Our Rights

Keep Police Out of Civil Contractual Disputes.

In Nigeria, it's common to see parties involved in contractual disputes rushing to police stations to report cases that are essentially civil in nature. This practice is not only unnecessary but also an abuse of the criminal justice system. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, Police Act 2020, and the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) all support the notion that contractual disputes without criminal elements should be resolved through civil litigation, not criminal investigation.

Consens ad idem (meeting of the minds) and voluntariness are the foundation of contracts. When parties fail to adhere to contractual terms, it's a civil matter that requires a legal solution, not police intervention. Involving the police in such disputes not only wastes valuable resources but also leads to harassment, intimidation, and potential human rights violations. Let's keep our police focused on combating real crimes and resolve contractual disputes through the appropriate civil channels.

The Police Act 2020, in Section 4(2), states that the police shall not investigate or interfere with any matter that is essentially civil in nature. Similarly, Section 5(3) of the same Act provides that a police officer shall not arrest or detain anyone for a civil wrong or breach of contract. The Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) also supports this stance in Section 34(1), which guarantees the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, which can be violated by police interference in civil matters.

Furthermore, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, in Section 2, states that the Act shall apply to all criminal cases and not to civil matters. Section 12 of the same Act also provides that a suspect shall not be arrested or detained for a crime that is not specified under any written law. In essence, contractual disputes without criminal elements do not fall within the purview of the police or the criminal justice system.

In light of these provisions, it is essential to stop involving the police in contractual disputes that do not have any atom of criminality. Instead, parties should seek legal solutions through civil litigation, mediation, or arbitration. By doing so, we can prevent the abuse of the criminal justice system, protect human rights, and ensure that our police focus on combating real crimes.

J.C. Ekeleme Esq.

What are the limitations to the right to life?

The right to life, as provided for in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, is subject to certain limitations, as outlined in various laws, including the 2020 Police Act and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. Some limitations include:

Self-defense and Defense of Others:
The use of force resulting in the loss of life may be justified in cases of self-defense or defense of others when there is an imminent threat of harm.

Ex*****on of Death Penalty:
The imposition of the death penalty by a competent court for certain crimes constitutes a limitation on the right to life.

Lawful Use of Force by Law Enforcement:
Law enforcement officers may use force, including lethal force, in accordance with the law to maintain public order, prevent crime, and protect lives.

War and Armed Conflict:
During times of war or armed conflict, the right to life may be limited in accordance with international humanitarian law and the laws of war.

Medical Intervention:
In certain circumstances, medical interventions such as euthanasia or termination of pregnancy may be permitted under specific legal and medical conditions.

These limitations are designed to balance the right to life with other competing interests, such as public safety, national security, and the administration of justice. It's essential to ensure that any limitations imposed on the right to life are necessary, proportionate, and consistent with international human rights standards.

As a Nigeria citizen, it is important to understand the rights of citizens as provided for in the 1999 Constitution. These Rights are sacrosanct and guaranteed, therefore any law in Nigeria that contradicts their provisions would as a result of that become null and void. However, some limitations to the enjoyment of these Rights has also been provided for also in the constitution. We would examine these Rights one after the other. The Rights includes:

1. Right to Life.(Section 33)

2. Right to dignity of human persons.(Section 34)

3. Right to personal liberty. (Section 35)

4. Right to fair hearing. (Section 36)

5. Right to private and family life.(Section 37)

6. Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. (Section 38)

7. Right to freedom of expression and the press. (Section 39)

8. Right to peaceful assembly and association.(Section 40)

9. Right to freedom of movement. (Section 41)

10. Right to freedom from discrimination.(Section 42)

11. Right to acquire and own immovable property. (Section 43)

These Rights can be referred to as Fundamental Rights.

The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), must take these various steps to ensure that Nigerians always have a successful elections. It is the duty of citizens to ensure that these points layed out here are adhered to strictly by the Chairman and members of the commission.

1. Enhance Voter Education: Implement robust voter education campaigns to ensure citizens understand their rights and responsibilities during the electoral process.

2. Ensure Transparency: Maintain transparency in all electoral processes, including voter registration, candidate selection, and ballot counting, to build trust among voters and stakeholders.

3. Strengthen Security: Collaborate with relevant security agencies to provide adequate security measures before, during, and after the elections to safeguard voters, polling stations, and electoral materials.

4. Improve Voter Registration: Implement measures to increase voter registration rates, including mobile registration centers, online registration options, and outreach programs targeting marginalized communities.

5. Enhance Technology: Utilize technology to improve the efficiency and transparency of electoral processes, such as electronic voter verification systems and results transmission platforms.

6. Ensure Fairness: Enforce strict regulations to prevent electoral malpractices, including vote buying, intimidation, and manipulation of results, to ensure a level playing field for all candidates and political parties.

7. Foster Stakeholder Collaboration: Work closely with political parties, civil society organizations, the media, and international observers to promote dialogue, collaboration, and adherence to electoral guidelines.

8. Implement Electoral Reforms: Advocate for and implement necessary electoral reforms to address systemic challenges, enhance accountability, and improve the overall integrity of the electoral process.

By prioritizing these actions, I believe they can contribute to the success of free, fair, and credible elections in Nigeria...!

Who is Qualified to Be a Delegate in Indirect Primary?

By Sam Amadi

As expected, many of the leading parties have decided that they would use the indirect mode of primary for the election of their presidential candidates. This seems to be the default mode for both the PDP and the APC. The APC has tried the direct mode of primary election with disastrous consequences. In its 2018 presidential primary, President Buhari was elected with ten of millions of votes of members. But at the presidential election, less than a year, he could not poll up to half of those tens of millions of votes. We saw the same result in Anambra State in the 2021 gubernatorial primaries and election. Clearly, the mechanics of Direct Primary as outlined in the Electoral Act is such that a poorly organized political party cannot manage it at this point in the evolution of electoral democracy without quick improvement in its administrative efficiency. Hence the resort to Indirect Primary.

The problem is that the indirect mode of primary is not as easy or routine as the managers of these parties may presume. The tradition in the PDP and the APC has been to define delegates for an indirect primary as basically officials and other former political leaders of party. This would include members of the National Working Committee (NWC), State Working Committees (SWCs), Local Government Pary Chairman and Woman Leaders, the President, the Vice President, Senate President, Deputy Senate President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of state assemblies and the likes. This restricted definition suited the previous legal regime of elections. But the new electoral law has changed the game. But the problem is that the leadership of the parties are playing by the old rule.

The new electoral law is focused on regulating democracy. It builds from the experiences of the past where political leaders converted party primaries into a drama of self-serving politics. They harrowed out democratic accountability in the manner their parties chose their candidates for elective offices. They found support and sanctuary in the Supreme Court’s reluctance to reverse the decision of party leadership on the choice of their candidates. The Supreme Court argues rightly that it is the party not the court that determines the choice of candidates. And when the party leadership has made that choice, the court should not reverse it. The caveat in these decisions is that the party leadership followed the electoral law and the party’s constitution in choosing the candidates.

The new electoral law has changed the game by spelling out clearly how the parties should conduct primary. At the heart of this legal change is the requirement that candidates of the parties for elective offices should be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. This phrase could prove the undoing of the political parties that have easily resorted to Indirect Primary for the election of their presidential candidates for the 2023 elections. Section 84 (4) provides that when a party chooses Direct Primary to elect its candidates for elective offices, it must ensure that all REGISTERED Party members vote for the candidates at the wards. It is the widest articulation of ‘DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. Such a candidate who emerges from the votes of all registered party members at the wards across the country is democratically elected. For a party that chooses to use Indirect Primary to elect its candidates, Section 84(5) requires such party to choose as presidential candidate the aspirant who receives the highest number of votes of the DELEGATES at a national convention of the party.

The crux of the matter is how to determine who becomes a delegate to the Indirect Primary. The Electoral Act makes an express provision on who becomes a DELEGATE to an Indirect Primary. Section 84(8) of the Act expressly provides that “A party that adopts the system of indirect primary for the choice of its candidate shall clearly outline in its constitution and rule the procedure for the democratic election of delegates to vote at the convention, congress or meeting”. The important phrase is ‘democratic election’. The only valid interpretation of this section is that only delegates elected democratically can vote for a presidential aspirant to become its candidate in a convention or primary. This means that the party is required to make rules that show how the delegates emerge from democratic election. This knocks off the so-called statutory delegates except as they are specially elected democratically for the purpose of electing a presidential candidate. Clearly, the provision invalidates such so-called ‘delegates’ that are former political office holders including former Presidents, former Governors, etc.

This reading of Section 84 is radical, but it is the properly reading in the contexts of the challenges of party democracy in Nigeria and the history of the use of the leadership power in the party to undermine the democratic rights of party members. Whereas democracy is premised on the political equality of citizens, the asymmetry of power within the party threatens the survival of democracy in Nigeria. Godfathers and moneybags have taken over the parties and routinely use the main parties to foist on citizens a fait accompli that destroys even the pretense of democracy. Without democracy in the internal management of party affairs, the idea of democracy as the basic right of the people to effectively participate in choosing those to be entrusted with political power of the state to make decision on the use of public resources will be nugatory.

The legislative history of the Electoral Act 2022 shows that it was enacted to end the perverse situation where the process of electing candidates for elective offices was underspecified and left largely to the discretion of party leaders. The legislative history further shows a determination to regulate Nigeria’s political process to institutionalize the norms of democracy in obligations that are judicially reviewable. This determination shows in the many innovative provisions to replace the opaque and judicially unmanaged provisions in the past versions of the electoral law. The new electoral law gives the election management body more powers to override decisions of party officials that violate tenets of electoral democracy. It also obligates the party to conform to fundamentals of electoral democracy, especially the protection of the right of choice of party members.

This legislative perspective is also aligned to the development of electoral law and democratic theory across the world. Political parties are central pieces of the architecture of democracy. Scholars have noted that although US constitutional democracy originated without political parties, parties have become the definitive features of representative democracy in the US. This central place of political parties in the US has elicited criticism from some who are worried at the growing divisiveness fostered by the partisan spirit and the gridlock it occasions in the legislature. But, notwithstanding this untoward outcome, democratic theory is built on the vitality of political parties. As the US Supreme Court put it in California Democratic Party v. Jones, “Representative democracy in any populous unit of governance is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views”. Robert Dahl, the most famous political scientist of this century also argues that without political parties it would be difficult to protect the right of choice. As political scientist E.E Schattschneider said, “The parties created democracy, or perhaps more accurately, modern democracy is a by-product of party competition”.

The drafters of the new electoral law recognize the importance of party to democracy in Nigeria, and, for the first time, opens the management of parties, especially the nomination of candidates for elective offices, to regulatory control and consequently, more robust judicial review. Unlike in the past, the leaders of the parties are constrained to ensure effective participation of registered members of the parties in the choice of who stands for election on the party’s platform. Whether you adopt a direct or indirect model of primary, the new law expects that the registered members of the party have the opportunity to decide who stands election on their behalf. It is the right of all members of the party, not the party leaders, to determine who becomes candidates for elective positions.

This improvement in the democratic quality of the primaries aligns with the constitutional statement in Section 221 that only political parties can campaign for votes. If only parties can present candidates for election and campaign for votes, then it is imperative that the choice of such candidates for election be as democratic as possible. Therefore, if the party chooses Indirect Primary to elect its candidates, then the electing delegates themselves must be DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED.

Do you know as a woman that you deserve a right to your Father's property?

In December 1961, Lazarus Ogbonnaga Ukeje died intestate with real property in Lagos State. The appellants are his wife Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje and her son, Mr. Enyinnaya Lazarus Ukeje, both of whom obtained Letters of Administration for and over the deceased’s Estate. The plaintiff/respondent is the daughter of the deceased and brought this suit seeking a declaration from the court that as the daughter of the deceased she is entitled to a share of his estate.

The Supreme Court upheld as inviolate the finding by the lower courts that that Igbo customary law which disentitles a female from inheriting the property of the deceased father is void as it conflicts with the fundamental right to freedom from discrimination set out in section 42(1)(a) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution(link is external). Based on a textual interpretation of the Constitution, the Court further clarified that no matter the circumstances of the birth of a female child, such a child is entitled to an inheritance from her late father's estate. This would indicate that it does not matter whether the female child is born out of wedlock.

I do not want to care how bad your action hurts me, I do not want to remember how sting your attitude has become nor how I cared, pampered and sacrificed for you. All I know is that as we are parting ways, all that we shared together as jolly good fellows is buried inside of me, nothing on earth would ever bring those your dirty linens you shared with me to the public, it is not about your image, no, it is about whom I am and my values.

The rate at which friends, marriages, businesses and relationships are handled by this generation is something to worry much about. People meets cordially, became friends and shared information mostly without prejudice and keep enjoying each others company sooner than later, boom...! It has happened that one has hurt the other in a termed unforgivable way, therefore social media would be filled with all the dirtiness of the other, as a saint you have always been. Mostly those with filthiness of character are the ones to start throwing tantrums from social media.

Now listen and have peace of mind. Social media is not a place to play hide and seek game, to settle scores nor to destroy peoples reputations. Social media is a place of networking, marketing of businesses and making money. So the acts of abusing each other on social media has become another avenue for litigations on which damages is expected. Don't just get mad when you're abused on social media, just identity the fellow and get your lawyer.

DO YOU KNOW THAT AS A CONSUMER OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES YOU HAVE THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS...

1. Right to value for money:
Products and services MUST give value for money.

2. Right to Safety:
Protection from hazardous products, services, and production processes.

3. Right to Information:
Provision of information to enable informed consumer choice; and protection from misleading or deceptive advertisement and labelling.

4. Right to Choose:
Access to a variety of quality products and services at competitive prices. A consumer should not be compelled to buy products or services he/she does not need.

5. Right to Redress:
Redress for unsatisfactory products and services. A dissatisfied consumer is entitled to the 3Rs i.e. Repair, Replacement or Refund.

6. Right to Consumer Education:
Acquisition of the skills to be an informed consumer.

7. Right to Representation:
A consumer has a right to be heard and represented at fora where policies, regulations and standards affecting consumers are made.

Policy of No Refund-Money-After-Payment is Illegal in Nigeria, Court Rules.

Enugu State High Court sets aside policy of no refund of money after payment by service providers.

On 28 July 2021, Patrick C Chukwuma, a legal practitioner with the law firm of Eze, Dimude, Eze & Co filed a suit against Peace Mass Transit Limited challenging the laters policy of "no refund of money after payment". The incident that led to the suit occured on 10/2/2021 when the Plaintiff purchased a ticket from the Obollor-Afor branch of Peace Mass Transit Limited to convey him to Enugu. Following a two hours delay occasioned by the absence of passengers, the Plaintiff returned to the ticketing office and asked for a refund of the #500 he paid as the transportation fare. Staff of the Defendant however refused to refund the money, insisting that their company policy was that money paid for transport fare cannot be returned to the passenger and citing the statement written on their ticket to that effect as conclusive proof of their position.
When Barr. Chukwuma tried to explain to them that their policy was unlawful, as the law mandates them to refund fares for services that have not been provided they retorted in a rude manner, prompting the learned counsel to leave their park and seek alternative means of traveling back to Enugu. A letter written by the lawyer to Peace Mass Group of companies demanding and apology and refund was neglected prompting the lawyers law firm to institute suit number: E/514/2021 Patrick Chukwunwike Chukwuma v Peace Mass Transit Limited.
The suit asked the court to determine a sole question which was "whether the Defendant's policy of "no refund of money after payment" is in violation of Section 120 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 especially when the contractual obligation to convey the Plaintiff to his preferred location was terminated". The Plaintiff through his team of lawyers led by Barr. Tochukwu Odo amongst other grounds argued that the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 is the primary law on questions of consumer transaction in Nigeria and that by virtue of section 120 of the law, the consumer has a right to cancel any advance booking, reservation or order for any goods or services subject only to the deduction of a reasonable charge by the service provider. The Defendant through their counsel Barr Titus Odo raised technical arguments on the jurisdiction of the court and mode of commencement of the suit.
Hon. Justice C. O. Ajah of the High Court of Justice in his judgment delivered on 7 April 2022, promptly dismissed the objections of the Defendant and upheld the arguments of the Plaintiff. The Hon. Judge after a thorough analysis of the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 vis a vis the conduct of the parties in the case decided that indeed the policy of no refund of money after payment is illegal, null and void in light of the provisions of Sections 120, 104, 129(1)(a) and (b) (iii) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018. The court thereafter made a declaration that the refusal of the Defendant to refund the Plaintiff the money paid for the transportation fee from Obollor-Afor to Enugu on 10/2/2021 is unlawful. The court further ordered the Defendant to pay the sum of #500,000 as damages to the Plaintiff. This case puts service providers on notice that more Nigerians are now alive to their rights as citizens and will not hesitate to enforce same should the need arise. It also puts an end to the menace of service providers who collect money from consumers and refuse to refund same when they don't offer the services for which the money was collected on the first place.

I have watched with keen interest on the certificate saga lingering between "the people's General" (Buhari) and the Peoples democratic party. After many research on the issue, i came to discover that the INEC, with the power invested on them by the electoral act 2010 as amended section 31(1), requested all the Political parties that wish to sponsor any candidate for the 2015 general election to submit to the electoral body Form CF001 and Form CF002. CF001 contains the personal information and the credentials of that preferred candidate of the party, while Form CF002 contains the list of all the people that the political party is sponsoring in 2015 elections. So the people's general submitted his form CF001 without any of his credentials, rather with an affidavit stating that all his credentials are with the Nigerian Military. Now his opponents looking for a loop hole to use against him moves with swift action inquest of the true nature of his credentials and discover that non is with the military and went on air shouting fowl, telling us that the peoples general rose to the rank of a general in the Nigerian army without any credentials...! How truth can this be? I waited patiently till the Nigerian army in a press statement state it clear that the people's general was admitted into the army school and he rose to the rank of a general with just a recommendation letter from his principal stating that he believes he would pass the Cambridge/wasc exams. Nigeria we hail thee! The truth of this matter is that all of them in search of this information and those in the defense, are all bunch of rogues and criminals for not being able to push for such a serious issue like this in all the previous elections but now, while the people's general (Buhari) should be well addressed as the most corrupt person in the country who has benefited in unmerited manner knowing well that he has no credentials to that effect. It means that he has never pass any scrutiny in all the offices he has occupied in the country. That is the level Nigeria degenerated to, that he has never for any day make effort to get his credentials because he is the people's general and his newly found friend whom he once labelled as the most corrupt individual in Nigeria (Obasanjo) have told us that once a general, always a general, that after all Goodluck did not finish his PHD programme!! Shame on Nigeria and all the supporters of evil and all those that are still writing in the defense of these evil genius in Nigeria. But surely, Nigeria must be free one day!!!

The developments in our political scene is a healthy one for the country. It would not only produce a person we needed to be our leader but it would ensure that the person do the right thing at the right time, if elected. I love the crowds in all the two major political party campaigns in all the states, though my very good friend close to the developments said, that the two political parties are applying the tactics of the ruling party to pay with their nose to make sure that crowds are shown to the world in television, that is to say that the same people singing Buhari, Buhari would still be the people singing, Goodluck, Goodluck. Their interest is just their money and it does not change anything on whom they have made up their mind to vote for. But it is a tactics adopted by them because the two major political parties are not different people but just a different of those who has changed their names but not their character. So i know that APC would Give PDP a run for their money and also their tactics. It means that Nigerians stand a better chance of seeing the dividends of Democracy after the 2015 general elections. If Goodluck scale through and win, he must have learnt his lesson and would choose a better direction, but if.... i said if Buhari wins, he would do everything within his reach to convince Nigerians that he is a better person than what we saw during his military regime that has been working against him occupying A*o Rock. So Nigerians lets go to poll!!

It was like a storm of responses to what was started last week in the River State, in the kick off of Buhari's campaign in Port harcourt, where some hoodlums suspected to be PDP supporters attacked some APC members which later saw six people wounded and one in critical condition or even dead by now. Since then, it has all been series of attack in possibly retaliation to each others act with a maximum force with the burning down of a campaign bus of Mr. President in Jos plateau State by Suspected supporters of Buhari. From there back to Rivers State again with another hoodlums invading the APC secretariat today in Rivers State. With this three irresponsible acts, we stand in a better position now to watch our security operatives to match words with action by parading those that committed these heinous acts to not just justice but to ridicule them in the society, to deter any other miscreant who would be looking for an opportunity to repeat the barbaric acts that followed the 2011 general elections where innocent citizens were killed; to prove to Nigerians that these elections would be free from violence. This is a wake up call to Mr. President, to act immediately with the security operatives to fish out those behind the acts and punish them severely according to the law, failure of Mr. President and security operatives to do this, I would gladly advise Nigerians to use their voters card as a pillow in the days of election, allowing the two major people here (Goodluck and Buhari) to go and vote and possibly kill themselves for Nigerians to be!