the assignment before it will receive the imprimatur of the law,
see section 10(1) of the interpretation Act, Emuze vs. V.C.,
University of Benin (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt. 828) 378; NPA vs. Lotus
Plastic Ltd (2005) 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 158; Balonwu vs. Gov. Anambra
State (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 236; UBN vs. Ayodare & Sons (Nig)
Ltd. (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1052) 567/ (2007) 4 KLR (Pt. 235)
2002.”

(3) WHO HAS THE POWER TO AMEND THE
RPC? HOW CAN THE RPC 2007 BE VALIDLY AND EFFECTIVELY
AMENDED? The RPC, 2007, in order to be
validly amended, must be AMENDED by only the General Council of the
Bar, at a duly-convened meeting of the Bar Council, and thereafter
published in the Official Gazette by or on
the prior authority of the Bar
Council.  The RPC 2007 cannot be validly
amended by any member of the GCB and cannot be amended by the
President or Chairman of the GCB; it makes no difference that the
person purports to be acting for the GCB or that he or she purports
to have “consulted” a member or some members of the
GCB. Only a GCB MEETING duly convened, and an
advance notice of which must have been extended to ALL members of
the GCB, can effectively amend the RPC. See section 12 (4) LPA
(supra). In A.G BENDEL STATE V. A.G FEDERATION &
ORS (1981) LPELR-605(SC), the Supreme Court (Per
OBASEKI ,J.S.C ( Pp. 128-129, paras. F-B) said:

“A Bill that has not gone through the procedure prescribed by
Sections 54 and 55 of the Constitution cannot become an Act of the
National Assembly and if such bill be assented to by the President,
the Act is unconstitutional as the President has no constitutional
duty to assent to a bill not passed by the National Assembly. See
Attorney General of St. Christopher Nevis and Arquilla v. Reynolds
(1980) AC 637. Bribery Commissioners v. Ranasinghe 1965 AC 172 at
193. Attorney General, New South Wales v. Trethowan 1932 AC 526.
Princes Case 77 ER 496 at 505. Gallant v. The King 1949
2 D.LR^[2] 425 at 428.”

(4) Where a statute prescribes that an act
MUST be done by a particular authority and in a particular way,
that act can only be validly done by the relevant authority and in
the prescribed manner. True or False? In SANUSI V.
AYOOLA & ORS (1992) LPELR-3009(SC), the Supreme Court
said (Per KARIBI-WHYTE ,J.S.C ( Pp. 19-20,
paras. F-C):

“It is well settled principle of our jurisprudence and an
important requirement of our administration of justice that where
the exercise of a power is statutory, such power can only be
exercised within the limits prescribed by the statute. – See Bowaje
v. Adediwura (1976) 6 S.C.143.”

(5) Every Breach of a MANDATORY Statutory
Provision Renders the Act So Done VOID AB INITIO. True or False?
In AMALGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD V. ASSOCIATED DISCOUNT
HOUSE LTD (2007) LPELR-454(SC),  the
Supreme Court said (Per OGBUAGU ,J.S.C ( Pp. 75-76, paras. F-A
):

       “It is settled that not every
breach of a statutory provision, renders an act void and that to be
void, it must not be merely directory, but mandatory. See Odu’a
Investment Co.             Ltd.
v. Talabi (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 523) 1; (1997) SCNJ 600 at 649 – per
Ogundare,            JSC (of blessed
memory).”

(6) For Any Amendment of the RPC 2007
to have any effect at all or to be valid, whoever purportedly
amended it must prove that he or she has
the statutory power to amend it. In other words, he
or she must point to the specific provision of extant law that
empowers him/her to so amend it  and to so do in the way
he has done. True or False? In AGU V.
OKPOKO  (2009) LPELR-8286(CA), Per NWODO ,J.C.A
( P. 25, paras. E-F) the Court of Appeal said:

“It is trite that where a statute vests specific powers in
an institution and the exercise of such powers becomes an issue the
institution vested with such powers must provide proof that the
powers were exercised in the manner provided by law. EJIOFOR V.
OKEKE 2000 7 NWLR (PT. 665) CA 363.”

(7) DOES ANYONE NEED TO GO TO LAW
(GO TO COURT) TO CHALLENGE AN ILLEGAL AMENDMENT OF THE RPC? In
ORAKWE V. ORAKWUE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44763(CA), the
Court of Appeal answered the question thus (Per BOLAJI-YUSUFF
,J.C.A ( Pp. 30-34, para. E ):

“as a legal concept, an act, a document, or an instrument
which is a nullity is incurably bad and is characterized by want of
force or efficacy. Just as parties to a null marriage are treated
as though they were never married (for which see RE WOMBWELL’S
SETTLEMENT (1922) 2 CH. 298, p. 305). Parties to an instrument of
grant which is a nullity are treated as though such an instrument
never existed. A deed of conveyance which is a nullity is
absolutely without any effect and there is often no need to take
formal steps to set aside.”

(8) A Void Act Need Not Be Set
Aside Because, Being Void Ab Initio, There Is Nothing to Be Set
Aside. A purported amendment of the RPC, if not done
by the AUTHORITY that has the sole/exclusive ststautory power to
make/amend the RPC, is void, ineffective, of no effect whatsoever,
and NEED NOT BE CHALLENGED IN COURT. In KPEMA V.
STATE(1986) LPELR-1713(SC), the Supreme Court said, (Per
KARIBI-WHYTE ,J.S.C ( Pp. 31-32, paras. G-E):

“It is well settled that where an act is void and a nullity
in law it is stricto sensu unnecessary for the person concerned by
the act, because no legal effect results from such an act, to apply
to have them set aside…. – See Anlaby v. Praetorius (1888) 20 QBD
764; Craig v. Kansen (1943) 1 All ER 108; Forfie v. Seifa (1958) AC
59; Lazard Brothers & Company v. Midland Bank Ltd. (1933) AC.289.
This Court has similarly declared in Animashawun v. Osuma (1972) 4
S.C. 200 at p. 212 where it was said, “In the first place, when a
party believes or has reason to believe that a transaction liable
to affect his rights is null and void, he is under no obligation to
ask for a declaration that the transaction is null and void.
Moreover, we observe with respect that a void transaction cannot be
set aside because being void ab initio there could be nothing set
aside.” This view was adopted and applied in Akpene v. Barclays
Bank (1977) 1 S.C.47 and N.H.D.S. v. Mumuni (1977) 2 SC. 52. These
cases cited and relied upon the dictum of Denning LJ. in Macfoy v.
United African Company Ltd. (1961) 3 All E.R. at p. 1172.”

(9) YOU CANNOT PUT SOMETHING ON
NOTHING AND EXPECT IT TO STAND. True or false? The learned
jurist (Hon Justice TOBI) had in OWNERS VS
ADENIJI (1993)2 NWLR(Pt 274) held as thus:

“One can add something to something, but one cannot add
something to nothing because there will be nothing to receive the
something. The something which will have nothing to support it will
fall away, following Newton’s law of gravity or gravitation.” See
also Lord Denning’s declaration in the case of Mcfoy v. U.A.C.
(1961) 3 All ER 1169 at pg. 1172 that ‘you cannot put
something on nothing and expect it to stay there, it will
collapse.’”

(10)         EFFECT
OF A VOID ACT/ACTION, AND WHY THERE IS NO NEED TO SEEK TO SET IT
ASIDE. In the case of LADOJA V
INEC (2007) LPELR-1738(SC), the Supreme Court said
that:

      “when an act is declared null and void,
the position is settled that from the angle of the   
      law, the act never took place. It is
completely wiped off and considered as extinct and   
       deemed never to have existed.”

Explaining the meaning of “null and void”,
in EKANEM V. AG AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE AKWA
IBOM STATE & ORS (2014) LPELR-24250(CA), the Court of
Appeal said, (per OTISI, J.C.A (p. 22, paras. C-E)

“In Adefulu v. Okulaja (1996) LPELR-90 (SC), (1995-1996) ALL
NLR 318, the Supreme Court, per Ogundare, JSC quoted with approval
the meaning of null and void defined in the American case of Zogby
v. State 53 Misc 2d 740; 279 NYS 2d 665, 668 as follows: “‘Null and
void’ means that which binds no one or is incapable of giving rise
to any rights or obligations under any circumstances, or that which
is of no effect.”

Further, in NZOM & ANOR V.
JINADU (1987) LPELR-2143(SC), THE Supreme Court said
(Per KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C ( Pp. 44-45, paras. E-A):

“It is now well settled that where an act is void, it is
void and nothing can be added to it. It is expressed in the Latin
ex nihilo nihil fit. Hence if the writ of summons against a
non-juristic person is void, it admits of no additions or accretion
of other persons. As Denning L.J. expressed it commenting on
nullity succinctly in U.A.C. Ltd. v. Macfoy (1961) 3 ALL E.R at
p.1172. “If an act is void then it is in law a nullity. It is not
only bad, but incurably bad…And every proceeding which is founded
on it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on
nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”

(11) THE QUESTION OF CONSULTATION,
MEETING OF THE GCB AND ISSUE OF QUORUM?  Section
1(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1975, Cap L11, LFN 2004
(Revised Edition)

    “The quorum of the Bar Council shall be
eight, and the Council may make standing   
         orders regulating the
procedure of the Council and, subject to the provisions of any
such     orders, may regulate its own
proceedings; and no proceedings of the Council shall  
be         invalidated by any
vacancy in the membership of the Council, or by the fact that
any         
     person took part in the proceedings who
was not entitled to do so”

I have earlier stated as follows

“I repeat, SEPARATE, PRIVATE CONSULTATIONs with individual
members of the GCB is not the same thing as “CONSULTATION with the
GCB itself as a body.” Consultation with the GCB as a body can only
be made at a meeting of the GCB properly convened and held with a
quorum formed. On the issue of quorum, you argued that the Quorum
for any GCB meeting is 8 members, which I agree with. However, with
due respect, you failed to mention that in the present instance,
whether or not a quorum has been formed is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT
because the issue of formation of quorum can only arise after you
have fixed a meeting and delivered prior Notice of the proposed
Meeting to all GCB members who are entitled to ATTEND the meeting.
It’s on the day of the meeting, at the venue of the meeting, at the
time of the meeting, that one now begins to talk about whether a
quorum has been formed or not. Once you have up to 8 members
present, the meeting may proceed to take valid decisions. It’s only
then it’d become immaterial that (1). other members didn’t come or
(2) that there is any vacancy in any part of GCB membership. If a
meeting has NOT been validly convened, the issue of whether a
quorum has been formed is irrelevant. To further illustrate this,
let’s assume that the GCB has a total of 57 members and the law
requires that a formal meeting must be held. Now, if you choose to
put telephone calls across separately and privately to say 40
members, could you be said to have complied with the law? The
answer is “no” because you’ve not called nor HELD any meeting as
required by law. The fact you’ve spoken privately to majority of
the members is beside the point. And even when you decide to comply
with the law by calling a meeting of the GCB, you must send a prior
Notice of the proposed meeting to EVERY MEMBER who is entitled to
attend the meeting.” (See Udemezue,
Sylvester, ‘2020 Amendment to RPC 2007: Where Mr.
Kayode Ajulo Missed IT ‘ (BarristerNG, 18
September 2020) <
https://www.barristerng.com/2020-amendment-to-rpc-2007-where-mr-kayode-ajulo-missed-it-by-sylvester-udemezue/>
accessed 15 November 2020)

(12)         FURTHER
WRITINGS BY UDEMS, ON THIS ISSUE:

(a)  Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘The
General Council Of The Bar Has
Exclusive Powers To Issue And Amend The RPC For Lawyers In
Nigeria.’ (LawAndJustice, 23 September 2020)
<
https://www.lawandjustice.ng/2020/09/the-general-council-of-bar-has.html>
accessed 15 November 2020

(b) ThisDay Lawyer, ‘Can the AGF Amend the
RPC?’ (ThisDayLive, 22 September 2020) <
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/09/22/can-the-agf-amend-the-rpc/>
accessed 15 November 2020

(c)  Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘2020
Amendment to RPC 2007: Where Mr. Kayode Ajulo Missed IT
‘ (BarristerNG, 18 September 2020) <
https://www.barristerng.com/2020-amendment-to-rpc-2007-where-mr-kayode-ajulo-missed-it-by-sylvester-udemezue/>
accessed 15 November 2020

(d) Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘An Expository
Inquisition into The Hallowed Place Of Nigerian Bar Association As
The Most Far-Reaching Regulator In Nigeria`s Legal
Profession’ (LawAndJustice, 30 August
2020) accessed 15 November 2020

(e)  Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘NBA
Membership & Quod Approbo Non Reprobo: A Lawyer Files His Process
in Court With NBA Seals & Then Turns Around To Claim To Not Belong
To The NBA’ (TheNigerialawyer, 30 August 2020)
<
nba-membership-quod-approbo-non-reprobo-a-lawyer-files-his-process-in-court-with-nba-seals-then-turns-around-to-claim-to-not-belong-to-the-nba/>
accessed 15 November 2020

(f)   Falana, Femi & Udemezue,
Sylvester, ‘NEW NBA: Falana, Udemezue
Disagree’ (Judicial Sketch, 31 August 2020 )
<
https://judicialsketch.com/2020/08/31/new-nba-falana-udemezue-disagree/>
accessed 15 November 2020

(g) Udemezue, Sylvester, ‘A Dispassionate
Disquisition On The Incommodious Upshots Of NBA`S Innocuous
Disinvitation Of Governor
El-Rufai’ (TheNigerialawyer, 24 August 2020)
<
a-dispassionate-disquisition-on-the-incommodious-upshots-of-nbas-innocuous-disinvitation-of-governor-el-rufai/>
accessed 15 November 2020

Long live the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)!

God help Nigeria!

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (udems), 08021365545.
udemsyl@gmail.com
(15 November 2020)