Law/Judiciary
Negligence: Res Ips Loquitur II
Appeal:
This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the judgment and award of damages made in favour of the respondent by the High Court. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal.
History of the Case:
Supreme Court:
Names of Justices that sat on the appeal: Mahmud Mohammed, J .S.C. (Presided); Muhammad Saifullahi Muntaka-Coomassie, J .s.c., Suleiman Galadima, J .s.c., Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, J .S.C.; Stanley Shenko Alagoa, J.S.C. (Read the Leading Judgment) Appeal No.: SC.299/2003 Date of Judgment: Friday, T” December, 2012 Names of Counsel: E.J. Pwajok, Esq., Hon. Attorney General of Plateau State (with him, FB. Lotben IMrs.J and N.A. Garba [Mrs.l) – for the Appellants Chike Onyemenam (with him, Phillips Odungu, Esq.) for the Respondent
Court of Appeal:
Division of the Court of Appeal from which the appeal was brought: Court of Appeal, Jos Names of Justices that sat on the appeal: Oludade Oladapo Obadina, J .C.A. (Presided); Amiru Sanusi, J.C.A.; Ifeyinwa Cecilia Nzeako, J.C.A. (Read the Leading Judgment)
Appeal No.: CA/J/94/2000
Date of Judgment: Monday, 14th July, 2003
Names of Counsel: L.I. Wale, Esq. ADCL, Ministry of Justice, Jos – for the Appellants F.O. Shaibu, Esq. (Holding brief of T.A. Abudu, Esq.) – for the Respondent
High Court:
Name of the High Court: High Court of Plateau State, Jos Name of the Judge: Naron, J. Suit No.: PLA/J/39/96
Date of Ruling: Monday, 24th January, 2000 Names of Counsel: Mr. Albert Shuamyil – for the
Defendants Mr. D.G. Shigaba – for the Plaintiff
Counsel:
E.J. Pwajok, Esq., Hon. Attorney General of Plateau State (with him, F.B. Lotben [Mrs.] and N.A. Garba [Mrs.j) – for the Appellants
Chike Onyemenam (with him, Phillips Odungu, Esq.) – for the Respondent
ALAGOA, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Jos Division delivered on the 14th July, 2003. At the High Court Jos, the present respondent who was plaintiff had taken out a writ of summons claiming the sum of two million naira (N2,000,000.00) being special and general damages for the negligent conduct of the defendants (appellants in this appeal) which led to the permanent disability of his hearing senses. The respondent had sought for and been granted leave to adduce affidavit evidence by the trial High Court. A synopsis of the respondent’s case as can be gleaned from his statement of claim and affidavit evidence contained at pages 3 – 4 and 20 -22 of the record of appeal is that the respondent, a policeman had gone to the hospital of the 2nd appellant for treatment of pneumonia and after the said treatment the respondent became 00% deaf.
A panel of inquiry set up by the appellants had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent’s deafness was due to some injections he received for treatment of pneumonia at the appellant’s hospital. That panel had also recommended that the respondent’s employers, the Nigeria Police, purchase two rare drugs which could cure the respondent’s deafness. The panel further recommended that respondent be assigned to other duties which would not require communication but surprisingly the appellants went on to recommend respondent to the respondent’s employers that the respondent be retired on health grounds, instead of purchasing the drugs which might have cured the respondent’s deafness. In consequence of the respondent’s loss of job, his eight children had to leave school. His request for the payment of compensation having fallen on deaf ears, the respondent brought an action against the appellants claiming N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as damages for negligence. The respondent relied on the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” .
The appellants as defendants filed a joint statement of defence contained at pages 15 and 16 of the record of appeal but led no evidence with respect to same choosing to rest their case on that of the plaintiff now respondent. After addresses of counsel, the learned trial Judge judgment found in favour of the plaintiff (now respondent) and awarded the sum of N300,000.00 damages in favour of the plaintiff or negligence. The plea of “res ipsa loquitur” availed the respondent.
Aggrieved, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal on four grounds from which two issues were distilled i.e the learned trial Judge’s reliance on exhibits “C” and “E” – Medical doctor’s report even when no medical doctor was called as a witness and that court’s conclusion that “res ipsa loquitur” applied to arrive at its judgment. The Court of Appeal resolved issue 1 in the appellant’s favour on the ground that exhibits “C” and “E” were of no evidential value contending that the medical doctor who prepared the reports should as an expert have been called upon to give evidence and invoking the provisions of Section 57 of the Evidence Act to allow the appeal in part for the above stated reason. The Court of Appeal resolved issue 2 in favour of the respondent on the basis that “res ipsa loquitur” was applicable and awarded the sum of N300,000.00 damages for negligence in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellants have yet again appealed to this court. Their notice of appeal dated the 17th July, 2003 at pages 164 – 167 of the record of appeal consists of five grounds of appeal reproduced hereunder devoid of particulars:
Ground One
The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to consider the appeal based on the issues properly formulated by the appellants rather, their Lordships re-arranged the issues on the erroneous grounds that there was no ground 4. And this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Two
The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when having held that the appellants’ issue one succeeded yet in a contradictory manner affirmed the award of N300,000.00 as damages for negligence and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Three
Their Lordships misdirected themselves in law when having found that section 57 of Evidence Act was not complied with by the trial Judge yet their Lordships came to a wrong conclusion that res ipsa loquitur applied in this case.
Ground Four
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they abandoned the appellants amended/additional grounds of appeal and instead relied on the original grounds in determining the appeal and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Five
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they failed to differentiate between the 2nd appellant and the Plateau State Medical Board and wrongly held that it was the 2nd appellant who referred the respondent to Jos University Teaching Hospital and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.” .
This appeal came up to be heard on the 9th October, 2012. E. J. Pwajok, Hon. Attorney General of Plateau state, with him F. B. Lotben (Mrs.) and N. A. Garba (Mrs.), adopted and relied on the appellants’ brief of argument dated l S’” October, 2004 and urged this court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court appeal dated the l7th July, 2003 at pages 164 – 167 of the record of appeal consists of five grounds of appeal reproduced hereunder devoid of particulars:
Ground One
The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to consider the appeal based on the issues properly formulated by the appellants rather, their Lordships re-arranged the issues on the erroneous grounds that there was no ground 4. And this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Two
The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when having held that the appellants’ issue one succeeded yet in a contradictory manner affirmed the award of
N300,000.00 as damages for negligence and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Three
Their Lordships misdirected themselves in law when having found that section 57 of Evidence Act was not complied with by the trial Judge yet their Lordships came to a wrong conclusion that res ipsa loquitur applied in this case.
Ground Four
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they abandoned the appellants amended/additional grounds of appeal and instead relied on the original grounds in determining the appeal and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Five
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to differentiate between the 2nd appellant and the Plateau State Medical Board and wrongly held that it was the 2nd appellant who referred the respondent to Jos University Teaching Hospital and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
This appeal came up to be heard on the 9th October, 2012. E. J. Pwajok, Hon. Attorney General of Plateau state, with him F. B. Lotben (Mrs.) and N. A. Garba (Mrs.), adopted and relied on the appellants’ brief of argument dated l S’” October, 2004 and urged this court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court appeal dated the 17th July, 2003 at pages 164 – 167 of the record of appeal consists of five grounds of appeal reproduced hereunder devoid of particulars:
Ground One
The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they failed to consider the appeal based on the issues properly formulated by the appellants rather, their Lordships re-arranged the issues on the erroneous grounds that there was no ground 4. And this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Two
The Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when
having held that the appellants’ issue one succeeded
yet in a contradictory manner affirmed the award of N300,000.00 as damages for negligence and this
occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Three
Their Lordships misdirected themselves in law when having found that section 57 of Evidence Act was not complied with by the trial Judge yet their Lordships
came to a wrong conclusion that res ipsa loquitur
applied in this case.
Ground Four
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they abandoned the appellants amended/
additional grounds of appeal and instead relied on the
original grounds in determining the appeal and this
occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ground Five
The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in
law when they failed to differentiate between the 2nd
appellant and the Plateau State Medical Board and
wrongly held that it was the 2nd appellant who referred
the respondent to Jos University Teaching Hospital
and this occasioned a miscarriage of justice.” .
This appeal came up to be heard on the 9th October, 2012. E.
J. Pwajok, Hon. Attorney General of Plateau state, with him F. B.
Lotben (Mrs.) and N. A. Garba (Mrs.), adopted and relied on the
appellants’ brief of argument dated IS” October, 2004 and urged this
court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court some drugs administered by the hospital’s personnel? The scenario A
is worse when no attempt is made by the hospital authorities to
explain its own side of the story after promising to do so. The
respondent had stated in his affidavit evidence that the appellants
were negligent. The appellants led no evidence whatsoever of their
own to controvert those facts as stated by the respondent. There is B
a plethora of cases to the effect that uncontroverted facts contained
in an affidavit are taken as true and only minimal proof is required
of such evidence. See Alagbe v. Abimbola (1978) 2 SC 39 at 40;
Cappa and D’ Alberto Ltd. v. Akintilo (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 824) 49
at 71. It will therefore be seen that “res ipsa loquitur” can succeed C
irrespective of the rejection by the Court of Appeal of exhibits “C”
and “E”. Mention should also be made of exhibit “B” – minutes
of the appellants’ Medical Consultants/Specialist’s Report which
established thatthe patient (respondent) had, “a post-febrile deafness
after some injections at Plateau Hospital (2nd appellant)” were I
administered on him, for the treatment of pneumonia on the 22nd
August, 1990. Respondent was recommended for an alternative job
with lesser communications while efforts were made at treatment
to improve his condition. After appellants had recommended him
to Dr. Isichei for further check up, the same appellants wrote to his E
employers – exhibits “D” that he be retired from service. It can
therefore be seen that the duty of care which the appellants had
to the respondent was breached and the appellants were negligent
in the proper management of the health needs of the respondent.
See Oyidiobu v. Okechukwu (1972) 5 SC 191; M.J. Evans v. S.A. F
Bakare (1973) 3 SC 77. Thus even on the basis of the pleadings, the
evidence led by the respondent and lack of same by the appellants
having chickened out of an opportunity to state their own position
by abandoning their statement of defence and leading no evidence
at all and the sheer force of the other exhibits notably “B” and “D”, (
exhibits “C” and “E” having been rejected, the appellants were
properly found liable in negligence and res ipsa loquitur applied
and both the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal properly so
held that res ipsa loquitur applied. Issue 1 is therefore resolved in
favour of the respondent against the appellants.
I shall now proceed with issue 2 which is “whether the re-
arrangement of the issues for determination formulated by the
appellants by the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal based on
the appellants’ original grounds of appeal instead of the amended
grounds of appeal containing an additional ground of appeal
has occasioned any miscarriage of justice on the appellants
necessitating a reversal of the judgment of the Court Appeal.”
It is necessary to state at the outset that a court has an unfettered
discretion to re-arrange or formulate issues for determination by
the parties to meet the justice of the case. See Awojugbagbe Light
Industries Ltd. v. PN. Chinukwe & Anor (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 390)
379, (1995) 4 SCNJ 1; Latunde & Anor v. Bella Lajinfin (1989) 5
SC 59, (1989) 5 SCNJ 59, (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 108) 177; Unity
Bank & Anor v. Edward Bouari (2008) 2 SCM 193 at 240, (Pt.
1086), (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1086) 372. In African International
Bank Ltd. v. Integrated Dimensional System Ltd. & Ors Suit No:
SC 27812002 (unreported, decided on the l l “ May, 2012, now
reported in (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt.1328) 1 the Supreme Court per
Ariwoola J.S.C. said as follows, “So long as it will not lead to
injustice to the opposite side, appellate courts possess the power
and in the interest of justice to reject, modify or reframe any Or all
issues formulated by the parties.” Let me go on to state here that
where there is a complaint that a rearrangement or modification
of issues by a court has occasioned a miscarriage of justice, the
burden lies on the party so complaining to show that there has
indeed been a miscarriage of justice by the new arrangement
or modification. It is not for the court to try to figure out how
the rearrangement or modification of issue has occasioned a
miscarriage of justice.
Learned counsel for the appellants at page 7 of the appellants’
brief of argument referred to page 117 of the record where the
learned Justices of the Court came to this conclusion, “Learned
counsel for the appellants states that issue No.1 flows from grounds
1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal and issue 2 from ground 4. It is my
view that issue No.1 of the appellants does not flow from ground
1 but issue No.2 is from ground 2. There is no ground 4 in the
ground of appeal. No issue has been distilled from ground 3. It
is deemed abandoned. It is therefore struck out.” Appellants then
went on to say in paragraph 2.2 at page 7 of their brief of argument
thus, “The omission is fundamental and contributed to a large extent
in the contradictory judgment of the lower court.” How was the
judgment of the lower court contradictory? Granted that there was
a mix up by the Court of Appeal in the arrangement of issues, its
judgment was in no way contradictory. Appellants have certainly
not shown how. What is of importance is that the Court of Appeal
having agreed with the appellants that the provisions of section 57
of the Evidence Act which deals with the calling of expert evidence J
was not complied with as the doctor who prepared exhibits “C” and
“E” was not called to give evidence rejected the finding of the trial
High Court admitting exhibits “C” and “E”. It was on that basis that
the appeal was allowed in part.
This issue is also resolved in favour of the respondent. On the
whole the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed and the judgment of
the Court of Appeal Jos Division delivered on the 14th July, 2003
is hereby affirmed. Parties are to bear their own costs.
The protracted Traditional Chieftaincy crisis in Elele Kingdom in Ikwerre Local Government Area of Rivers State, which had defied all solutions, including the intervention of Supreme Council of Ikwerre Traditional Rulers, has finally come to an end with the intervention of the indefatigable, vibrant and hardworking Chairman of Ikwerre Local Government Council, Hon. Samuel Nwanosike.
The Mediation of three- year old Chieftaincy Crisis between His Royal Majesty Eze Jonathan Amadi, Nyewe-Ali Okaniali Ni Alimini and Chief Okechukwu Okah and his group took the diligent LGA Chairman and his committee comprising of erudite sons and daughters of Elele kingdom three consecutive days, lasting up to 8pm each day to resolve.
In an interview with journalists who visited the Ikwerre Local Government Council headquarters at Isiokpo, on a fact finding mission to ascertain the veracity of the panel under his watch, the executive Chairman of Ikwerre Local Government Council, Hon Samuel Nwanosike, stated thus: “Power comes from God; as far as we are concerned, peace has returned to Elele, lot of people misconstrued the disagreement between the persons in the traditional institutions in Elele, I didn’t want to go into the matter because it has been resolved, the Chairman, Elele Kingdom Council of Chiefs are here to thank us for the good works.”
The Ikwerre LGA boss noted that he had taken pains to ensure that total peace reigned in Elele and gave all the glory to God.
According to him, “the committee under my watch resolved that all indiscriminate titles according to the publication by His Royal Majesty on Guardian Newspaper of August 27, 2018 should be dropped.
His Royal Majesty affirmed that he conferred Chief Okechukwu Okah, Chief, (Barr) Emma, Chief (Barr) James O. Amadi as Palace Chiefs while Magistrate (Chief) Justice O. Amadi was conferred as Palace Legal Adviser.
Engineer Nwanosike also added that the palace had warned that no one should attach to himself any title not given to him by the Royal Majesty or state government in any form (either through electronic medium or inscribe such titles in their houses or cars), and noted that the position of the law was clear in Rivers State as only the governor has the instrument of the law to recognise or create stools of Royal Highness even as he confirmed that the panel recommended that the Council of Chiefs should perform the traditional recognition of rites and royalties to his Royal Majesty, Eze Jonathan Amadi, Nyenwe-Ali Okani-ali-Ni-Alimini as well as all meetings should be at the palace of the Royal Majesty.
There was no peace in Elele prior to the intervention of the peace and reconciliation committee set up by Hon. Samuel Nwanosike. The rift between Ngwele stool, His Royal Majesty, Eze J.O.G Amadi JP, Nyenwe- Ali Omenele Ni- Alimini and the Council of Elders (Nde Ohna) on one side and Elele Council of Chiefs (Nde Eze) on the other side was palpable.
Consequently, the Ikwerre Council boss formed a peace panel conmprising of few well-meaning sons and daughters of Elele, drawn from communities that make up Elele Kingdom to consider the remote and immediate causes of the misunderstanding.
The peace and reconciliation committee met with the Council of Elders (Nde Ohna) on 20th May,2021 and the council of Chiefs (Nde Eze) on the 6th and 11th of June, 2021 to consider their grievances, and proffer solutions that will bring a lasting peace. The peace committee, having heard all the parties involved, and reached the following findings and resolutions as hereunder stated:
Council of Elders (Nde-Ohna)
That there exist two factions in the council of Elders (Nde-Ohna), one side for his Royal Majesty, Eze J.O.G., Amadi, (JP) Nyenwe-Ali Omenele Ni-Alimini and the other side for Chief Okechukwu Okah.
That some stools in the Council of Elders (Nde Ohna) are in contention
That the problem started when part of Elele Shrine (Igbo Onino) was acquired and compensation paid to the community by the company dualising Elele- Owerri road and some members of Ohna and Chiefs embezzled the money meant for the fencing of the place.
That a shop was erected at the front of the shrine which exposed the secret altar of the gods of the land which made Ohna Lawrence Elechi to insist that the shop must be removed but the custodian of Ngwele stool refused.
That the council of Elders was induced with money to do Chief Okechukwu Okah’s biddings, to which some of them confessed.
That committee observed that the exorbitant charge on the entrants into the Council of Elders (Nde-Ohna) was very worry-some.
B. Resolution
The Council of Elders (Nde-Ohna) should perform the traditional recognition of rites and royalty to HRM Eze J.O.G Amadi, JP (Ogba- ban obiri, ya-ni orikota)
There should be no division between the Royal Majesty and the Council of the Elders (Nde-Ohna)
There should be no sectional or splinter meetings by any member(s) except the meetings that will be held in the palace of His Royal majesty.
All meetings of Nde-Ohna shall henceforth not be held without the express knowledge and approval of His Royal Majesty.
Person(s) that gained entrance into the Ohna Council due to altercations among the leadership of Omenele are therefore advised to withdraw and allow the bona fide members of the ohna to perform their traditional rites. This decision affects Police Inspector Marcus Elechi of Omukerenyi, Samuel Onyekeozu Ilo of Omuoluma and Samuel Umenwo of Omuohua.
His Royal Majesty should please in that vein accept all members of the council of Elders (Nde- Ohna) back to his fold as the tradtion demands.
- Elele Council Of Chiefs (Nde-Eze)
A. Findings:
That there appears to be many grey areas in the title holdings amongst the chiefs in Elele Traditional Council of Chiefs. These different titles had caused a break down in the unity and peace among the members of Elele Council of Chiefs. Such titles as Eze Ali, His Royal Highness, instead of the palace chiefs and palace legal adviser as conferred on Chief Okechukwu Okah, Chief Barr Emma Okah, Chief Barr James Amadi by His Royal Majesty.
That there exist two factions in the Council of Chiefs (Nde-Eze); one side for his Royal Majesty, Eze J.O.G Amadi (JP) Nyenwe-Ali Omenele Ni Alimini and the other side led by Chief Okechukwu Okah.
That the election conducted by Elele Council of Chiefs as approved by His Royal Majesty was Inconclusive due to ties of 10:10 votes on chairmanship position.
That the committee observed that there were unnecessary lobbying by the two contestants.
That there is a matter in Choba Magistrate Court instituted by Chief Okechukwu Okah and Magistrate (Chief) Justice O. Amadi against His Royal Majesty, Elele Council of Chiefs (Nde-Eze) and Elele Council of Elders (Nde-Ohna). Also, a matter in the Isiokpo High Court by His Royal Majesty challenging the Court releifs granted to Chief Okechukwu Okah and Magistrate (Chief) Justice O. Amadi
The committee observed that the exorbitant charges on the entrants into the Council of Chiefs (Nde-Eze) was worrisome.
In view of the above therefore, the committee resolved as follows;
All indiscriminate titles according to the publication by his Royal Majesty on Guardian Newspaper of August 27, 2018 should henceforth be dropped. His Royal Majesty affirms that he only conferred Chief Okechukwu Okah, Chief (Barr) Emma Okah and Chief (Barr) James Amadi as palace Legal adviser and not the acclaimed “Eze Ali, His Royal Highness or His Highness”, of which Chief (Barr) James Amadi confirmed His Royal Majesty’s position as the true title he conferred on them.
The panel warns that no one should attach to himself any title not given by the Royal Majesty or the State Government in any forms (either through Electronics media, inscribe such titles on their houses or cars etc) because the position of the law is clear in the River State Chieftaincy law which is the exclusive stool of Royal Highness or Highness.
Henceforth, Chiefs coronated by His Royal Majesty either as family chief or ceremonial chief are entitled to attend Elele Council of Chiefs meeting as directed by the Royal Majesty. The hosting of meeting by the Chiefs should be done in order of their date of admission into the Council of Chiefs.
Every Chief must be loyal to the Royal Majesty. Any act of insubordination to the Majesty shall attract disciplinary measures. Hence, the Council of Chiefs cannot take decisions on behalf of his Royal Majesty without his consent or approval.
The council of Chiefs (Nde-Eze) should perform the traditional recognition of rites and loyalty to HRM, Eze J.O.G Amadi, (JP) (Ogba-ban obiri, ya-ni orikota)
There should be no division between the Royal Majesty and Council of Chiefs (Nde Eze) any more: any sectional or splinter meetings by any member except the meetings that will be held in the palace of His Royal Majesty.
All parties concerned should withdraw all matters in courts with immediate effect
Due to the unhealthy lobbying, the two contestants were disqualified in the interest of peace, hence election into chairmanship position was conducted and sir (Chief ) Gilbert Ndah, JP emerged as winner and was sworn in immediately.
All other elections conducted to fill other offices in the Elele Council of Chiefs were upheld.
By: Chidi Enyie
Does NBA really understand the difference between an Annual Conference and a regular Seminar/Workshop/Talkshow?
Dear Benchers, silks, Professors seniors and colleagues, please I have a question.The SPIDEL Annual Conference 2021 has come and gone. Question bothering me are, what specific benefits has the conference brought towards improving or promoting the welfare, security and economic advancement of lawyers in Nigeria? How would the outcome of the conference positively impact the lives of lawyers in Nigeria? Of what benefits to the welfare of members of the NBA, are the topics discussed at the conference? How for example has the presence of Bala Mohammed, Rochas Okorocha, Aisha Yesufu, Dino Melaye, Seyi Makinde, etc contributed to solving or will contribute to solving any one or more of the many challenges facing members of the NBA?
Recall that the NBA was set up primarily to: Advance the interest of lawyers in Nigeria; Create opportunities for lawyers to prosper; Promote peace, unity and oneness among the various segments within the profession. Redress any noticed injustice to any segments of the profession; Assist in making legal education and law practice in Nigeria better; Guard jealously all jobs and rights exclusive to lawyers in Nigeria; Make lawyers more relevant and useful to society; etc. Now, in what ways would the papers delivered and the talkshows witnessed at the Ibadan SPIDEL conference 2021 help achieve any one of these and others objectives of the NBA?
Meanwhile, you are not unaware that (1). Majority of Nigerian Lawyers are jobless, and indeed feel frustrated, disenchanted and disappointed as a result. Meanwhile countless untapped/unopened opportunities exist for employment for many lawyers in Nigeria. Nigeria is the only country without legal departments in LGA’S and without lawyers working as full-time Legal officers in the LGA’s. Nigeria is the only country without legal sections or Legal Departments in its police departments and formations. Happily, section 66 (3) NPFEA, 2020 has directed the mandatory posting of Lawyers as fulltime employees to all police Stations in the country. What is the NBA waiting for to liaise with relevant stakeholders to see that this beautiful mandate is implemented without any delays, with a view to creating job opportunities for lawyers in Nigeria as well as improving the human rights conditions and records of the various Police locations across the country in addition to decongesting our courts by controlling and minimising the filing of frivolous criminal charges? Why didn’t the SPIDEL Conference 2020 look at any of these? In Nigeria, over 90 percent of all the MDA’s (Ministries, Departments and Agencies) have no legal departments and no lawyers in their employment as Legal officers. Over 60 percent of all high and higher schools in Nigeria have no legal departments and no lawyers in their employment as legal officers. Beside these, many aspects of the traditional jobs of the Nigerian lawyers are being taken away (stolen) by intruding non lawyers and foreigners. Very soon, unless something drastic is done to stop this ugly trend, lawyers in Nigeria may have only little or no jobs to call their own. Even deeds, land agreements, tenancies are now drafted by non lawyers with impunity. Lest I forget, illiterate land agents charge and are paid much more than Lawyers are paid in conveyancing which is the lawyer’s traditional job space.
I had suggested and expected that the SPIDEL conference should have been devoted to talking about one or more of the many problems that weigh the NBA and Nigerian lawyers down with a view to dispassionately discussing same in a manner that would bring about some positive results that would directly and positively affect members of the NBA. Same suggestions I had made (without success) in 2019 and in 2020.
In summary, what exactly is the benefit of the just concluded SPIDEL conference to the Nigerian lawyer? Which of the countless problems facing the Nigerian lawyers did the SPIDEL conference look at? Do we really understand the difference between an Annual General Conference of a professional association and a mere seminar/webinar or worshop? I used to think that when an association organises a Conference for its members, it is devoted to looking at the various aspects of the internal affairs of the association and the lives of its members with a view to looking at ways of finding solutions to the association’s challenges and also discussing how to move the association and its members forward. I thought that an annual general Conference is akin to an “annual retreat” where only issues directly affecting the organisation/association and its members are focused on. Occasional webinars, seminars and workshops on the other hand may be devoted to discussing issues generally affecting society, in line with the objects of the affected association. In the case of the NBA, all of its Conferences, webinars, seminars and workshops are organised and devoted almost entirely to discussing problems bedevilling other people, with no or little attention paid to the challenges directly facing the NBA and its members. Please, I pray, can the promising Akpata administration, in line with its campaign promises, try to do something different for the Nigerian lawyers and his profession. My own survey shows that majority of Nigerian lawyers are disappointed with succesive NBA Leaderships, and are therefore disenchanted and rapidly loosing interest in the affairs of the NBA. Major reason: the NBA hardly cares about the internal challenges of its own members, but are more concerned about and fighting vigorously about the headaches of other people. Example: I commend NBA’s efforts towards ensuring financial Autonomy for the Judiciaries in Nigeria; I commend the NBA for assisting JUSUN over 90 percent of whose members are not Lawyers. I support financial autonomy for the Judiciary. But, please, don’t you think that if the NBA should apply the same vigour and energy with which NBA fights for JUSUN, towards fighting to (1) create more opportunities for employment for the teeming population of unemployed/jobless lawyers in Nigeria, things would be better for the profession. If the NBA should devote half of such efforts to fighting off worsening encroachments and intrusions by non lawyers into the legal practice Space, lawyers wouldn’t remain the same in Nigeria. Think about this, especially about the difference between a Conference and a seminar or workshop. My friend says NBA Conferences are achieving their Objectives because NBA Conferences are”for networking and closing deals”. Okay, my answer is this: _”are we saying it is not possible to discuss these critical issues directly affecting the organisization and its members (issues that promote our own welfare) and still do the (1) networking, (2) Closing of deals, (3) etc…? Please note that I am not against conferences. I am a lover of conferences. All I am suggesting is that topics discussed at these conferences ought to focus primarily on issues directly affecting the NBA and its members.” Do not forget, the NBA was set up primarily to make lawyers better. When would the NBA come home to start fighting for its members, as the NBA usually fights for other people—non lawyers? When?
I remain yours faithfully.
By: Sylvester Udemezue
Udemezue is a contributor
Honourable Justice George Omereji (rtd) is one judge that needs no introduction in the Rivers State Judiciary where he stood out in the bench like a colossus to dispense justice to all.
Justice Omereji was bold, astute and incorruptible. He was well acquainted with the real nitty-gritty of justice dispensation probably because he had served as a magistrate long before he was appointed a judge of the Rivers State Judiciary.
The legal luminary, who hails from Egbeda in Emohua Local Government Area of Rivers State, exuded an aura of discipline at the bench such that no attorney could go to his court unprepared. He also ensured that lawyers maintained both the dress code and courtroom decorum.
Sir Omereji was always in the news while he served as a judge because of his unwillingness to bend. He asserted himself well and carved out a niche in the annals of judicial officers.
The eminent jurist did not only preside over matters with clinical detachment, he taught lawyers what they ought to do or needed to have done in certain circumstances.
Speaking with The Tide in Port Harcourt on Monday, Blessing Enyie (Esq), noted that Justice Omereji while serving in the bench had established himself as a good judge.
Mr. Enyie, who resides at Elele in Ikwerre Local Government Area of the state, pointed out that the eminent jurist displayed proper judicial temperament, patience, courtesy, open-mindedness and tact as he conducted his trials.
He averred that Justice Omereji expounded the law in a manner that brought peace to parties in a conflict or dispute.
Sir Omereji once remarked at one of his court sessions thus; “When you see parties disobeying the law, it is their lawyers that have encouraged them to do so. According to him, the ordinary person fears the coercive powers of the court.
He was ready to bring to book any person no matter how highly placed who was in breach of the law. Indeed, some lawyers dreaded to appear before Justice Omereji.
However, his insistence on propriety and justice belied his benevolence. The legal luminary is a kind man and has touched many who have come in contact with him.
Justice Omereji, a graduate of the University of Lagos, was revered while in the bench because of his sagacity, boldness and forthrightness. He treaded where others could not. He so much believes in justice.
Throughout his career in the bench, the eminent, jurist had neither exhibited acts of nepotism nor tribalism little wonder then, that he was chosen as the Chairman of the judicial commission of inquiry to investigate RT. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi’ Amaechi’s administration over the sale of valued assets of Rivers State and other related matters.
At inception, Justice Omereji had assured that the commission would work within the law and grant parties fair hearing. He is a stickler to principles and an avid adherent to the rule of law.
As a fearless judge, he took over the trial of the alleged killers of Soboma George, the ex-agitator, when some other judges had declined to conduct the trial.
He concluded the trial, convicted and sentenced the three persons charged with conspiracy and murder of the ex-agitator, Soboma George and Joy John Ejims, a groundnut seller in Port Harcourt more than 10 years ago.
Justice Omereji had ruled that the three accused persons, Dougbra Ogbe, Emmanuel Gladstone, Bere Matthew, should be hanged on their necks till they are dead for conspiring and killing Soboma George and Joy John Ejims at a football field in Nembe Street in Borokiri area of Port Harcourt on the 24th of August, 2010.
Another landmark judgement delivered by the eminent jurist was the award of N10 million damages against the Divisional Police Officer of Eneka Police Division, Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) Yahaya Bello -Sam for the violation of the fundamental human rights of a senior lawyer, Afolabi Olabisi.
He held that the police failed to prove that the lawyer committed any crime before he was detained and pointed out that the action of the police was oppressive.
Omereji described the DPO’s action as a flagrant violation of the law and condemned Olabisi’s detention in the same cell with suspected criminals.
There are a plethora of other judgements in which Justice Omereji awarded damages against the state and Federal Government over violation of individuals’ rights.
During Rt. Hon. Chibuike Rotimi’s administration, he awarded damages against the Rivers State Ministry of Transport for seizure of a truck belonging to a private company.
Justice Omereji is one man who did not mind whose ox was gored, whenever he delivered his judgements so long as justice was served. His lifestyle advocates probity and forthrightness.
He serves justice without fear or favour. He is reputed as one of the boldest judges to have served in the state judiciary. According to him, his mum in blessed memory had taught him how to be bold.
In tribute to his mum, at her funeral on November 7, 2020 Justice Omereji said, “You have taught me that one can only be remembered for what he has done and not by what he has”.
Apart from the fact that his mum had influenced him positively, Justice Omereji is also a devout Christian who believes in leading by example.
His exemplary Christian leadership and contributions to his faith earned him his ordination as a Knight of the Anglican Church.
Interestingly, this belief has helped to make Omereji the diligent and forthright man he is today.
Consequently, when the Rivers State Governor, Chief Nyesom Wike needed an impartial and bold umpire to manage the affairs of Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) he looked for Justice Omereji and appointed him the chairman of the body.
Sir Omereji immediately swung into action with his commissioners, worked diligently and tirelessly to justify the confidence reposed in him by the people of Rivers State.
Indeed, the eminent jurist conducted the last local government elections in the state which has been hailed for being the only election that was neither marred by violence nor death. The RSIEC chairman was recently given an award by Rivers State youths for conducting a free and fair local council election. Justice Omereji who spoke at the award ceremony expressed gratitude to God for enabling him to achieve the feat.
He also thanked the youths for recognising the achievement of the electoral body.
Omereji, who spoke during the award ceremony, stated that the award though given to him could not have been achieved without the contributions of his able lieutenants and dedicated same to the entire electoral body.
A Port Harcourt-based journalist, Mr. Ralph Echefu, who spoke with The Tide in Port Harcourt at the weekend described Justice Omereji as nice team leader, who carried his lieutenants along.
Mr. Echefu, who also featured at the award ceremony, noted that by the chairman’s speech, he was a good manager and team leader.
There is no doubt, however that the retired judicial officers, has often demonstrated his ability to lead each time an opportunity availed itself.
The jurist was at a time, the chairman of all magistrates in the state. He led the organisation well with an avowed commitment and display of uncommon integrity. As a chairman of the magistrates association, he was then a chief magistrate in the state.
Having served creditably as a chief magistrate, Justice Omereji was found worthy to be appointed the Chief Registrar of the state Judiciary.
During his service as a chief registrar, he was instrumental to the rehabilitation of the state judiciary. He worked with former Chief Judge of the state, Hon. Justice Iche Ndu to bring about far reaching changes in the justice system.
Justice Omereji was later elevated to a judge of the Rivers State Judiciary, a position he held until he turned 65 and retired meritoriously on September 24, 2020, after 35 years of service to humanity.
A Port Harcourt based lawyer, Mr. Chijoke Agi, described Justice Omereji (rtd) as one of the most fearless judges ever to have been appointed to the bench in recent times.
Mr Agi, who spoke with The Tide in Port Harcourt at the weekend, remarked that the current RSEIC chairman is a man well suited for leadership given his track record.
According to him, the eminent jurist is a charismatic leader and there are not many like him in the state.
The Port Harcourt lawyer also described Justice Omereji as an epitome of discipline and noted that he would go places because of his transparency and forthrightness.
He noted that many Port Harcourt-based lawyers who appeared at Justice Omereji’s court would no doubt hold the eminent jurist in high esteem because of the manner in which he dispensed justice.
Also speaking, another Port Harcourt-based lawyer, Endurance Akpelu (Esq) described the retired judge as a man of the people and noted that he was always ready to render a helping hand.
Mr. Akpelu pointed out that Justice Omereji was a man of integrity who would always justify the confidence reposed in him.
He said that the retired judge left legacies every where he went and added that he had begun to do same at RSIEC.
“Men like him are hard to find”, Akpelu stated.
Conclusively, Hon. Justice George O. Omereji, is straightforward, incorruptible, astute person as well as a an avid adherent to rule of law. Posterity will continue to reward him for his firm belief in justice for all.
By: Chidi Enyie
