LAWAL PEDRO: SILK LIKE GOLD

On 14th October 2008, the Supreme Court of Nigeria released the names of 57lawyers short-listed for a final interview on their eligibility to become Senior Advocates of Nigeria. About a week later another list of seven applicants was released. The 7 joined the earlier 57 for the interview of 30th October 2007, making 64 interviewees in all. The 30th October interview took place as scheduled. At the end of the exercise less than half of the interviewees (25) were found worthy to become silks. The lucky 25 are:
Charles Ajuyah, Adetokunbo Okeaya-Inneh, Sagay Omatsoguwa Mogbeye, Andrew Eghobamien, Oladipo Okpeseyi, Charles Adogah, Clement Okwusogu, Donald Denwigwe, Ulasi Obiefuna, Njemaneze Ohir, Eze Duru-Iheoma, Kola Babalola, Karina Tunyan, Eyitayo Jegede, Babajide Kolu, Fagbohunlu Babatunde, Daramola Lucas Olu, Alhaji Olasunkanmi Sanusi, Lawal Pedro, Olabisi Soyebo, Rafiu Lawal-Rabana, Anthony Aondoakaa Ijohor, Abubakar Malami, Suleiman Abdulakadir and Sebastine Tar Tenger.

The list excludes Femi Falana Esq. certainly the best known legal practitioner of the lot, creating shock in legal circles all over the nation. The shock however is cushioned in Lagos State by the inclusion of the name of Lawal Alade Mohammed Pedro on the list. L.A.M Pedro is the incumbent Solicitor General of Lagos State and Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, Lagos and was called to the bar in 1986. Pedro graduated from the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria in 1985 with a 2nd Class Upper Degree in Law.

He joined the Lagos State Ministry of Justice in 1988, rose through the ranks on the strength of his heavy capacity for work and penetrating perspicacity of legal issues. This so much that he became and still remains the live-wire of his Ministry’s Civil Litigation Directorate for no less than a decade now. Five years ago the Squib gave Pedro the sobriquet “Mr. Pleadings”. Pedro is so good as an advocate that he is one of the few law officers that private practitioners respect, even fear for their abilities.
Of the 25 selected silk –elects, Pedro has the distinction of being the only civil servant in the group and the first counsel ever from any State’s Ministry of Justice in Nigeria to bag the Senior Advocate of Nigeria Award. In addition, because of his appointment, Lagos State Ministry of Justice becomes the only Justice Ministry in Nigeria with two Senior Advocates of Nigeria. The Honourable Commissioner for Justice and Attorney-General Lagos State Supo Sasore, Esq, is already a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Another interesting implication of Pedro’s elevation is that as long as he remains at the Ministry of Justice as Solicitor General, the Attorney-General must always be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria like him and even senior to him to avoid embarrassing conflicts of positions and status.

The Squib gathered that Pedro’s fortune was one of the unplanned fall-outs of the numerous legal battles, Lagos State Government waged up to the Supreme Court, against the Federal Government, and agencies and some big private concerns under the administration of the immediate past governor of the State, Mr. Bola Tinubu (1999-2007). In all those cases, the likes of Professor Yemi Osinbajo Fola Arthir-Worrey and Lawal Pedro from the State’s Ministry of Justice were said to have shone like a million stars and thereby catching the eyes of Supreme Court Judges. One or two of these judges high perch geckos informed the Squib, actually talked Pedro into applying for the silk. Within three years of trying, fortune has smiled on him. As at press time, many Lagos State law officers are still ‘drunk’ with happiness and excitement over Pedro’s success.

CITATION FOR THE 1968 GRADUATES OF THE NIGERIAN LAW SCHOOL

RE-UNION: FROM LEFT GOODIE IBRU (BACKING CAMERA) JAMES OGEBE JCA, PRINCE ADEGOKE ADEMILUYI AND S.A.B OTEJU ESQ. AT THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1968 SET OF THE NIGERIAN LAW SCHOOL

The 1967-68 set of the students of the Nigerian Law School began their legal training in the Nigerian Law School in October 1967 in the middle of the Nigerian Civil War. Consequently our mates from the Eastern part of the country could not join us. The class was therefore, small with a number of about 120 students. The Law School was located at No. 213A Igbosere Road, Lagos Island. The set finished in June, 1968 and the first batch of enrolment to the Bar took place on the 28th of June 1968. The second batch of students who had re-sit examination were enrolled on 21st of October 1968.

James Ogebe JCA

God has blessed this set with a lot of talented lawyers who have contributed immensely to the development of the Nation, in the Judiciary, Legal Practice, business and other spheres of life.

As we celebrate the 40th Anniversary of our call to the Nigerian Bar, we pay tribute to our colleagues numbering 32 who did not live to witness this occasion. May God comfort the families they left behind.

Out of the set, 17 served as High Court Judges. They are:
1. Umaru Abdullahi,
2. Ibrahim Gambari,
3. James Ogebe,
4. Dahiru Musdapher,
5. Ayo Salami,
6. Olufemi Rowland,
7. Aloysius Katsina-Alu,
8. Olufunlola Adekeye,
9. Eniola Longe,
10.Moshood Olugbani,
11. Emmanuel Adegbite,
12. Akinkumi Holloway,
13. James Oduneye,
14. Ruth Oyetunde,
15. Emmanuel Akpomudjere,
16. Lawal Abdullahi,
17. Joshua Omoluabi.

OUT OF THESE SEVENTEEN (17), TWO (2) WERE Chief Judges, they are:-
1. Dahiru Musdapher in Kano State
2. Umaru Abdullahi in Katsina State.

Three (3) acted as Chief Judges, they are:
1. James Ogebe in Benue State
2. Ruth Oyetunde in Oyo State
3. Emmanuel Akpomudjere in Delta State.

Out of these, eight (8) were elevated to the Court of Appeal; they are:
1. Umaru Abdullahi
2. Ibrahim Gambari
3. Dahiru Musdapher
4. Aloysius Katsina-Alu
5. Ayo Salami;
6. James Ogebe;
7. Olufemi Rowland, and
8. Olufunlola Adekeye.

These all served as Presiding Justices in various Divisions of the Court of Appeal. One of them UmaruAbdullahi is currently the President of the Court of Appeal and has been in that office for nearly ten (10) years since February 1999. From the set, three (3) are currently Justices of the Supreme Court. They are:-
1. Aloysius Katsina-Alu,
2. Dahiru Musdapher
3. James Ogebe.

You can imagine what contribution these Judges from the set have made and are making to the development of the law and the Judiciary in Nigeria.

Out of the set we produced two (2) Senior Advocates of Nigeria. They are:
1. Aliyu Salman and
2. Babashola Rhodes of blessed memory.

Some Attorneys-General emerged from the set. They are:
1. Umaru Abdullahi from Kaduna State;
2. Dahiru Musdapher also from Kaduna State;
3. Aliyu Salman from Kwara State;
4. Charles Okolo from the defunct Bendel State;
5. LawalAbdullahi from Plateau State
6. Eniola Longe from Kaduna State.

The set has produced six Life Benchers. They are:
1. Umaru Abdullahi,
2. Dahiru Musdapher;
3. Aloysius Katsina-Alu,
4. Ayo Salami,
5. James Ogebe and
6. Aliyu Salman.

Umaru Abdullahi is the immediate past chairman of the Body of Benchers while Aloysius Katsina-Alu is presently the Vice-Chairman. Olu Adekeye is a Bencher by virtue other office as a Presiding Justice and Badru Olaogun is a life Bencher of the Honurable Society of the Inner Temple, U.K.


In the business world, we produced icons like:
1. Goodie Ibru and
2. Shafiu Alade Bashua

Virtually all those who went into legal practice have successful legal practice; one of them Abel Akpedeye of blessed memory produced a son -Dafe Akpedeye, SAN who is currently the Attorney-General of Delta State.

In politics and traditional rulership we are not left out. Mrs. Alice Osomo was the Minister of Housing under the Obasanjo civilian regime. The present Emir of Ilorin Ibrahim Gambari is one of us. Martin Ade Olubayo of blessed memory was an Oba. It is difficult to chronicle the achievements of all members of the set, especially as we do not have information on some of them.

We are grateful to the Almighty God for enabling us to make our contributions to the
society. May He continue to bless this set, their children and grand children. In the next few years virtually all of us will have retired from public life for reason of age. May God bless the Nigerian Law School that produced us, the Nigerian Bar and Judiciary that sustained us and Federal Republic of Nigeria that gave us the enabling environment within which to operate.

Long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Those concerned are listed hereunder:

1. Jackson, Norman Ethlynde Friday, January 19th 1968.
2. Oki, Sulaiman Isola Adewusi Friday, June 8th, 1968.
3. Olajide, Joachim Opeyemi Friday, June 8th, 1968.
4. Olubay Martin Ade Friday, June 8th, 1968.
5. Olatoye, Ebenezer Olujare Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
6. Adenipekun Timothy Albert Bankole Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
7. Amoda, Fasasi Adewale Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
8. Olubunmi, Raphael Adeoye Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
9 Okolo, Charles Nwafor Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
10. Obozuwa, Augustine kiomogbe Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
11. Dosunmu, Waheed Jinadu Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
13. Sanyaolu, Solomon Olufunsho Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
14. Fabunmi, Jonathan Olufunsho Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
15. Irinoye, Timothy Akinrodola Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
16. Adesalu, Thompson M Ibikunle Friday, June 28th,. 1968.
17. Osofodunrin, Olatunde Osofolake Friday, June 28th, 1968.
18. Katsina, Aloyasius Iyorgyer Friday, June 28th, 1968.
19. Abdullahi, Umaru Friday, June 28th, 1968.
20. Okuyemi, Simeon Olukayode Friday, June 28th, 1968.
21. Osidipe, Oyewole Friday, June 28th, 1968.
22. Awomolo, Jeremy Olayinka Adekanbi Friday, June 28th, 1968.
23. Awe, Lawrence Sunday Friday, June 28th, 1968.
24. Adeniji Adele, Muilikar Abiola (Miss) Friday, June 28th, 1968.
27. Ohimor, Paul Eruoda Friday, June 28th, 1968.
28. Adeyemi, Adedapo Ishola Friday, June 28th, 1968.
29. Adeoye, Adedapo Friday, June 28th, 1968.
30. Adewale Adisa Friday, June 28th, 1968.
31. Adekunle, Samuel Adeoye Abimbola Friday, June 28th, 1968.
32. Ademiluyi, Adegoke Friday, June 28th, 1968.
33. Thomas, Adeniyi Peter Johil Cladius Friday-; June 28th, 1968
34. Aje, Zacchaeus Oluwole Friday, June 28th, 1968
35. Ajimotokan, Abdul Ganiyu Olatunde Friday, June 28th, 1968
36. Akinboro, Gabriel Otenwyiwa Friday, June 28th, 1968
37. Akinriosola, Babafemi Olatunji Friday, June 28th, 1968
38. Akintola, Olaniyi Olalekan Friday, June 28th, l968
39. Alatishe, Abdul Ganiyu Adekunle Friday, June 28th, 1968.
40. Ameen, Moyosore. Friday, June 28th, 1968
41. Apata, Ibukunola Ayodele Friday, June 28th, 1968
42. Ayoade, Murana Akanmu Friday, June 28th, 1968
44. Atewogboye, Nathaniel Oloyede Friday, June 28th, 1968
45. Basfaua, Shafiu Alade Friday, June 28th, 1968
46. Dugbo, Thompson Kasuoma Friday, June 28th, 1968
47. Emakpor, Akonu Omo Friday, June 28th. 1968
48. Balogun, Obayomi Abosode (Miss) Friday, June 28th, 1968
49. Ezemo, Joab Udugbai Friday, June 28th, l968
50. Aburime, Andrew Okoedo Friday, June 28th, 1968
51. Adeleke, Rafiu Adegboyega Friday, June 28th, 1968
52. Adegbite, Emmanuel Adebisi Friday, June 28th, 1968
53. Esangbedo, Felix Okonofua Friday, June 28th, 1968
54. Fafowora, Olukayode Abimbola Friday, June 28th, 1968
55. Fawole, Jones Oyesomi Friday, June 28th, 1968
56. Fubara, Tuboinengi Friday. June 28th, 1968
57. Gambari, Ibrahim Kolapo Friday, June 28th, 1968
58. Giwa-Amu Ikpefuan Friday, June 28th, 1968
59. Holloway, Akinkumi Omoniyi Friday, June 28th, l968
60. Ibim, Clifford Friday. June 28th, 1968
61. Ibironke, Adejuyigbe Friday, June 28th. 1968
62. Ibru, Goodie Minaborae Friday, June 28th, 1968
63. Iluyomade, Babatunde Oloyede Friday, June 28th, 1968
64. James, Effiong Ballantyne Friday, June 28th, 1968
65. Keji, Joseph Adewole Friday, June 28th, 1968
66. Koleoso, Oladipo Friday, June 28th, 1968
67. Johnson, Olufemi Friday, June 28th, 1968
68. Koleoso, Alfred Olusegun Friday, June 28th, 1968
69. Lawyer, Tom Tigege Friday, June 28th, 1968
70. Longe, Eniota Folorunso Friday, June 28th, 1968
71. Lucas, Afolabi Oladeinde Friday, June 28th, 1968
72. Mabo, Michael Olusegun Friday, June 28th, 1968
73. Musdapher, Dabiru Babura Friday, June 28th, 1968
74. Nyamali, Patrick Wozili Giwah Friday, June 28th, 1968
75. Ogunrinde, Oladeinde Friday, June 28th, 1968
76. Ojo, Adebisi Adeyoola (Mrs) Friday, June 28th, 1968
77. Ojosipe, Titus Agbolade Friday, June 28th, 1968
78. Olaogun, Badru Atanda Friday, June 28th, 1968
79. Omitola, Samsom Agboola Friday, June 28th, 1968
80, Omonijo, Thomas Taiye Friday, June 28th, 1968
81. Omotayo, Bandele Friday, June 28th, 1968
82. Onadele, Samuel Adetayo Friday, June 28th, 1968
83. Onafeko, Ayodipupo Friday, June 28th, 1968
84. Oteju, Stephen Afolabi Babalola Friday, June 28th, 1968
85. Otesile, Olawale Friday, June 28th, 1968
86. Omoluabi, Joshua Adeleke Friday, June 28th, 1968
87, Oduneye, James Adegbuyi Friday, June 28th, 1968
88. Ogebe, James Ogeniyi Friday, June 28th, 1968
90. Oluwasanmi, Oyekunle Friday, June 28th, 1968
91. Olugbani, Moshood Akanni Friday, June 28th, 1968
92. Rowland, Rapheael Olufemi Friday, June 28th, 1968
93. Salami, Isa Ayo Friday, June 28th, 1968
94. Salman, Aliyu Atarape Olarenwaju Friday, June 28th, 1968
95. Somolu, Olufemi Friday, June 28th, 1968
96. Aruna, Rafiu Sule Friday, June 28th, 1968
97. Sofolohan, Micheal Olarenwaju Friday, June 28th, 1968
98. Oshodi, Jalleel Adewale Friday, June 28th, 1968
99. Osomo, Alice Mobolaji Friday, June 28th, 1968
100. Neil, Brain Thomas Tuesday, July 2nd, 1968
101. Makama, Walter Wednesday, July 10th, 1968
102. Adebayo, Micheal Otalere Wednesday, July l0th, 1968
103. Adekeye, Olufunlola (Mrs) Monday, October 21st, 1968
104. Adeshoye, ligali Aderemi Monday, October 21st. 1968
105. Jegede, Ladipo Monday, October 21st, 1968
106. Seriki, Mustaeen Ishola Rasheed Monday, October 21st, 1968
107. Oyetunde, Ruth Gbemisola Monday, Octb&er21st, 1968
108. Wabili, Muhammed Monday, October 21st, 1968
109. Marinho, Joseph Joaquim Friday, November 15th, 1968

FROM OUR RECORDS THE UNDER LISTED GRADUANTS HAVE PASSED ON TO THE GREAT BEYOND.
MAY THEIR SOUL REST IN PERFECT PEACE

1. Akpedeye, Abel Okowe Friday, June 28th, 1968
2. Akpomudjere, Emmanuel Friday, June 28th, 1968
3. Bello, Umaru Friday, June 28th, 1968
4. Minjibir, Adamu Friday, June 28th, 1968
5. Ojeh, Jonathan Iworieokpuru Friday, June 28th, 1968
6. Shantali, Yahaya Friday, June 28th, 1968
7. Rhodes, Babasola Orobiyi Friday, June 28th, 1968
8. Abdullahi, Lawal danyaya Friday, June 28th, 1968

CULLED FROM THE PUNCH NEWSPAPER OF FRIDAY JUNE 13TH 2008

TWISTS IN CJ LAGOS, WORKERS UNION LEADERS CASE

Come 18th November 2008, all other things being equal, the following suits ID/1216/06 ADELENU VS C.J. LAGOS & ORS, ID/1217/06 S.M. JAGUN VS C.J. LAGOS & ORS., ID/1218/06 ALHAJA F. OSHODI VS C.J. LAGOS & ORS., ID/1219/06 SEGUN OMOBOYE VS C.J. LAGOS & ORS., ID/1220/06 B.A. LAWAL VS C.J. LAGOS & ORS. will come up for hearing in Honourable Justice Oyefeso's court at the Ikeja High Court. All the claimants in the above mentioned suits are leaders of the Lagos State Branch of the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria who were relieved of their jobs by the administration of the first defendant after being accused of calling out workers in protest against the invasion of the court premises by certain security and paramilitary men said to be on a mission to detect certain fraud and apprehend touts in the open Registry of the Ikeja High Court.
The five cases, we learnt are in different stages of progress before Oyefeso J. For example while the claimant in suit no ID/1216/06 is yet to even open his case in suit no ID/1218/06, the case has reached the final address stage.
In suits no ID/1219/06 and ID/1220/06 the claimants have opened their cases while the claimant in suit no ID/1218/06 has closed her case, making it ripe for the defendants to open their case. The Squib reliably gathered further progress in the hearing of the cases was stalled by the action of the 1st defendant of recalling the case files from the trial judge around August 2008.
Thus in September 2008, when the cases came up there were no files for the trial court to work with and so the cases were adjourned to the 18 November 2008. If the accounts of certain upper layer geckos are anything to go by, then new counsel different from the chambers of the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice Lagos State will henceforth represent the 1st defendant in the cases.
According to the geckos, the defendant had become uncomfortable with the Attorney-General's Chambers when counsel from the Ministry opined that in the circumstances of the case, it might be better for the parties to explore amicable settlement of the dispute; a situation the 1st defendant found highly unpalatable.
The first defendant, to wit, the Chief Judge of Lagos State is said to be considering the service of the chambers of the legal firm of Afe Babalola &Co, as an alternative to the Ministry of Justice, Alausa, Lagos State.
The claimants on the other hand said to be are sticking with their own counsel and are desirous of speedy determinations of their suits, preferably before the 1st quarter of next year.

NBA IKEJA STARTS ONCE-A-WEEK FITNESS PROGRAMME

The Nigerian Bar Association Ikeja branch has introduced a new dimension to promoting and protecting the welfare interests of her members – setting up a sport cum keep fit club called the TIGER’ SPORTIF.
At the October 2008 monthly meeting of the branch, Dave Ajetomobi Esq, the chairman explained that idea of setting up a sports club was borrowed from a practice of the Warri Branch to have soccer – loving member play football once a week (Saturdays)
The essence of the Sports Club according to the Tiger Chief is to ensure that Tigers have “sound minds in sound bodies”
On Saturday the 18th October 2008, the idea of a Sports Club in the Tiger branch became a reality as seventeen members of the branch to wit, Dave Ajetomobi, Dare Akande, Okey Ogbu (chairman of the Sports Club) Isa Buhari Muhammed, Adesina Ogunlana, Lateef Abdulsalam, Adesina Adegbite, Tayo Aina, Adesina D. Ismail, Lanre Ajanaku, Ahamiojie Ibhafidon, Bimbo Obaseki, Adejare Kembi, Ese Imonighara, Eker Chux-Okonkwo and Mrs. Roli Craig turned up for the maiden outing of the Tiger Sportif.
At about 8.00a.m, on the said day the Tigers stormed the Vining Field, properly of the famous Archbishop Vinning Memorial Church Cathedral Oba Akinjobi Road, G.R.A Ikeja, armed with two soccer balls, one volley-ball and a length of tug-of-war rope.
Led by Adesina Ogunlana, the Welfare Secretary who is also (an uncertified) Moscow trained fitness buff, the Tigers performed several sweat inducing exercises amidst plenty jokes and laughter. After about thirty minutes of the exercises, which saw instant reduction in the size of the mid-riff section of many of the participants, the group divided into equal parts for a tug of war contest.
The side of Captain Okey Ogbu won the first round, almost effortlessly but the second round was won by Captain Dave Ajetomobi’s side, but only after a lot of huffing and puffing coupled with silent supplications for help to the Almighty!
It was time for the Tigers to turn to football, the King of Sports. Team A led by Dave Ajetomobi was the more skillful side, with star players like Adesina Ogunlana and Ese Imonighara, but over-confidence made them lose their 1-0 lead over their opponents at the tail and of the thrilling encounter.
After about forty-five minutes on the football pitch, the Tigers called it a day and moved to their Secretariat where light refreshment was served.
The Tiger Sportif presumably will meet Saturday next (25 October 2008) between 4.00p.m – 7.00p.m, except as otherwise decided by the Sports Committee, the managers of the Tigers Sportif.

LAZY JUDGES IN TROUBLE

LAZY JUDGES IN TROUBLE
Before now only a particular type of Nigerian Judges was having it tough with the National Judicial Council, the employer of judges in Nigeria. This particular type is the corrupt judge, particularly those prone to bribery. Since 1999, the advent of the so called 4th republic quite a number of judges have been shown the door for corrupt and other closely related vices.
Now another type of judges will soon be having sleepless nights, this type is the lazy drones, who love the pomp, perks and pageantry of the judicial office but not the labour.
The National Judicial Council which has approved mouth watering salaries and allowances for judges nationwide (least paid judge to receive #600,000.00 monthly salary and annual 2million naira for medical trip allowance) is poised to weed out non-performing judicial officers by the creation of a new bench-mark of gauging the productivity of judges.
For a Chief Judge of any High Court to come within the minimum approval range of his employers, he has to deliver at least four judgements in three months, while a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal would have to deliver at least seven judgements in same period.
To be in good standing with the NJC, a Chief Judge of the High Court would need to deliver at least six judgements in three months while a High Court Judge and a Court of Appeal would have to deliver at least twelve judgements in three months. (Please see the table below)
To ensure compliance, the NJC is said to have set up an active monitoring team to enforce the new regulation.

VALEDICTORY SPEECH BY ERASMUS BADERINWA

VALEDICTORY SPEECH PRESENTED BY ERASMUS BOLA BADERINWA, CHAIRMAN NBA LAGOS BRANCH, TODAY 9TH OF JUNE, 2008 IN HONOUR OF LATE PROFESSOR JADESOLA AKANDE.

Today is a different day. We are making History as we hold a day of Tribute to one of our own, Professor Jadesola Akande.

This event is novel in this branch because it is a different kind of valedictory from what we are used to. It is not a Court session valedictory for it takes a judge sitting to have a court session but it is a tribute by Lawyers for one of their own. WE NOW KNOW THAT IT IS ONLY A LAWYER THAT CAN KNOW A WORTHY LAWYER

WE ARE HERE TO HONOUR OUR SUBJECT not because she was the daughter of a Lawyer, Late Chief Esan of Ibadan. We are not here to celebrate her as the daughter of Mrs. Wuraola Esan, the first woman Senator in Nigeria. If it were to be for her pedigree, we would have been here because of her late spouse Chief Debo Akande SAN, who was our former National General Secretary and Chairman of the Body of Benchers, a body made up of Lawyers of the highest distinction.

Not even the fact that our subject was the mother of one of our Judges, Justice Adenike Coker. However, all the above add up in unveiling the PERSONALITY OF TODAY. If you want to know the secret of a root, find out the soil on which it grew. Professor Jadesola Akande in her about 68 years of earthly life had made. indelible mark on the sand of time.

Born in 1940, she took a degree in Law in 1963 from the prestigious University of London, got called to bar and later capped her career with an Academic Doctorate Degree. She taught at the University of Lagos, for years where she churned out a good percentage of Lawyers in the 70's and 80's, she became the pioneer dean of Law at the Lagos State University, later Vice Chancellor of the University.

She made History as the first Nigerian woman to take a PhD in Law, became the first Nigerian Women Professor in Law, the first Lawyer vice chancellor of a University.

After leaving the Academics she served as Chancellor of the Federal University of Technology, Akure. She was also the Chairman for Legal Education of the Nigerian Bar Association for several years.

As lofty as these heights are, it is not the main reason why we are here. We are here because of the common touch of Professor Jadesola Akande with the down trodden Nigerian. Her actions came to the fore after the SOSOLISO air crash that terminated the lives of school children of the Jesuit College in the year 2004 (Interestingly none of these children was Profs distant relation).

In company of other women, she marched on the streets of Lagos, protesting that the Government should make the Nigerian Air Space safer. In spite other age, some government security operatives pumped tear gas on her, she bore all that for the down trodden Nigerian.

Here in our branch, Professor Akande will not only attend our meeting but will regularly phone the Chairman to apologize if there is a likelihood that she will be absent from any of our meetings, in fact just days before her death, she attended our meeting where she contributed to our discussions. She was also tile Chairperson of the ELDERS FORUM of the branch. She would have presented a report of her committee at the May meeting if death had spared her life.

Mrs. Akande ran a Non-Government Organisation which is focused on women's issues. She was a good model of her catholic faith that lays emphasis on charity as a weapon of salvation.

Weep not for Professor Akande because we believe she is resting at the bosom other God in heaven. That is the ultimate prize for doing his will here on earth. However, we pray that her life will be a model for others.

We expect that our humble appreciation of her will encourage the living to emulate her. The greatest legacy a man/woman can live behind after death is to be appreciated by ones peers,

I cannot end this speech without calling for a more cordial relationship between the Bar and the Bench, both arms are the two strong pillars of the judiciary. It is from the Bar that the Bench is recruited; it is also the Bar that pleads before the Bench for the robust development of our case Law.

This becomes necessary because of the peculiar decision of the Lagos State Judiciary that it will only hold valedictory court sessions for Senior Advocates of Nigeria and not other Lawyers however eminent. That may have explained why one of the greatest Presidents of the Nigerian Bar Association Alao Aka Bashorun was buried in November 2005 without a court session

Now, we have a renowned jurist who taught several sets of Senior Advocates being derived same honour. This calls for concern. It is not so in other jurisdiction. Our colleagues outside Lagos State find it difficult to believe when we told them.

We pray our amiable Chief Judge of Lagos State and his brother Judges to have a rethink on this together. The Bar and the Bench will work together for the development of our judicial system.

But for us in the Lagos Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, we have decided, come what may, that we will celebrate our members from the date of their call to the bar to the date of their death and that is what we are doing today.

I thank all of you who found time to grace this occasion, especially those of you who traveled long distances from the South East, South-South, and from the Northern part of the country.

I equally thank most especially my brother Chairmen from the Ikeja branch and Ikorodu branch.

Once again thank you.

IS THE NBA DYING?

SQUIB BAR NEWS

On the surface, the Nigerian Bar Association appears to be doing well, very well indeed. For one, the association is prided as the leading and credible professional association in the country, which many presume gets the ear of the government when it decides to speak.

Also, one often reads in newspapers of how certain specialized sections and for a of the NBA are doing wonderfully well.

BARRISTER BANJO ABASS' RESPONSE

SQUIB BAR NEWS 1

BARRISTER BANJO ABASS' RESPONSE (INTERVIEWED ON 13TH JUNE 2008 IN HIS CHAMBERS)
“I have seen a copy of Mr. Ajayi's petition to you against me. And I thank you for coming to hear from me. You see the man is well known to me. In fact we are close friends and I have been doing may cases for him before the present one and I have not been charging as I ought because he is my friend and many times says he doesn't have money.

For this case all the money I collected from him was four thousand to file joinder application to the suit brought against his principal the Eniolorundas. The other ten thousand naira that I got was from the Eniolorunda people. And it is not true that he was the one who introduced the two brothers Taiwo and kehinde Eniolorunda to me. It was only Kehinde that he introduced to me, whom he brought to my office. I met Taiwo separately in the course of the case.
After conducting search into the case file of the matter, I realised that a judgement, which was not appealed against had been given on the land against Taiwo and Kehinde, Ajayi's landlord.
So I advised that it is better to settle the matter and for him to seek compensation. Towards that end the both of us (Ajayi and I) met with Mr. Okunniyi, counsel to the claimant and the claimant's representatives.
At that point they offered Ajayi for himself alone eight hundred thousand naira (N800,000:00). But Ajayi refused saying he could only be content with N1.5million naira. At that point, the other side felt that it was not wise to be dealing alone with Ajayi who is just a developer. They felt they needed to deal also with his allotters, to avoid complications later.
Meanwhile Ajayi's principals, Taiwo and Kehinde had their grudges against him. According to them, their agreement with Ajayi was that he would within a year developed the land, but five years down the line he was yet to do that. All he had done was to do the foundation and put up the building just about six blocks up the foundation.
Fortunately for us we won the case at Justice Abiru's court. But it was what I will call a technical judgement. We didn't win on the merit. Nonetheless I used our victory to negotiate with our opponents to settle with us and avoid the expense of long-drawn litigation over the land. They offered us N600,000:00, of course we rejected that. At that point Ajayi claimed he could get the land sold for five million naira. At all times he said he would only concede leaving the land, if he personally could be paid N1.5million.
Negotiations, essentially between and the claimant's lawyer, Mr. Okuniyi dragged on for four months, all this to the knowledge of Ajayi.
Eventually the claimant decided to pay N1.2million to settle the defendants, and nothing beyond that.
It is true that the claimant came to see me in my chambers but I never know he would be coming. When people visit me in the office, I don't drive them away, even if they were rival party. My style is to hear them out, only when I feel their request is such that I need instruction or clarification from my client, that's when I feel the necessity they should meet my client. That's has been my attitude but we learn everyday. When I came out of the meeting with Alhaji Taofeek, that was when I saw Ajayi in the reception, I didn't know he too was in the office. What Alhaji Taofeek came to tell me was that he decided to come to me personally because he was dissatisfied with the pace of his lawyer, who he claimed was then more of a pastor than a lawyer. According to Alhaji he was ready to pay the settlement sum of N1.2 millon.
I explained the situation to three of them Taiwo, Kehinde and Ajayi, but Ajayi was adamant on receiving nothing less than 1.5million. The twins were of a different mind, they were ready to collect whatever they could get.
I was carrying Ajayi all along up to the point of he insisting on going with the case, if he could not get N1.5million naira. He said I betrayed him. How? He was not prepared to listen to my advice that given the existence of the adverse judgement, and the fact that the land described in the judgement fitted almost completely the land in dispute, we would not win eventually at the courts of law, whereas his principals were ready to listen to this advice.
Mind you while it is true that I knew him before the Eniolorundas but you know they all had become my clients, by virtue of my representation of them in court. When the money was paid his portion came down to N330,000 naira (note that my fees had been deducted from the capital sum) but till date he has refused to come for it. But the money is intact and with me.
I think in the circumstances of this case, I think I have achieved some good things for my clients. I believe Ajayi is talking out of ignorance and frustration”.

MR GBOLAHAN AJAYI'S REACTION TO BARRISTER BANJO ABASS'S RESPONSE (INTERVIEW CONDUCTED ON 16TH JUNE 2008 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SQUIB)
“No, lawyer Banjo Abass is not my friend. He is just my Muslim brother. It is not true that I have not been paying full charges for my cases, although some-times he reduces money for me. For this case, all the money I gave to him is N50,000:00 and not N4,000:00. And I know that Taiwo and Kehinde also gave him N30,000:00. It is not true that I only developed the building to only the level of six blocks, rather I have raised it to lintel level. Take a look of the picture of the building.
As for lawyer Okuniyi, the lawyer to Alhaji Taofeek, Banjo Abass disclosed to me right from the beginning that Okuniyi is his friend. While it is also true that Abass advised me on the weakness of our case because of the High Court judgement against Taiwo and Kehinde Eniolorunda but that was even before he moved his motion in Justice Abiru's Court. It was me who told him to move the application before the judge that I was prepared for any outcome.
There was no time that Taofeek offered to pay me N800,000:00, but even if he had, I wouldn't have taken it because I know how much have spent on developing the land.
And if Abass says the land in the judgement covered virtually all the land in dispute, that cannot be. If covered only half of the land.
I agree that Taiwo and Kehinde became his clients but they came to him through me and I believed that he ought to have protected my interests above theirs. I am his principal client.
It is not true that I met Taofeek (the claimant) in Abass's office only once. It was twice. The first time I met Taofeek in the reception of Abass's chambers we sat down together when Banjo called him into his chambers. After he finished with Taofeek, he now called me and I asked him what it was the discussed with Taofeek and why did Taofeek come to his office?
Banjo's reply was that there was going to be a joint meeting of all the parties. He did not disclose to me what transpired between them.
The second time was about a month after the first incident. That was when I saw him escorting Taofeek out of his chambers . That was when I told him that he should not cheat me, or betray me whilst pretending to be friend or protector”

NEW ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR AGENCIES INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION

SQUIB BAR AND BENCH NEWS

Introduction
The success of any system of criminal justice administration depends on the level of efficient performance of responsibility imposed by law on agencies involved in criminal justice delivery. Some of the problems confronting the administration of criminal justice in Lagos State are traceable to the failure by criminal justice agencies to perform the legal responsibilities. One of the major reforms introduced by the Criminal Justice Administration Law 2007 (CJA 2007) is to impose some new responsibilities on agencies to ensure that the overall objective of an efficient, fair and speedy administration of criminal justice is achieved.

The Police and New Responsibilities
The Police is one of the agencies involved in the administration of criminal justice that the new law has imposed additional responsibilities. The police exercise the power of arrest and detention. The exercise of these powers present opportunities for infraction of fundamental human rights. Consequently the law has introduced provisions which impose more responsibilities on the Police to ensure that fundamental human rights are not infringed. The new law regulates the power to arrest and detain suspects in the following ways:

(i) A Police Officer is obliged to notify a person arrested the reason for the arrest and his rights upon arrest including the duty to inform the person of his right to free legal representation through the Office of the Pubic Defender established by the Lagos State Government – see Section 3.


(ii) A Police Officer has no power to arrest a person who has not committed an offence in lieu of another - Section 4.

(iii) It is now mandatory for a Police Officer effecting an arrest to make an inventory of items recovered or taken from the body, premises, or about the person arrested and to ensure that the person retains a copy of the inventory -Section 6.

(iv) Objections to voluntariness of confessional statements are a fundamental cause of delays in criminal trials arising from time spent conducting trials within trials. Section 9(3) requires that making and taking of confessional statement should be recorded on video and in the absence of a video facility, the said statement shall be in writing in the presence of a legal practitioner chosen by the person arrested. This forward looking provision hopefully will reduce the temptation of law enforcement authorities to use brute force and torture to obtain information from suspects. Arguably any statement taken without complying with the provisions of the law is rendered illegal and should not be relied on by any court.

(v) Unlawful detention or criminal suspects and the lack of adequate data regarding the number of people detained in Police custody is one of the significant flaws that existed before the introduction of the new Law. Section 20 establishes a supervisory framework that obliges the Officers in charge of Police Stations to report to the nearest Magistrate court, the cases of all persons arrested without warrants within the geographical limits of their respective stations. The Chief Magistrate shall notify the Chief Registrar of the High Court of such report who shall forward a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for necessary action.

(vi) it is the duty of the 'Commissioner of Police to forward all duplicate case files with respect to indictable offences to the Office of the Attorney General for the purpose of issuance of legal advice- Section 74(1). This new provision gives legal force to an existing practice.

The Courts and New Responsibilities
The new law imposes the following new responsibilities on courts:
(i) Magistrate Courts are empowered to supervise the detention of a person who has been arrested and taken into custody. The provision allows a Magistrate to be notified of such detention by application. This enables the Magistrate to supervise the process of detention. This would assist in decongesting our prisons and police detention centres. The provision is akin to creating a simplified Habeas Corpus Procedure in Magistrates Courts - Section 18.

(ii) Remand proceedings - The provisions on remand proceedings in Section 268 were motivated by the need to provide a release valve for decongesting the long list of persons awaiting trial who are detained in detention centres across the State, The interval between arrest, investigation, arraignment and trial has led to a growing list of detainees awaiting trial, some of whom have not been charged with the commission of any offence. Some of the detainees are lost in the system because the
existing provisions on remand in Sections 236 - 238 of the old law, lack the adequate framework to ensure that the system keeps track of the detention of persons remanded.
The provisions of the new law on remand are designed to achieve the following objectives:

(i) Manage the process between arrest, investigation and formal charge and arraignment before a court of competent jurisdiction to try the offence;
(ii) Vest in Magistrate courts the supervisory jurisdiction and discretion to oversee the process of remand and to make appropriate orders and ensure that the relevant agencies perform their respective duties;
(iii) Empower the Magistrate by statutory provision to deal with remand proceedings, although the magistrate does not have Jurisdiction to try the substantive offence; and
(iv) Ensure that the periods of remand is within the constitutional stipulations of when a person can be detained without trial under Section 35(4) of the 1999 Constitution.

The constitutionality of Section 236 of the old law on remand was sustained by the Supreme Court in Lufadeju v. Johnson [2007] 9 QCCR 67. The Supreme Court held that there is no conflict between the provisions of Section 236(2) of the old law on remand and the provisions of Section 32 of the 1979 Constitution- the provision of Section 236 has been retained in the new law in Section 268 and substantially amended to empower a Magistrate to ensure that constitutional right of the person remanded is not infringed.

(iii) Stay of Proceedings - A veritable source of delay in criminal trials is stay of proceedings following an appeal against an interlocutory decision of a trial court. Such interlocutory applications usually filed by defendant may
delay the trial of the substantive case after the proceedings have been stayed pending appeal. Section 277 of the new law states that an application for stay of proceedings in respect of a criminal matter in a High Court and Magistrate Court shall not be entertained until judgement is delivered. The provision of Section 277 will stand the test of constitutionality on the following grounds:

(a) The constitution only guarantees a right of appeal. It does not guarantee a right to apply for stay of proceedings;

(b) Stay of proceedings is a matter within the discretion of the court and a matter falling within the inherent powers of the court. A matter falling within the inherent powers of the court is subject to regulation by statutory provisions which may make other prescriptions;

(c) Stay of proceedings may adversely affect the right of a defendant to fair hearing within a reasonable time and depending on the length of time taken to conclude the appeal, the trial court may loose its impression of the evidence of witnesses and some of the witnesses may die or relocate before the conclusion of the substantive appeal
thereby impeding the just administration of criminal justice.

The Supreme Court in Anori v. Elemo (2001) 36 WRN 94 held that there arc certain rights of a defendant which he may not be permitted to waive. The court ruled that waiver of a right fro a speedy trial is not permissible where the adjournments requested is of such a nature that the court will lose the advantage it has of accurate assessment of the witnesses it had observed in the course of trial; and

(d) The provision will promote a better administration of criminal justice. The provision may also be to the advantage of a defendant because the issue of a charge hanging over him would have been decided first and he would still be at liberty to raise whatever grievance he has against the trial on appeal.

(iv) Procedure After Filing of Information - In practice a lot of time is wasted between the filing of the information, the service of such information and the fixing of a date for hearing. This was in the past a source of delays in criminal trials. Section 256 in the new law replacing Section 340 of the old law clearly stipulated time limits within which the relevant steps must be taken from the time of filing of the Information up to the date of hearing. After the filing of the Information the Chief Judge is require to assign it to a Judge within 15 days. The court to which the information is assigned is expected within 14 days of assignment to issue hearing notices to witnesses and the defendant also to issue a reproduction warrant for service on the superintendent of prison if the defendant is in custody. The Chief Registrar is to ensure the prompt service of the notice and Information not more than 3 days from the date they are issued. The provisions are designed to fast track the process of filing, service and the trial of criminal matters in the High Court.

(v) Community Service - The courts are now empowered to order a person convicted of minor offences to render community service. The objective of introducing community service is to decongest the prison by avoiding committal to prison of first time offenders for minor offences and to avoid mixing them with hardened criminals. It is also aimed among other things to serve reformatory and deterrent purposes. The courts can impose community service order to punish people who commit offences punishable with not more than two years imprisonment. - Sections 345(1) and 350. The community service which a person may be committed includes (a) environmental sanitation; (b) assisting in the care of children and the elderly in Government approved homes; or (c) any other type of service which the court considers to have a beneficial and salutary effect on the character of the offender. The court is empowered where the terms of the order of community service is breached to proceed to conviction and make a custodial sentence.

(vi) Power of Court to Order Deposit of Money for Bail - Courts are now empowered to require the deposit of money as security for bail. The money deposited is to be kept in an interest yielding account by the Registrar of the court and at the end of the trial it shall be returned to the applicant and or his surety- Section U6.

(vii) The new law imposes obligations on the court to ensure that the practice of plea bargaining introduced by Section 76 is not abused and it empowers the court to supervise the process without necessarily getting involved in the actual negotiation of a plea bargain. More information will be provided about this in the presentation on plea bargaining which will come up later.

Obligations Imposed on the Office of the Attorney-General
The procedure for the issuance of legal advice is stipulated in Section 74. It provides that the Commissioner of Police shall forward all duplicate fifes with respect to indictable offences to the Office of the Attorney General for the purpose of issuance of legal advice. This provision domiciled processing of legal advice in the Office of the Attorney General (the AG) presumably to enable the AG actively supervise the process. Section 74(2) provides that the legal advice issued by the Office of the AG with respect to indictable offences shall be conclusive. Section 74(3) provides that notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 74(1) and (2) the AG may request for duplicate files relating to any offence for the purpose of issuance of legal advice. The provisions flow directly from the constitutional provisions vesting general prosecutorial powers in the Attorney General. The provisions are aimed at removing any controversy as to the legal status of legal advice and to give legislative recognition to the supervisory role of the Attorney General in criminal matters. This provision stipulates that request for legal advice should be directed to the Office of the Attorney General of Lagos State.

Obligations Imposed on Defence Counsel
The new law imposes the following obligations on defence counsel:

(i) Change of Legal Practitioner - Section 238 provides that a legal practitioner representing a defendant is bound to represent a defendant until final judgement unless allowed by the court to withdraw. The counsel is expected to duly notify the court before disengaging from a criminal matter- Section 238. The new provision is designed to ensure that counsel representing a defendant owe the court the duty of notification and requires the leave of the court before ceasing to represent a defendant. This is intended to curb the practice of counsel withdrawing from criminal cases without duly notifying the court. Notification would enable the court to draw the attention of defendant to facilities such as the Office of the Public Defender which may come to his aid and thus save valuable time. This would also safeguard the constitutional rights of the defendants.

(ii) Arraignment; Time for Making Certain Objections- Section 264 (2) provides that an objection to the sufficiency of evidence disclosed in the proof of evidence attached to the Information shall not be raised before the close of the prosecution's case. ' •

The rationale for die inclusion of this new provision is that an objection to a charge on grounds of sufficiency of evidence disclosed in the proof of evidence may prove to be premature. This is because the prosecution reserves the right to amend the charge and introduce more proof of evidence. Allowing such an objection/ which may subsequently be cured by an amendment by the prosecution, may end up prolonging criminal trials. It may also result in a defendant been let off on mere technical grounds.

The case of Ohuwmok v. F.R.N (2005) 1 Q.CC.R. 108 is an apt illustration of this kind of situation. The appellant and some other persons were alleged to be involved in an alleged act of bribery. The charge was filed under Section 185(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Northern Nigeria after the consent of a judge of the High Court was obtained. The appellant filed a motion to quash the charge on the ground that the offence therein was not disclosed by the proof of evidence. The application failed at the High Court and at the Court of Appeal, At the Supreme Court the application succeeded. One of the points in favour of the defendant was that the Court of Appeal should not have considered the provision of paragraphs 4 & 5 of the Counter Affidavit of one Mr. Obuotor which was not placed before the trial court at the time consent was granted. The contents of the said affidavit clearly linked the appellant with the alleged offence. The charge here would not have been quashed if the objection were raised at the close of the prosecution's case. This is because the evidence of Mr. Obuotor which incriminated the defendant would have been available to the Court.

Conclusion
The aforementioned reforms represent a determined legislative effort to address some of the challenges confronting the administration of criminal justice as far as reform of criminal procedure rules is concerned. It is important however that the best rules may not achieve the desired results if the practitioners are not willing to make it work. It is therefore imperative that all stakeholders in the administration of criminal justice must work together to make the new law achieve the lofty objectives it was designed to achieve.

Thank you for your attention

Olasupo Shasore, SAN
Hon. Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice,
Lagos State.
3rd of June 2008

POLITICAL FIRE TO RAGE IN IKEJA OVER ELECTIONS?

NBA BAR WATCH

Came June 2nd 2008, the NBA Ikeja branch a.k.a Tigers’ branch will go to the polls to elect new leaders. From all indications, the elections may experience strange or unusual developments.

For the first time in the history of the branch, a sitting secretary who has a constitutional duty to verify the claims as to eligibility of candidates for elections, is himself a contestant in the coming June 2 2008 elections. That means that the sitting secretary, Mr. Beckley Abioye, who hopes to succeed Mr. Niyi Idowu as incumbent chairman will be verifying his own claims as well as those of his rivals.

In addition to this rather curious situation is the fact that there are strong accusations made by the incumbent financial secretary, Mr. Yinka Farounbi against the chairman and secretary that they have tampered with certain financial records of the branch, records which he claimed the duo of the chairman and secretary wrongly took custody of.

This serious allegation, which from credible information reaching the Squib was not debunked by the chairman and the Secretary at a hot executive committee meeting of the branch on Friday 2nd May 2008, is contained in a letter dated 2/5/08 sent by the Financial Secretary to the General Secretary in reply to the Secretary’s letter to him dated 29th April 2008, wherein the Secretary asked that the Financial Secretary make ‘available’ the “financial note books” of year 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 to him. Please see Bar Watch Exhibit 1 &2.

At the end of the meeting, Squib learnt that the General Secretary agreed to surrender to the Financial Secretary, but only on Monday the 5th May 2008, the financial records in his custody.

PRESIDENT WITHOUT CONTEST?

SQUIB BAR NEWS

Come August 31 2008, Mr. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu S.A.N may just find himself the president of the Nigerian Bar Association, on a platter of gold. As at today the scenario of Akeredolu getting to the top of the bar association, unchallenged, is not far-fetched or implausible.

Interestingly only a few weeks back, such a thought would be considered laughable, if not absurd. This was because of the burgeoning presence of Mr. Oladele Julius Adesina, better known as Dele Adesina, Senior Advocate of Nigeria in the race. About a year ago, it was not sure whether Adesina, hugely respected for his networking skills and political resilience, would participate in the presidential race of the NBA.

The field then was only narrowed down to the participation of Mrs. Funke Adekoya S.A.N another veteran Bar leader and Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu. Around January 2008 strong and credible news came that Dele Adesina was now in the race while Mrs. Funke Adekoya was no longer interested.
When it became certain that Adesina was running, the race became keener as the vigorous and wide-ranging politicking of the former Secretary General of the NBA forced a new urgency of Rotimi Akeredolu a.k.a Aketi, to rev up his own political machine.

That Adesina was a credible and even feared political opponent was proved by the many subtle and even direct overtures made to him from the Akeredolu camp and supporters to drop out the race.
Adesina’s threatening presence heightened when contrary to all permutations of political watchers, he reversed the huge political deficit he allegedly had - a lack of a home base.

How the Senior Advocate managed to reconcile with the main body of the political caucus that controls the NBA Ikeja branch of the NBA from where Adesina hails is still a mystery to political watchers. But achieve the feat, an indication of his political dexterity, Adesina did.
Fortified by the support of the movers of his backyard, a group that has suffered, a sharp but narrow split - the incumbent Chairman of the Tiger Branch Niyi Idowu Esq. and incumbent secretary, Beckley Abioye Esq. - having struck out on their own independent course from the group-, Adesina made forays into the Northern, Eastern and Mid-Western power causes, presenting himself as a viable alternative to the candidacy of Akeredolu who in another political irony has become the over- night darling of the chieftains of the Egbe Anofin Yoruba, the main tribal Western Nigeria political caucus in the NBA.

It was not long for keen political watchers to realise that top chieftains of the Egbe was not prepared to allow Dele Adesina to contest the presidency in the year 2008 with the necessary implication that Akeredolu would be the sole presidential candidate in the elections.
Thus observers began to hear of an “adoption policy” of the Egbe in relation to the presidential race as far back as February 2008. It was been argued by the promoters of the adoption policy that it was created essentially to eliminate the huge financial expense that attend presidential contests in the NBA. But the argument could not answer back the anti democratic implication and deficits of such an arrangement in the body politic of the Association.

On Saturday the 19th April 2008, the Egbe Amofin held a meeting at the Ikere (Ekiti State) home of Chief Olanipekun S.A.N, where the Egbe tried to put to practice its alleged adoption policy.
At the very tense and squabbles-rich meeting presided over by Chief Bamidele Aiku S.A.N, the main issue of discussion centred on the report of the Chief Aluko – Olokun led screening committee on the candidacy of the both Akeredolu and Adesina.

Before the report could be tendered, Dele Adesina’s objection to the composition of the screening committee, to wit- that the chairman had had occasion to advise him, Adesina, to step down for Akeredolu, that Mr. Abiodun Emmanuel a member of the committee is from the same Ibadan branch of the NBA with Akeredolu, was considered and given short shrift.
While Chief Aluko Olokun denied making any overture to Adesina for him to step down for Akeredolu, for Mr. Abiodun Emmanuel, it was claimed that his coming from Ibadan branch does not make him necessarily biased in favour of Akeredolu, while the third member of the 3 – man committee Fakunle S.A.N claimed to be aware of Adesina’s objection only then on the very floor of the meeting. Surprisingly when the committee’s report was read, a portion of it stated that it received and considered Dele Adesina’s objection and found it unmeritorious!

The report went on further to say that since only Rotimi Akeredolu who submitted to it, letters of support/sponsor from certain branches of NBA in Western Nigeria, thirteen in number including Ikeja, out of a total of 26, they (the committee) recommend that the Egbe should adopt Akeredolu as the candidate of the West for the election.
The information that Ikeja Branch was one of the thirteen branches which gave support to Rotimi Akeredolu caused –ripples in the meeting. This was natural because Dele Adesina hails from Ikeja branch and was her chairman in 1998, while Niyi Idowu the incumbent chairman served under him as secretary.

Idowu who was also present at the meeting but berthed amidst Ibadan based supporters of Akeredolu was instantly put on the spot.
Openly criticized by his members from Ikeja from what they termed as betrayal of Ikeja branch interests in the candidacy of Dele Adesina, Idowu tried his best to explain his letter of endorsement or support of Akeredolu which was jointly signed by Beckley Abioye, the branch secretary, as “a harmless letter”. It did not appear that the chairman’s arguments persuaded any Tiger at the meeting.

At the end of the day, the discussion of the Aluko – Olokun committee’s report became ding-doing and even unsettled; No vote was taken on the issue of adoption of any of the candidates even though it was assumed by the Akeredolu camp that their man has become adopted as the official candidate of the Egbe.

A week after the crucial meeting, Squib geckos are giving strong signals that Dele Adesina, smarting from what he considered the “strange and dubious politics of the Ikere meeting, might be considering dropping from the race after all, so heart-broken is he said to have become.
He is still baffled how the NBA Ikeja chairman, who issued him a letter of recommendation, to the Egbe, could issue a similar letter to his rival Rotimi Akeredolu.

Although unnoticed by the causal observers, the Ilawe-Ekiti, born Dele Adesina’s political machine has slowed down. Whether this is a strategy to launch out on another blistering campaign or a systematic demobilisation of his forces, only time and very shortly too, will tell.

Vol 8 No 19 3rd March 2008

SQUIB BAR NEWS 1

MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION RULES APPROVED BY NBA NEC ON 15TH FEBRUARY 2007 PURSUANT TO RULE 11 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS

OBJECTIVES OF THE RULES
The public contemplates that Lawyers will maintain certain standards of professional competence throughout their careers in the practice of law. The following rules regarding Minimum Continuing Legal Education are intended to assure that those lawyers enrolled to practice law in Nigeria remain current regarding the requisite knowledge and skills necessary to fulfil the professional responsibilities and obligations of their respective practices and thereby improve the standards of the profession in general.

Rule
1. These rules shall be known as the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Rules ("Rules"). The purpose of" the Rules is to establish a programme for Minimum Continuing Legal Education ("MCLE"), which shall operate under the Institute of Continuing Legal Education established by the Nigerian Bar Association.

Persons Subject to MCLE Requirements
Scope and Exemptions
2. (1) These Rules shall apply to every lawyer enrolled to practice law in Nigeria, except for the following persons, who shall be exempt from the Rules' requirements:
(a) All lawyers serving in the office of justice, judge, kadi or magistrate of any federal or state court;
(b) All Attorneys-General during their tenure in office.
(c) All lawyers enrolled to practice law in Nigeria who are on active duty in the Armed Forces of the Nigeria, until their release from active military service and their return to the active practice of law;
(2) In rare cases, upon a clear showing of good cause, the Board may grant a temporary exemption to a lawyer from the Minimum Continuing Legal Education ("MCLE") requirements, or an extension of time in which to satisfy them. Good cause for an exemption or extension may exist in the event of illness, financial hardship, or other extraordinary or extenuating circumstances beyond the control of the lawyer.

The MCLE Board
Establishment of MCLE Board
3. (1) The administration of the program for MCLE shall be under the supervision of the Minimum Continuing Legal Education Board ("Board").

Selection of Members; Qualifications; Terms
(2) The Board shall consist of:
(a) A chairman who shall be a lawyer of not less than twenty years post call experience and who shall be an active member of the Association appointed by the National Executive Committee of the Association;
(b) The President of the Association;
(c) The General Secretary of the Association;
(d) The Director General of the Institute of Continuing Legal Education of the Association.
(e) Six other members who are lawyers of not less than fifteen years post qualification experience in legal practice or legal education training and who are active members of the Association appointed by the National Executive Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association.
(4) Three members, and the Chairman, shall initially be appointed to a three-year term. Three members shall be appointed to an initial two-year term. On the expiration of each initial appointment all subsequent appointments or re-appointments shall be to a four years term.
(5) Board members shall be limited to serving two consecutive terms.
(6) Should a vacancy occur, the National Executive Committee of the Association shall appoint a replacement to serve for the unexpired term of the member.
(7) Board members shall serve without compensation, but shall be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in performing their official duties, including reasonable travel costs to and from Board meetings.
(8) The Board shall appoint its Secretary.
(9) Quorum for the meeting of the Board shall be four members.

Powers and Duties of MCLE Board
4. The Board shall have the following powers and duties:
(a) To make rules and regulations for MCLE, including fees sufficient to ensure that the MCLE program is financially self-supporting; to implement MCLE rules and regulations adopted by the Association; and to adopt forms necessary to insure lawyers' compliance with the rules and regulations.
(b) To meet at least twice a year, or more frequently as needed, either in person, by conference telephone communications, or by electronic means. Five members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A majority of the quorum present shall be required for any official action taken by the Board.
(c) To accredit commercial and non-commercial continuing legal education ("CLE") courses and activities, and to determine the number of hours to be awarded for attending such courses or participating in such activities.
(d) To review applications for accreditation of those courses, activities or portions of either that are offered to fulfill the professional responsibility requirement for conformity with the accreditation standards and hours enumerated in these rules exclusive of review as to substantive content.
(e) To submit an annual report to the Association evaluating the effectiveness of the MCLE Rules and the quality of the CLE courses, and presenting the Board's recommendations, if any, for changes in the Rules or their implementation, a financial report for the previous fiscal year, and its recommendations for the new fiscal year. There shall be an independent annual audit of the MCLE fund as directed by the Association, the expenses of which shall be paid out of the fund. The audit shall be submitted as part of the annual report to the Association.
(f) To coordinate its administrative responsibilities with the Body of Benchers and Disciplinary Committees and to reimburse expenses incurred by the Disciplinary Committees of the Body of Benchers attributable to enforcement of MCLE requirements.
(g) To take all action reasonably necessary to implement, administer and enforce these rules and the decisions of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education Director, staff and Board.

Administration
5. The Board shall appoint, with the approval of the Association, a Director General of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education ("Director General") to serve as the principal executive officer of the MCLE program. The Director, with the Board's authorization, will hire sufficient staff to administer the program. The Board will delegate to the Director General and staff authority to conduct the business of the Board within the scope of this Rule, subject to review by the Board. The Director and staff shall be authorized to acquire or rent physical space, computer hardware and software systems and other items and services necessary to the administration of the MCLE program. The terms of the appointment of the Director General shall be set out in a written contract.
Funding
6. The MCLE program shall initially be funded in a manner to be determined by the Association. Thereafter, funding shall be derived solely from the fees charged to CLE providers and from fees charged to individual lawyers. The schedule of CLE provider fees and fees to individual lawyers shall be the schedule of fees approved by the Board.

Basic Skills Course Requirement
Scope
7. (1) Every person enrolled to practice in Nigeria after the date this Act comes into effect, to be entitled to practice before any court or tribunal as a legal practitioner must obtain a certificate from the Institute of Continuing Legal Education established by the Association after completing a basic course on trial advocacy totalling at least 24 actual hours of instruction. The course shall cover such topics as client interviewing and counselling, case analysis, the skills of trial advocacy, expert witnesses, the skills of applications advocacy, and ethics for trial advocates.
(2) Every person enrolled to practice in Nigeria alter this Act comes into effect, to be entitled to teach in any law course in any recognised Nigerian Law Faculty or Law School as a full-time or part-time law teacher must obtain a certificate from the Institute of Continuing Legal Education established by the Association after completing a basic course on law teaching skills totalling at least 24 actual hours of instruction. The course shall cover such topics as curriculum development, clinical legal education, teaching methods, assessment methods and ethics for law teachers.

Minimum Continuing Legal Education Requirement
Hours Required
8. (1) Except as provided by Rules 2 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, every lawyer enrolled in Nigeria shall be required to complete 30 hours of CLE activity during every two-year reporting period. The two-year reporting period shall begin on October I.
(2) Every Senior Advocate of Nigeria shall be required to complete 24 hours of CLE activity during every three-year reporting period- The three-year reporting period shall begin on October 1.
(3) All CLE activity hours may be earned in one year or split in any manner between the two-year or three-year reporting period. No credit shall be carried over from one reporting period to another reporting period.

Professional Responsibility Requirement
(4) A minimum of four of the total hours required for any two-year or three-year period must be in the area of professionalism, legal ethics and corruption issues.

Accreditation Standards and Hours
Standards
9. Eligible CLE courses and activities shall satisfy the following standards:
(a) The course or activity must have significant intellectual, educational or practical content, and its primary objective must be to increase each participant's professional competence as a lawyer.
(b) The course or activity must deal primarily with matters related to the practice of law.
(c) The course or activity must be offered by a provider having substantial, recent experience in offering CLE or demonstrated ability to organize and effectively present CLE. Demonstrated ability arises partly from the extent to which individuals with legal training or educational experience are involved in the planning, instruction and supervision of the activity.
(d) The course or activity itself must be conducted by an individual or group qualified by practical or academic experience. The course or activity, including the named advertised participants, must be conducted substantially as planned, subject to emergency withdrawals and alterations.
(e) Thorough, high quality, readable and carefully prepared written materials should be made available to all participants at or before the time the course is presented, unless the absence of such materials is recognized as reasonable and approved by the Board.
(f) Traditional CLE courses or activities shall be conducted in a physical setting conducive to learning. The course or activity may be presented by remote or satellite television transmission, telephone or videophone conference call, videotape, film, audio tape or over a computer network, so long as the Board approves the content and the provider, and finds that the method in question has interactivity as a key component. Such interactivity may be shown, for example, by the opportunity for the viewers or listeners to ask questions of the course faculty, in person, via telephone, or on-line; or through the availability of a qualified commentator to answer questions directly, electronically, or in writing; or through computer links to relevant cases, statutes, law review articles, or other sources.
(g) The course or activity must consist of not less than one-half hour of actual instruction, unless the Board determines that a specific program of less than one-half hour warrants accreditation.
(h) A list of the names of all participants for each course or activity shall be maintained by the provider for a period of at least three years. The provider shall issue a certificate, in written or electronic form, to each participant evincing his or her attendance. Such lists and certificates shall state the number of CLE hours, including professionalism, or legal ethics and corruption issues CLE hours, earned at that course or activity.

Accredited CLE Provider
10. The Board may extend presumptive approval to a provider for all of the CLE courses or activities presented by that provider each year that conform to Rule 9, upon written application to be an "Accredited Continuing Legal Education Provider." Such accreditation shall constitute prior approval of all CLE courses offered by such providers. However, the Board may withhold accreditation or limit hours for any course found not to meet the standards, and may revoke accreditation for any organization which is found not to comply with standards. The Board shall assess an annual fee, over and above the fees assessed to the provider for each course, for the privilege of being an "Accredited Continuing Legal Education Provider."

Accreditation of Individual Courses or Activities
11. (1) Any provider not included in Rule 10 desiring advance accreditation of an individual course or other activity shall apply to the Board by submitting a required application form, the course advance accreditation fee set by the Board, and supporting documentation no less than 45 days prior to the date for which the course or activity is scheduled. Documentation shall include a statement of the provider's intention to comply with the accreditation standards of this Rule, the written materials distributed to participants at the two most recently produced courses or activities, if available, or an outline of the proposed courses or activities and list of instructors, and such further information as the Board shall request. The Board staff will advise the applicant in writing by mail within 30 days of the receipt of the completed application of its approval or disapproval.
(2) Providers denied prior approval of a course or activity or individual lawyers who have attended such course or activity may request reconsideration of the Board's initial decision by filing a form approved by the Board. The Board shall consider the request within 30 days of its receipt, and promptly notify the provider and/or the individual lawyer.
(3) Providers who do not seek prior approval of their course or activity may apply for approval for the course or activity after its presentation by submitting an application provided by MCLE staff, the supporting documentation described above, and the accreditation fee set by the Board.
(4) A list of the names of participants shall be maintained by the provider for a period of three years. The provider shall issue a certificate, in written or electronic form, to each participant evincing his or her attendance. Such lists and certificates shall state the number of CLE hours, including professionalism, legal ethics and corruption issues CLE hours, earned at that course or activity.

Bar Association Meetings
12. Attendance at bar association or professional association meetings at which substantive law, matters of practice, professionalism, legal ethics and corruption issues are discussed, subject to the requirements for CLE credit defined in paragraphs 8 above may be accredited by the Board. The bar or professional association shall maintain a list of the names of all attendees at each meeting for a period of three years and shall issue a certificate, in written or electronic form, to each participant evincing his or her attendance. Such lists and certificates shall state the number of CLE hours, including professionalism, legal ethics and corruption issues CLE hours, earned at that meeting,

Cross-Disciplinary Programs
13. Attendance at courses or activities that cross academic lines, such as accounting-tax seminars or medical-legal seminars, may be considered by the Board for full or partial credit. Purely non-legal subjects, such as personal financial planning, shall not be counted towards CLE credit. Any mixed-audience courses or activities may receive credit only for sessions deemed appropriate for CLE purposes.

Teaching Continuing Legal Education Courses
14. Teaching at CLE courses or activities during the two-year or three-year reporting term, subject to the following:
(a) Credit may be earned for teaching in an approved CLE course or activity. Presentations shall be counted at the full hour or fraction thereof for the initial presentation; a repeat presentation of the same material shall be counted at one-half; no further hours may be earned for additional presentations of the same material.
(c) Authorship or co-authorship of written materials for approved CLE activities shall qualify for CLE credit on the basis of actual preparation time, but subject to receiving no more than 10 hours of credit in any two-year or three year reporting period.

Part-Time Teaching of Law Courses
15. Teaching at a Council of Legal Education accredited law course at a university, or Law School in Nigeria:

(a) Teaching credit may be earned for teaching law courses offered for credit toward a degree at a law school/Law faculty accredited by the Council of Legal Education, but only by lawyers who are not employed full-time by the law school/law faculty. Full-time law teachers who choose to maintain their licenses to practice law are fully subject to the MCLE requirements established herein, and may not earn any credits by their ordinary teaching assignments. Presentations shall be counted at the full hour or fraction thereof for the initial presentation; a repeat presentation of the same material shall be counted at one-half; no further hours may be earned for additional presentations of the same material. Teaching credit may be earned by appearing as a guest instructor, moderator, or participant in a law school/law faculty class for a presentation which meets the overall guidelines for CLE, courses or activities, as well as for serving as a judge/moderator/assessor at a law school/law faculty moot/mock court, mediation competitions and client interviewing and counseling competitions. Time spent in preparation for an eligible law school/law faculty activity shall be counted at three times the actual presentation time. Appearing as a guest speaker before a law school/law faculty assembly or group shall not count toward CLE credit.
(b) Teaching credit may be earned for teaching law courses at a university by lawyers who are not full-time teachers if the teaching involves significant intellectual, educational or practical content, such as a civil procedure course taught to paralegal students or a commercial law course taught to business students. Presentations shall be counted at the full hour or fraction thereof for the initial presentation; a repeat presentation of the same material shall be counted at one-half; no further hours may be earned for additional presentations of the same material.

Legal Scholarship.
16. Writing law books and law review articles, subject to the following:
(a) A lawyer may earn credit for legal textbooks, casebooks, treatises and other scholarly legal books written by the lawyer that are published during the two-year or three-year reporting period.
(b) A lawyer may earn credit for writing law-related articles in responsible legal journals or other legal sources, published during the two-year or three-year reporting period, that deal primarily with matters related to the practice of law, professionalism, and ethical obligations of lawyers. Republication of any article shall receive no additional CLE credits unless the author made substantial revisions or additions.
(c) A lawyer may earn credit towards MCLE requirements for the actual number of hours spent researching and writing, but the maximum number of credits that may be earned during any two-year or three-year reporting period on a single publication shall be half the maximum CLE hours required. Credit is accrued when the eligible book or article is published, regardless whether the work in question was performed in the then-current two-year or three-year reporting period.

Pro Bono Training
17. Attendance at courses or activities designed to train lawyers who have agreed to provide pro bono services shall earn CLE credit to the same extent as other courses and seminars.

Credit Hour Guidelines
18. Hours of CLE credit will be determined under the following guidelines:
(a) Sixty minutes shall equal one hour of credit. Partial credit shall be earned for qualified activities of less than 60 minutes duration.
(b) The following are not counted for credit: (i) coffee breaks; (ii) introductory and closing remarks;
(iii) keynote speeches; (iv) lunches and dinners; (v) other breaks; and (vi) business meetings.
(c) Question and answer periods are counted toward credit.
(d) Lectures or panel discussions occurring during breakfast, luncheon, or dinner sessions of bar association committees may be awarded credit
(e) Credit merely reflect the maximum that may be earned. Only actual attendance or participation earns credit.

Financial Hardship Policy
19. The provider shall have available a financial hardship policy for lawyers who wish to attend its courses, but for whom the cost of such courses would be a financial hardship. Such policy may be in the form of scholarships, waivers of course fees, reduced course tees, or discounts- Upon request by the Board, the provider must produce the detailed financial hardship policy. The Board may require, on good cause shown, a provider to set aside without cost, or at reduced cost, a reasonable number of places in the course for those lawyers determined by the Board to have good cause to attend the course for reduced or no cost.

Enforcement of MCLE Requirements
Issuing of licence. Reporting Compliance
20. (1) On completion of CLE within a reporting period and completion of MCLE forms issued by the Board, the lawyer shall immediately submit the completed MCLE forms to the Director General of the Institute for Continuing Legal Education. The Director General shall mail the lawyer, at the most recent address the lawyer has provided a licence certifying that the lawyer, with respect to that reporting period, has complied with these Rules and entitled to practice under section 10 of the Legal Practitioners Act or notify the lawyer that he has not complied, A certification need not be sent to a lawyer known by the Director General to be exempt from these Rules.
(2) Every Sawyer who is subject to these Rules shall file an MCLE return not more than 31 days after the end of the reporting period.
(3) The Director General shall publish a ii-it of lawyers who complied with the Rules and arc licensed to practice for another reporting period within 60 days from the date of the reporting periods.