Amaatimin Esq

"It must be noted than (sic) most crimes are committed by people with little or no education, consequently they are easily led along by the Investigating Police Officer to write incriminating statements which legal minds find almost impossible to unravel and resolve. Confessional statements are most times beaten out of suspects, and the courts usually admit such statements as counsel and the accused are unable to prove that the statements was (sic) not made voluntarily.

A fair trial presupposes that police investigation of crime for which the accused person stands trial was transparent. In that regard it is time for safeguards to be put in place to guarantee transparency. It is seriously recommended that CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS should only be taken from the suspect if, and only IF his counsel is present, or in the presence of a legal practitioner. Where this is NOT DONE such a confessional statement should be rejected by the court." (Emphasis mine)

- Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC at page 576, paras A-D in Owhoruke v. C.O.P (2015) 15 N.W.L.R (Pt 1483) 557.

Before you sign any document, read it over and over and if possible study the content with your lawyer.
There may be a landmine in between those simple literary expressions.
It's not enough that you can read and write in English language.

November 1 is Love Your Lawyer Day.

Even before Shakespeare, Lawyers have routinely gotten a bad rap. Opined as the sum of all evils, and often the subject of some very unflattering metaphors, Lawyers are the subject of some of the most well-known jokes around. That’s why, for Love Your Lawyer Day, which was created in 2001 by attorney Nader Anise, ALPIA (American Lawyers Public Image Association) had started a campaign of “No Lawyer Bashing or Jokes for a day.” After all, while Lawyers may have a bad reputation, it’s often forgotten the good they do.

Every day lawyers are hired to defend those accused of crimes, represent those who cannot defend themselves, and work in every aspect of modern society. Much as they may be generally reviled, we owe much of our civilizations smooth operations to these masters of the legal code. This is why ALPIA put together this day to show your love and appreciation for these most unloved of civil servants. For just one day, they ask that you set aside the lawyer jokes and remember that without these legal warriors, we’d have no one to help us navigate the complex world of law.

How to celebrate Love Your Lawyer Day?

Celebrating Love Your Lawyer Day is easy, all you need to do is not tell any lawyer jokes for one day. This in and of itself will go a long way to showing these legal professionals the love and respect due to one who spends their life trying to help others through these complex and difficult waters.

If you want to go the extra mile, contact your lawyer, or any lawyer if you don’t have one, and let them know how much you appreciate what they do every day. Just one phone call can serve to remind them that their long hours and dedication to justice isn’t without its rewards.

Love Your Lawyer Day Even before Shakespeare, Lawyers have routinely gotten a bad rap. Opined as the sum of all evils, and often the subject of some very unflattering metaphors, Lawyers are the subject of some of the most well-known jokes around. That’s why, for Love Your Lawyer Day, which was created in 2001 by attor...

ONLINE HACKERY.

The synchronization of Facebook and WhatsApp online features has its inherent hiccups as it poses a serious challenge to the quality and reliability of our online engagements especially for users whose accounts aren't secured.

I have noticed that hackers now hack people's WhatsApp and Facebook accounts easily and such hackery takes place almost simultaneously, depriving users of access to both their WhatsApp contact and Facebook account.

Safeguarding our accounts online is a must and a responsibility we should take seriously. Secure your accounts to save your innocent friends from being scammed by hackers and scammers. We have to get smarter as hackers and scammers are unrelenting in their quest to defraud unsuspecting members of the public online.

Your online security is as important as your offline security. Stay away from online links/websites that are not secured. Check Google for security tips on how to easily identify an unsafe site or link.

Always crosscheck online chats with offline verifications. Know your friends and their style of writing or chat. When doubt sets in during your online engagement with a trusted friend, insist on a physical meeting, video call if desirable to confirm the true identity of the person you are chatting or doing online business with.

It is not out of place to periodically check your friends online updates to easily spot uncommon changes such as strange or unfamiliar names, change of profile pictures and post contents etc.

I have lost many online friends to hackers. It's sad losing amazing friends online to hackers and scammers. Let's stay safe and safeguard our lives and engagements online.

Good news.

The gazetted copy of the Benue State Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2019 received by NBA Makurdi Branch.

IGP, Abba Kyari in trouble over suspect who 'died in police custody'

IGP, Abba Kyari in trouble over suspect who 'died in police custody' – Daily Trust A Federal High Court sitting in Jos on Tuesday ordered the Inspector-General of Police, IGP and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr Abba Kyari, in charge of Intelligence Response Team (IRT), to produce a suspect before it dead or alive. Justice Dorcas Agishi of Federal High Court 1, gave the order in....

THE DEATH OF AN ACCUSED PERSON NO LONGER TERMINATES CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS ON THE MATTER IN ALL CASES!

ABATEMENT OF ACTION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS AND THE RECENT EXCEPTION CREATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RE: ABDULLAHI (2018) 14 NWLR (PT. 1639) 272.

Under Nigerian law, the constitutional right of appeal against a conviction and sentence is considered a personal right which can only be exercised by the accused person or the prosecution. Same cannot, be exercised by any other person, transferred or inherited. See Section 243(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Section 233(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (pre 1st, 2nd & 3rd alterations).

Therefore, upon the death of an accused person during his trial or appeal, the proceedings terminate. This is summed up in the Latin maxim ‘’action personalis moritur cm persona’’, which means a personal right of action dies with the person.

However, the above-stated position of our law has been modified in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ABDULLAHI (2018) 14 NWLR (PT. 1639) 272.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The General Court Martial (GCM) tried and convicted the Appellant on 5 out of the 6 counts charge. In addition to a sentence of 2 years imprisonment, the GCM ordered the forfeiture of the Appellant’s landed property located in Abuja.

Thereafter the Army Council confirmed the Appellant’s conviction and reduced his terms of imprisonment to 1 year. The Army Council also ordered the Appellant to refund the sum of N33, 500, 000.00 (Thirty Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) to the Nigerian Armed Forces within 90 days from the date of confirmation of the sentence. The Army Council further directed that the Appellant’s personal property be confiscated to recover the said sum if he failed to pay same within the prescribed period.

Dissatisfied with the decisions of the GCM and the confirmation of same by the Army Council, the Appellant brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decisions of the GCM as confirmed by the Army Council and ordered the forfeiture of the Appellant’s landed property in Abuja.

Still aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, while his appeal was pending he passed away.

Subsequently, his wife and his son as administrators of his estate brought an application before the Supreme Court craving an order of the Apex Court substituting them for the Appellant. The scope of the application was limited to prosecuting ground 9 of the Notice of Appeal which complained against the order of forfeiture of the Appellant’s landed property in Abuja.

The Respondents objected to the said application. The primary ground of their objection was that the appeal did not survive the deceased; hence the Applicants cannot inherit/substitute into the said criminal appeal. The Respondents’ position was that there was no basis for the said application under Nigerian law.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPLICANTS

The Applicants conceded that Nigerian law does not contemplate an application of this nature as our laws do not specify what would happen in the event of the death of an accused person while his appeal is pending.

Notwithstanding the above, the Applicants urged the Supreme Court to grant their application based on the principle of law that provides that ‘’where there is a wrong there must be a remedy’’. This is summed up in the Latin maxim ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’’
The Applicants argued that the order of the Court of Appeal wherein the Court ordered the forfeiture of the Appellant’s landed property in Abuja has inflicted injury on the estate of the deceased Appellant which has adversely affected the Applicants.

The property in issue was valued as at 2005 at N83, 100, 000.00 (Eighty Three Million One Hundred Thousand Naira). The Applicants’ position was that forfeiture of the said property as against the use of same to realise the sum of N33, 500, 000.00 (Thirty Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) from the deceased to the Respondents, deprived his estate (which they are beneficiary of), the benefit of the value of the property less the said sum of N33, 500, 000.00 (Thirty Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only due to the Respondents upon the deceased conviction.

The Applicants further argued that even though there is no express provision for the continuation of a criminal appeal upon the Appellant’s death under our laws, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court has the power to allow the Applicants continue the appeal within the limited scope identified in the application in other to remedy the injury inflicted on the estate of the deceased Appellant.

In support of its position the Applicants relied on the English authorities in REGINA V. ROWE (1955) 1 GB 573; HODGSON V. LAKEMAN (1943) KB 15 and R V. JEFFERIES (1968) 3 ALL ER 238.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The Respondents argued that before the Court can grant an application of this nature, there must be a competent pending appeal. As under our laws, the appeal abated and became moribund with death of the Appellant, the instant application is not predicated on any competent appeal.

The Respondents further argued in opposition to the application that the constitutional right of appeal under Section 233(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (pre 1st, 2nd & 3rd alterations) against a conviction and sentence is a personal right which can only be exercised by the deceased Appellant. Same cannot be exercised by, transferred or inherited by the Applicants regardless of any interest they might have in the subject matter of the appeal.

In response to the English authorities relied on by the Applicants, the Respondents’ position was that the said decisions are not applicable to the instant application as it was not demonstrated that the English Courts was interpreting provisions of the British constitution which is in pari materia with Section 233(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (pre 1st, 2nd & 3rd alterations) which has limited the right of appeal to a specific person.

Finally, the Respondents argued that the principle of law that provides that ‘’where there is a wrong there must be a remedy’’ cannot be used to confer jurisdiction on the Court to grant the instant application where no other specific provision of our laws grants the Court such power. The Respondents urged the Court to refuse the instant application as it has no basis in Nigerian law.

HOLDING OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court acknowledged that under our laws ordinarily the death of an accused person brings an end to his trial or appeal and that there is no case law in Nigeria where an Applicant has been substituted for a deceased Appellant in a criminal appeal.

The question that agitated the Court’s mind was whether or not considering the afore-stated position under Nigerian law and the facts and circumstances of this case; the Applicants whose interest are directly affected by the decision of the Court of Appeal in a criminal appeal have any remedy in law?

In determining the application, the Court was of the view that the fact that there is no case law in Nigeria where an Applicant has been substituted for a deceased Appellant in a criminal appeal is not a good enough reason for the Court to refuse the instant application. The Court relied on the obiter of Lord Denning in PARKER V. PARKER (1954) ALL ER 22, wherein, the great jurist held that if the Courts never do anything because it has never been done before, then the law will stand still, while the rest of the world moves on.

The Apex Court found the English authorities in REGINA V. ROWE (SUPRA); HODGSON V. LAKEMAN (SUPRA) and R V. JEFFERIES (SUPRA) cited by the Applicants highly persuasive. The English Courts’ position in the said decisions was to the effect that ordinarily the death of an accused person brings an end to his trial or appeal, however where a representative of a deceased accused person e.g. the executors or administrators of his estate shows a significant interest in the subject matter of the appeal then the Court can allow the said representative continue with the appeal. In REGINA V. ROWE (SUPRA), Lord Goddard CJ gave an example of a situation which is similar to the facts of the instant application where the Court would allow a representative of the deceased accused person to continue the appeal as follows:

‘’If a person is sentenced to pay a fine and dies having appealed, or even if he dies after payment of the fine – it might be immediately afterwards – it may be that the Court would allow executors or administrators to appeal merely on the ground that if the conviction were quashed they could recover the fine for the benefit of the estate of the deceased which they are bound to administer. ‘’

The Court took the position that the appeal might have died with the deceased Appellant, but his estate survived him, and being administrators of the deceased Applicant’s estate, the Applicants have an interest in his estate that lives on, and which cannot be left hanging.

The Court took cognizance of the fact that it is the only Court that can review the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Applicants having alleged a wrong against the decision of the Court of Appeal, refusing this application would be tantamount to denying the Applicants an opportunity to seek redress against the alleged wrong done to them by the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Finally, the Court relied on the above-cited English authorities and the principle of law which provides that ‘’where there is a wrong there must be a remedy’’, in holding that considering the fact that judgment of the Court of Appeal affects the Applicants’ interest in the estate of the deceased Appellant, the justice of the case requires that the application be granted and the Applicants be permitted to continue with the appeal in respect of ground 9 of the Notice of Appeal which complained against the order of forfeiture against the property in issue which formed a part of the deceased Appellant’s estate.

CONCLUSION

Based on the decision of the Apex Court in this case it is no longer automatic that upon the death of an accused person during his trial or appeal, the proceedings terminate.

Where there is a pending criminal appeal before the death of the accused person, the appeal can be taken over and continued by other persons provided the said persons can show significant interest in the subject matter of the appeal.

While exchanging pleasantries with a brother and friend and after checking on him and his business to appreciate the progress made so far as I customarily do; he chipped in a soul moving and brain twisting advert on his products and services thus: "If you buy, my full package, you need not sleep in a hotel anywhere, just take it with you in a car, you can lay it any where and sleep". Note this is an advert on quality and affordable bed sheets!

The above singular chat changed our conversation flow, giving it a 360 degree turn with the initial focus taking a snow dive to law, law of contract to be precise. Pardon my lawyer mind, we are trained to be this way. I laughed over his chat as it reminded me of the principle of law of contract known as "mere puff". Law of Contract was one of my favourite courses during my undergraduate days.

For non law students and lawyers reading this post "Mere puff" is a statement often associated with advertising and same is legally recognised and sanctioned by law. In advertising space "mere puff" qualifies for a “salesman's hype” or hyperbole. Apparently, these are statements that plainly exaggerate and are not intended to be taken seriously and no action would lie against the maker in law. Imagine fa! It simply means that you are on a frolic chase should you choose to believe such statements.

To a lay man, "mere puff" may pass for a blatant lie.
What is your take on this advertising strategy?
Is the law fair enough to the innocent purchaser for value for believing such commercial statements in the name of advertising?
Should a service provider and seller of goods be made liable on his or her advertising having made his/her customer(s) to think differently of a purchased product?

OMOYELE SOWORE: NBA CONDEMNS THE DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDER AND IMPUNITY BY DSS.

The Nigerian Bar Association has become aware of the unfortunate and flagrant disobedience of the order of Hon. Mr. Justice Taiwo Taiwo of the Federal High Court sitting at Abuja directing the release on bail of Citizen Omoyele Sowore by the Department of State Security Service of Nigeria on the 24th of September, 2019, of which the bail terms have long been perfected by the detainee's counsel.

The NBA recalls that the DSS found it convenient to approach the Federal High Court in ensuring the detention of Omoyele Sowore for more than 50 days but has since comfortably refused to comply with the order of the same Court directing the release of Citizen Omoyele Sowore. This is unacceptable in a country where there are laws and a nation which Head of State recently professed at the recently concluded United Nations General Assembly to respect the human rights of citizens.

The NBA notes that the Department of State Security is cutting for herself the notorious image of an agency that enjoys treating judicial process with disdain, particularly as it pertains to obeying orders of courts enforcing the fundamental rights of Nigerians. The continued detention of Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd) in spite of various court orders readily comes to mind.

The NBA therefore, condemns the continued detention of citizen Omoyele Sowere by the Department of State Security, as same amounts to violation of his constitutional rights to personal liberty and that no one person shall be deprived of his liberty without a valid court order, as provided for in Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999(as amended). By virtue of the provisions of Section 1(1) of the Constitution (afore-referred) the NIgerian "Constitution is supreme and shall have a binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of NIgeria".

The NIgerian Bar Association therefore calls for the immediate release of Citizen Omoyele Sowore in terms of the order of the Federal High Court made on the 24th September, 2019, and other Nigerians who have been languishing in DSS detention centres without any charge.

Kunle Edun
National Publicity Secretary, Nigerian Bar Association.

The position of an administrator or administratrix as it relates the estate of a decedent vis-a-vis letters of administration.

The management, application and distribution of the bounties or estate of a decedent or deceased person becomes a vexed issue upon one's earthly demise especially when he or she dies without a Will (intestate) or with an invalid Will.

A Will properly and sufficiently defines how the properties of a decedent is to be shared among his or her intended beneficiaries upon his or her death. A Will therefore clearly provides for who is to get what, the quantum and how and when. A Will becomes effective only upon the death of its maker, called the testator (male) or testatrix (female). A Will is liken to having a dead person speak from his or her grave.

Even though a Will sometime may be questioned or challenged i.e. becoming a subject of dispute by family members of a deceased person; preparing a Will during one's lifetime gives a better direction on how the deceased wanted his or her properties to be shared among his/her loved ones in his absence.

By and large, in the event of any dispute of a Will, the court assuredly steps in to appoint an "interim administrator" for the deceased estate which in most cases is a Judge or Registrar of the High Court to oversee and manage the properties of the decedent pending the determination of the validity of otherwise of the Will since the law abhors vacuum.

However, the situation is made worse when a person dies without a Will. This state of affairs exposes the properties or estate of the deceased to the whims and caprices of his unintended beneficiaries owing to the unkempt state of things. The decedent under this state of affairs loses control over who presides over his/her estate in his absence. What a sorry situation!

Like the interim administrator appointed by the court, the position of an administrator who obtains the letters of administration upon the death of a person without a will isn't different except that his or his appointment as a trustee may be of a permanent nature. He or she administers over the estate in trust and owes the family members of the deceased a fiduciary duty of care and accountability. Apparently, an administrator can not validly dispose of an interest in the estate without the consent of family members.

Contrary to strange beliefs that preparing a Will is akin to preparing for one's death, a Will is a legal instrument that prepares and defines what happens to the estate of a person when he or she is no longer alive i.e. having a Will is similar to having a dead person speak from his or her grave. A Will therefore ensures that your wishes and intentions are well respected even in your absence.

That is to say that a Will gives the testator some kind of control over his or her estate i.e. dictating the management and distribution of one's properties even from hell or heaven. 😂 😂 😂. You can even decide how you should be buried. What a glorious state of affairs!

All things being equal and under normal circumstances, the content of a Will is only disclosed upon the death of its maker, hence it is only given effect after the marker might have died and buried. Note that during the lifetime of a testator or testatrix, his or her Will can be amended or revoked at will. A codicil takes care of such changes to a subsisting Will.

Talk to your family attorney about making your WILL today.