LECTURE DELIVERED TO THE LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION OF NNAMDI AZIKIWE UNIVERSITY, AWKA DURING THEIR 2004 LAW WEEK ON THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2004 BY CHIEF, THE HON.

U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN, THE HON. ATTORNEY – GENERAL / COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE

THE ROLE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN A NASCENT DEMOCRACY

ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS IN NIGERIAN COURTS, WHO IS BLAME WORTHY; THE JUDGES OR…..

I am glad to be here. I always feel immense joy whenever students invite me to the University environment. It always reminds me of my rosy days as a student when the University environment was indeed a heaven to me.

We did not have cults then. But we had clubs. We had the sigmite clubs both beta and alpha. We also had the Scripture Union and the man-o- war bay club. There were no campus violence in those days. We had our normal students demonstrations. We did not however believe in cutting our noses to spite our faces. So we did not destroy university infrastructure. We thought that without them we would not achieve the aim for which we were maintained in the university with incalculable sacrifice on the part of our parents. We adopted the adage that the kid eating akara balls with his pocket money squanders his riches.

I hope the world that I have described is not now a utopia. I pray it is not. I hope you are enjoying yourselves and keeping away from cultism and vandalism. These are tendencies which can only make your hallowed citadel of learning a hell and not a heaven.

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you on the topic “ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS IN NIGERIAN COURTS, WHO IS BLAME WORTHY; THE JUDGES OR…..?” or on the topic “INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY: HOW INDEPENDENT IS THE JUDICIARY IN THE FOURTH REPUBLIC”?. I note that either topic is a sub theme of the major theme of your LAW WEEK which is “THE ROLE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE NASCENT DEMOCRACY”.

I have advised myself to note your assignment carefully so as not to repeat a costly error which I made when I was in secondary school. My English teacher had asked the class to write an essay on the topic “all work and no play makes jack a dull boy – discuss”. I inadvertently discussed the topic “all play and no work makes jack a

1

mere toy.” The teacher ran a red biro across my essay with and endorsement “out of point – 0/10”.

I have therefore chosen to discuss your first option. I fear however that by the time I finish, I shall have strayed into your second option. Let me make myself clearer – I believe that the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria makes ample and adequate provisions to ensure that the Judiciary is independent. Any dependence therefore there may be is a failure of intellectual and moral courage and strength on the part of any particular Judge. When such a failure occurs, I consider it an aspect of abuse of the legal process by the particular Judge. Please note that I have not said that the 1999 Constitution contains an ironclad recipe for total judicial independence. I only intend to stress that no Judge in his right mind should abuse his office or belittle it or allow it to be scandalized and hope to take refuge behind any short fall there may be in the constitutional provisions as they are.

Judges are revered and respected and indeed envied for the stature and status they have attained in the society. They may have some genuine complaints about their welfare and conditions of work. All I am saying is that they must not, out of moral weakness or lack of intellectual power fail in their duty and hope to place the blame elsewhere. But there I go again, divagating!

ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS

As usual, I should start by defining my terms. You do not expect me to define the “Nigerian Court” to you or to define “a Judge” to you. I also think you know the meaning of the word “blame worthy”.

So, I will define abuse of the legal process to you, as any act or omission on the part of an advocate, a Judge or a litigant or the three of them which tends to cast a doubt on the integrity of the judicial process or to render it ridiculous or a charade. The term abuse of the legal process is used interchangeably with the term abuse of the judicial process. I have just given you my personal definition. But as you well know, the legal profession is perhaps the only profession in which marks are lost by the assertion of an original but personal opinion and won by showing that one’s best opinion had been thought of and expressed by someone else before. I must therefore not leave you with my rather wooly personal definition.

In AMAEFULE & ORS. VS. THE STATE (1988) 4 SCNJ 69 at 87. Oputa JSC (as he then was) defined abuse of process in this way:

2

”Abuse of process of the Court is a term generally applied to a proceeding which is wanting in bona fides and is frivolous vexatious and oppressive. Abuse of process can also mean abuse of legal procedure or improper use of the legal process.

I hope this definition makes it clear to you. If as usual you find that it poses an even greater conundrum as most definitions invariable do, then let us try again.

In DIELI & ORS. VS. IWUNO & ORS. (1996) 4 SCNJ 58 at 64, Ogundare JSC of blessed memory adopted the earlier views of Karibi – Whyte JSC (as he then was), expressed in SARAKI VS. KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR 156, and, approving the statement of the law by the Court of Appeal in SARAKI VS. KOTOYE (1991) 8 NWLR 638 to the effect that:

”The Courts process could be said to be abused where there is no iota of law supporting it. In other words, the Courts process is premised or founded on frivolity or recklessness”

Having mentioned the Saraki case repeatedly, perhaps we may as well take a closer look at it, as it is reported in (1992) 11 / 12 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 26. I recommend that you read this decision critically. For my purpose, I refer to the statement of Keribi – Whyte JSC at pages 48 and 49 of the report, where the eminent law lord stated the law succinctly thus:

“It is recognized that the abuse of process may lie in both a proper or improper use of the judicial process in litigation. But the employment of a judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues. See OKORODUDU VS. OKOROMADU (1977) 3 SC 21, OYEBOLA VS. ESO WEST AFRICA INC. (1966) 1 All NLR 170. Thus the multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to bring the action is regarded as an abuse. The abuse lies in the multiplicity and manner of the exercise of the right rather than the exercise of the right per se. The abuse consists in the intention, purpose and aim of the person exercising the right, to harass, irritate and annoy the adversary and interfere with the administration of justice….Essentially, it is the inconvenience, inequities involved in the aims and purposes of the application which constitute the abuse. Otherwise, where there is a right to

3

bring an action, the state of mind of the person exercising the right cannot affect the validity or propriety of its exercise”.

I hope the entire definition exercise has not now broken down and become quite confusing!

SPECIES OF ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS

Let me assume that we now know what we mean by abuse of process of Court. We have also seen that one of the species of the vice is the commencement of multiple suits or proceedings with the aim, purpose or intention to harass, irritate or annoy an opponent in a manner that interferes with the administration of justice. We have also seen that another specie of abuse of process of Court is when proceedings are commenced where there is no iota of law supporting it and where proceedings are premised or founded on frivolity or recklessness. We shall now examine some instances when the Courts have held that an abuse of process had occurred.

In OKORODUDU VS. OKOROMADU (1977) 3 SC 21, the Plaintiff commenced a Suit founded on land dispute. After pleadings had been exchanged by both sides and evidence had been laid, the Plaintiff discovered that his case would fail and be dismissed, due to some defect in his case which he could not be permitted to remedy by amendment under the rules governing amendment of pleadings. The Plaintiff knew that he was between the rock and the hard place. If he withdrew the suit at that stage, the Court might under the rules of Court, make an Order dismissing it. The Plaintiff then commenced another suit. The Defendant objected on the ground that the commencement of the second suit while the first suit was pending was an abuse of the process of Court. The Supreme Court agreed and then made an Order staying the second suit pending the determination of the first suit.

Clearly, the Supreme Court in taking this rather hard and harsh line against the Plaintiff took the view that by commencing the second suit, the Plaintiff was acting in bad faith and in abuse of judicial process.

It is significant that the Supreme Court did not give the Plaintiff an option to elect which of the two suits to pursue. Naturally, from the circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court, taking into account the inconvenience and inequities involved in the aim and purpose for the commencement of the second suit denied to the Plaintiff a right of election.

But, in KING REN SHIPPING & TRADING CO LTD VS. AMATEMESO SHIPPING AGENCES LTD (1979) 1 FNR 182, the Court of Appeal cited the Supreme Court practice (1979) edition Vol. II paragraph 3364 as authority for the

4

proposition that it is not wrong in law to start two actions or proceedings for the same matter in two Courts at the same time. The only remedy when such happens is to ask for stay of one of them. And in TORIOLA VS. WILLIAMS (1982) (Part 1) Vol. 1 All NLR 177, the Supreme Court had held that a litigant has a right to elect to prosecute any of his suits pending in Court and stay the others.

The instances so far discussed are not the only instances of abuse of judicial process. In JOSIAH CORNELIUS LTD & ORS. VS. CHIEF CORNELIUS OKEKE EZENWA (1996) 4 SCNJ 124, after the Court of trial had entered judgment in the Suit, one of the parties spotted an error in the judgment and applied to the Court for rectification of the error. He then at the same time appealed based on the same error. Ogundare JSC of blessed memory in delivering the lead judgment of the Supreme Court stressed that by maintaining that appeal against the decision, simultaneously with his application for rectification he was grossly in abuse of the process of the Court.

On the part of the Legal Practitioner, any conduct in relation to pending proceedings which runs contrary to the Legal Practitioner’s duty under the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession particularly rule 24 is an abuse of judicial process. Because of its significance and import, I will reproduce rule 24 for you.

“Lawyers are in duty bond to uphold the law, and no service or advice ought to be rendered or given by them to clients, corporate or individual, of any description or to any cause whatever involving disloyalty to the law or bringing disrespect upon the holder of any judicial office or involving corruption of holders of any public office. Improper service or advice in such circumstances as aforesaid are unethical and merits strong condemnation as unprofessional conduct. On the other hand, service or advice rendered or given which impresses clients with the fact that the service or advice not only accords with the letter of the law but embraces moral principle cannot be too highly commended. He must also observe and advise his client to observe the statute law, save that until a statute has been construed and interpreted by competent adjudication, he is free and is entitled to advise as to its validity and as to what he conscientiously believes to be its just meaning and extent. Above all, a lawyer finds his highest honour in a deserved reputation for fidelity to private trust and to public duty, as an honest man and as patriotic and loyal citizen.

On the part of the Judge, any conduct in relation to pending proceedings which runs contrary to the provisions of the code of conduct for judicial officers

5

particularly rule 1(1) and rule 2 (1), (4) and (6) is a specie of abuse of judicial process. I shall reproduce the relevant rules for you.

Rule 1(1)

“A Judicial Officer should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities.

(1). A judicial Officer should respect and comply with the laws of the land and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

RULE 2

1. A judicial Officer should be true and faithful to the Constitution and the law uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and the law and should acquire and maintain professional competence.

4. A Judicial Officer should be patient, dignified and courteous to accused persons and litigants assessors, witnesses, legal practitioners and all others with whom he has to deal in his official capacity and should demand similar conduct of legal practitioners; his staff and others under his direction and control.

6. A Judicial Officer should promptly dispose of the business of Court. In order to achieve this, the Judicial Officer is required to devote adequate time to his duties, to be punctual in attending Court and expeditious in bringing to a conclusion and determining matters under submission. Unless ill or unable, for good reason, to come to Court a Judicial Officer must appear regularly for work, avoid tardiness, and maintain official hours of the Court.

WHO IS TO BLAME; THE JUDGE OR…………

There is this joke about a gambling trio of the Imam, the Rabbi and the Priest. As they were rolling the dice, a Policeman arrived and made the motion to arrest them in the name of the State. The Imam asked what the offence was. The Policeman said “gambling”. The Imam swore by the Almighty Allah that gambling is a sin which in his wildest dream he could never permit himself to partake of. The Policeman turned to the Priest and said “now Priest, you were gambling”. The Priest swore a mighty Episcopal oath, protesting the outrage to his faith. The Policeman then turns to the Rabbi and said, “now Rabbi tell me the truth, three of

6

you were gambling”. The Rabbi said “well officer you have heard the other two. If you believe them, with whom was I gambling”?

The lesson is that whether the lawyer accepts it or whether the Judge accepts it, every abuse of due process represents either a moral failure or an intellectual failure of both the lawyer and the Judge and any litigant seeking to pervert justice. The lawyer and the Judge are officers in the temple of justice and any act or omission which tends to scandalize the temple must be blamed on both. The litigant seeking to pervert justice may be the snake offering the forbidden fruit, but the Judge and the lawyer will be sinners if they succumb to that bait.

The Judge has an inherent duty and power to protect the integrity of the process of his Court and fails in his duty when he fails to take appropriate steps to do so. In JOSIAH CORNELIUS LTD & ORS. VS. CHIEF CORNELIUS OKEKE EZENWA (supra), the Supreme Court at page 140 of the report said:

“It is trite law that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to protect itself from abuse or to see that its process was not abused….without reasonable grounds so as to be vexatious and harassing”.

In IPADEOLA VS. OSHOWOLE (1987) 5 SCNJ 200, the Supreme Court again chided the lower courts not to allow ingenuity of Counsel to derail justice. In ARJAY LTD VS. AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT LTD (2003) 2 SCNJ 148 at 171, the Supreme Court warned that a Court should not grant by Interlocutory Injunction what it is precluded by law from granting as a final Order in the suit.

I make the proposition therefore that a Judge who permits the proceedings before him to be abused or scandalized due to moral weakness or professional incompetence has no alibi to plead.

On the part of the Legal Practitioner it is his duty not to mislead the Court or to commence proceedings when there is no iota of law supporting the process and when the process is premised on or founded on frivolity or recklessness. It is also the responsibility of counsel to protest an abuse of due process by the Judge. The moment a Court ceases to do justice in accordance with the law and procedures laid down for it, it ceases to be a regular Court and becomes a kangaroo Court. See Per Aniagolu JSC in EDUN VS. ODAN COMMITTEE & ORS., in re CHIEF YAKUBU DAWODU THE OLOJO OF OJO (1980) 8 – 11 SC 103 at 127.

The Legal Practitioner as an advocate must therefore pay heed to the rules of ethics which require him never to show marked attention or unusual hospitality to

7

a Judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, he must therefore avoid anything calculated to gain or having the appearance of gaining special personal consideration or favour from a Judge (rule 2).

And during the trial, the lawyer should always display a dignified and respectful attitude towards the Judge presiding not for the sake of his person but for maintenance of respect and confidence in the judicial office. It is therefore both the right and the duty of the lawyer, fully and properly to present his client’s case and to insist on an opportunity to do so. He should vigorously present all proper arguments against any ruling he deems erroneous and should see to it that a complete and accurate case record is made. In this regard, he should not be deterred by any fear of judicial displeasure or even punishment.

It must be emphasized at this point that fair hearing must include giving to a party or a Legal Practitioner of his choice the opportunity to present his case before an impartial Court in an atmosphere free from fear and intimidation. See OKODUWA VS. THE STATE (1988) 2 NWLR (part 76) page 333.

Furthermore, a Judge will not adopt a method of adjudication alien to procedural rules of justice upon a plea that he is actuated by the noblest and most impressionistic zeal for justice which propels him into bizarre method of arriving at that justice holding as it were as a justifying Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means. A. T. BAKARA VS. T. S. APENA & ORS. (1986) 4 NWLR (part 33) page 1 at 20.

If therefore, counsel either by collusion with the Judge or acting on his own motive or through acts of omission permits the Court to make unwarranted Orders he has no alibi to plead upon a charge of abuse of process.

CONCLUSION

I hope I have not bored you too much. I also hope I have kept to the point. I thank you for listening to me. Let me leave you with the summary of all I have tried to say to you:

The judiciary will never be truly independent no matter what Constitution we have in this country unless and until the Judges and the lawyers decide to shun all sycophancy and display the moral and intellectual power and discipline required to avoid all acts of commission or omission which tend towards abuse of judicial process.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.

8

Attorney – General / Commissioner for JusticeAnambra State.

TEXT OF A TALK DELIVERED TO ORAIFITE STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA ON THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2004 BY CHIEF, THE HON. U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN., HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL / COMMISSIONER

FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE

TAKING THE STEP OF FATE

I am delighted to be here in your midst as you launch your maiden magazine, The Cursor. I am also honored and very grateful that you have demanded that I give you a talk at this occasion.

I am guided by the exact words of your demand and I am talking straight to you as a class. What I have to say therefore, relates to your class even though I may, along the line, make cursory allusions to contemporary events. Whenever I delve into such contemporary events, it is only for the purpose of enabling me to focus, like the cursor, on your place as a class in those events.

You had earlier by your letter of 8th October 2004, requested me to submit to you an article, a message or a story for publication in The Cursor. I obliged you with a short message. I now wish to elaborate on the theme and pith of that short message.

THE THEMENo community can hope to develop its culture and values without a corps of vibrant and dynamic intelligentsia. Let me try to rephrase this statement. The civilization of any community has a direct relationship with the existence of a vibrant and dynamic intelligentsia within it.

This is the theme of my talk and therefore I must guard it against any adulteration. I do not mean that a community must be made up of only the intelligentsia. I recognize that the culture and civilization of a people is the totality of the ways of the people. The people include the sane, the insane, those on the lunatic fringe, the wise, the not-so-wise, the foolish, the rich, the not-so-rich, the poor, and all others. What I am trying to say is that if the development of the culture and civilization of any community such as Oraifite, Anambra State, or Nigeria must grow in a healthy progression, a vibrant and dynamic intelligentsia is inevitable as a constituent of such a community.

9

Who then make up the intelligentsia? I take my bearing from BBC English Dictionary, which states that the intelligentsia in a community are the most educated people in it. The Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines intelligentsia as class of intellectuals regarded as possessing culture and political initiative. The BBC English Dictionary illustrates with a sentence: Class structure in society is changing in favor of the technical and creative intelligentsia. This is self-evident truth.

You will now begin to see the direct relationship between you and your magazine, The Cursor. You are acquiring the means to join the class of the intelligentsia in Nigeria, and in Oraifite. You are therefore the cursors pointing the way to the future greatness of our country and our town. You make a statement to your less privileged contemporaries that education is the key and therefore that you have the key to unlock the door of socio-economic backwardness and intellectual dependence in order to advance Oraifite community and the larger Nigerian community into a future of socio-economic emancipation, intellectual independence and technological sufficiency.

The task before you is as daunting as the pleasure of attainment to this class is profound. What do you do to distill the best from your opportunity? I do not have all the answers. I will only try, as an old and time-worn cursor, to offer you a few markers.

HARD ROAD TO TRAVEL

I do not want to give you the impression that acquiring the status of an intelligentsia entitles you to lie on a bed of roses with no further effort. I am not a pessimist but I need to tell you that you are living in a tough time in the history of Nigeria. Your economy is in tatters. Your political experience is most pre-modal. You have a President who believes that politics and political campaigns equate to banditry and that amongst politicians, the ethics is not to be found in the rule of law, the precepts in the Constitution or the quintessential teachings in the bible but in the ignoble codes sworn to by bandits. You are therefore about to be launched into the life of self sustenance under circumstances most bizarre and unfavourable. My advice is that you must decide your fate by analyzing your options with consummate care. Set only reasonable objectives for yourself so that you can achieve reasonable success and avoid the frustration which follows unreasonable objectives. Set attainable short, medium and long term development plans for yourself and work diligently to accomplish them on schedule. Look at your environment. Weigh your options within the context of the social and political realities around you. No matter how bad the times, some must succeed. Be one of this select few.

10

STAY FOCUSED

You must stay focused. Someone said that the world is a stage and all the men are mere actors. In real life, one may be lucky if one is endowed and privileged to play and excel at more than one part. Few people excel at playing many parts. Most people achieve fame and immortality by excelling in the one part which they had played exceedingly well. The jack of all trades is a rare person. The time-tested axiom is that one should aspire to be the best of whatever one is. To be the best may not be attainable but it is a goal worth pursuing.

Fransisco Slinger (a.k.a the Mighty Sparrow), is a great musician. His genre of excellence and fame is the calypso. During the Festival of Acts and Culture, 1977 he visited Nigeria and was interviewed by pressmen who acknowledged him as the king of calypso music but wanted to know why he wasn’t into reggae music like Robert Nestor Marley (a.k.a Bob Marley). He replied “I am happy to be king of calypso music. Others should be king of other things.” Then turning to the interviewer and pointing at him, he added: “You be the king of reggae!”

The lesson is that you should cut for yourself an area of relevance in which to excel. Work hard at it and be patient. Let time and posterity be the judge. If you fail in your chosen field, so be it. You are not likely to make a success of another persons chosen field. Let doctors be doctors, let teachers be teachers, let lawyers be lawyers, let musicians be musicians, let businessmen do business, let politicians play politics, let the clergy preach the gospel, each excelling in his field and each competing with his peers. By so doing you will be effective, vibrant, and dynamic asset to the community.

DROP YOUR ANCHOR WISELY

I need to explain that one need not be a Doctor merely because one studied medicine or an advocate merely because one studied law. Choose that enterprise at which you derive joy and satisfaction. There is no enterprise that education cannot enrich. Your education therefore merely gives you an edge and it is for you to exploit this edge by choosing that activity which permits you to enjoy yourself while earning a living. You know of many Doctors who have been excellent politicians. You also know of many Lawyers who have distinguished themselves as musicians. Some of the best Pentecostal preachers that I know majored in medicine or law or engineering. The message is that those who decide to make a living from a particular profession must be those who are not only cut out for that profession but derive full job satisfaction from practicing that profession. It is in this sense that I say let doctors be doctors.

11

BE CONTENTED

Having found your niche, be contented with your own achievement and input. Accept the reward peculiar to your calling. All professions do not reward equally in monetary terms, but money is not everything. Some non-monetary rewards are even more lasting and memorable in the social hall of fame. It is futile to measure your achievements in terms of how many buildings you have or how many wives or children you have. You do not need chieftaincy title or church knighthood. Measure your relevance and your achievement in terms of how well you have performed in your elective field. You have role models to look up to in this regard. Remember Chris Efobi, Arch. Ifejika, Mrs. Janet Mokelu, Engr. Joseph Ugochukwu, Engr. Godson Nwachukwu. The list stretches far into history. May the souls of these great sons of Oraifite remain in the presence of God and may they rest in eternal peace.

I think of Prof. Chiedu Nwokolo, Prof. Wilson Onuigbo, Dr. Uchenna Nwokolo, Hon. Justice Obiora Nwazota, Hon. Justice Patrick Amaizu, Hon. Justice C. I. Nzeako, Lady Mary Okobi, E. Nwachukwu Egbochukwu, Commissioner of Police, Prof. G. Nsofor, Prof. A. I. Onuchukwu, Prof. Okwudiba Nnoli, Engr. R. C. Nnoli, Engr. Emeka Okwuosa, Engr. Chris Anameje, Engr. Ephraim Ifesie, Engr. Cyprain Nwachukwu, Prof. B. Igwilo, Dr. Iwuchukwu Udechuwku, Hon. H. C. Nsofor, Engr. Ernest Ndukwe. The list stretches for miles of paper!

Indeed, Oraifite is famous for producing academic giants and intellectual Lords of eminence and respect. They are in the academia as professors, in business as moguls, and as giants of technology. They are also in law as Senior Advocates of Nigeria. They are in medicine, mathematics, physics, you name it. Wherever they are, they define the reference point for excellence. So, ladies and gentlemen, go for it. Welcome to the class of the intelligentsia. Take both your destinies and the destiny of this town in your hands and guide both to a glorious future. Go on and restore the dignity of man.

BE HUMBLE

Be humble about it. There is this proverb which says that being strong is like being a lady. If you have to proclaim that you are, then the chances are you aren’t. Put another way, empty vessels make the loudest noise. Work diligently and quietly. Avoid being disruptive or loud. Do not interfere in other people’s areas of expertise or relevance. Remember always that wisdom is not synonymous with academic attainment. Therefore, let both the urban and the rural dweller have a say, for even the wise have something to learn from the foolish. The society will run more smoothly if the intelligentsia comports itself with dignity and

12

understands the foibles and limitations of the uneducated especially when the latter is endowed with material riches. The understanding makes the rich and the educated to work together to produce a dynamic society. There should be no comparison of status or competition for space on the grand stand. In fact, the intelligentsia has no use for the grand stand and must not covet it. You have been endowed with the best. Go to work and leave the crumbs.

BE PATRIOTIC

Give your best in service to your nation and to your town, Oraifite. Eschew corrupt practices and tendencies. Do not be petty or sectional in your analysis of issues concerning the community. Avoid perfidy and nepotism. Appreciate that the one part can never stand when the whole falls. Lend a hand and be the pillar that keeps your country and your community firm. At the same time, demand the best from your country. Task the rulers to do justice and respect the rule of law. Be alive to the politics of your country and contribute positively to the debates for nation building. Evil triumphs only when men keep quiet in the face of evil. Therefore, demand your right from your country and compel the leaders by your voice and with your votes to realize and accept that politics and electioneering campaigns do not equate to banditry. Defend your constitutional rights through constitutional means and refuse to be subverted by the rich or powerful, thereby selling your franchise and birthright. Anambra State is your own state. Be alive and aware of how it is governed and speak out in condemnation of all acts of brigandage and political thuggery in the state. Write constantly to your representatives at the senate or the House of Assembly to express your feelings on national events so as to guide them as they vote.

BE A WORTHY ROLE MODEL

Strive to replenish the class. Intellectual drift from the rank of intelligentsia to the rank of the consumer class in society is a misfortune to any community. Chieftaincy tittles, knighthood, and other social indicia of arrival or importance belong to the consumer class. The intelligentsia must do well to concentrate on the arduous task of community building and development. If in the course of his work, these ephemeral teasers, often in recognition of pseudo achievements are dangled at him in recognition of his empirical and verifiable contributions and not as an article of trade, he may accept the honor with dignity. Be a proper role model so that the up and coming generation would see through the glitterati of the novo riche and the vanity of it all. Show the light so that the youths would see the difference between intellectual advancement and belly economics.

That is why you are the cursor. Go now and be the bench mark for the measurement of our social advancement. Pursue you affairs with singleness of

13

mind and strive to entrench yourself in your field of endeavor. Maybe in another twenty years or even less you will be playing the role, which you have now assigned to me on demand.

Thank you again for inviting me to speak to you. I hope you had a merry Christmas. I wish you a happy New Year in advance.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.

THE LAW AND THE SOCIETY-THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS BEING A SPEECH DELIVERED BY U. N. UDECHUKWU, KSC, SAN, HON.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE TO MEMBERS OF THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AWKA BRANCH DURING THE ANNUAL

BAR WEEK ON THE 12 TH OF DECEMBER, 2005

PREAMBLE

If this speech had been a lecture for a law workshop or for the benefit of university students, the text that follows would be much different. Different in the sense that it would be longer and also different in the sense that it would be more profound and detailed in content and scope.

This being the lawyers’ end of year event, I have cautioned myself not to bore you by repeating things which you know or ought reasonably to know as much as I do or even better. I shall take the liberty to assume certain basic parameters. I will assume, for instance, that your grasp of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence is still very good. I will also assume that I need not bother you with the usual conundrum of technical explanation of key terms of art such as “a law” or “the law” or “ laws”. I hope you remember that these are terms of art in the legal profession, with different meanings.

I have also reminded myself of what Alan Darshawitz1 said about the legal profession. He said that the legal profession is probably the only profession in which marks are lost for originality, but won by showing that ones best ideas had been thought of and expressed by someone else before him. I shall therefore borrow a lot from the views of others so as to sound convincing.

I start with My Lord Hon. Justice D.O.C. Amaechina2 to whom I owe my understanding that there are two literary styles. There is, according to him, the robust style, which is lively, animated and inspiring. There is also the ponderous style, which is cumbersome, laborious and dull. I hope by the time I resume my seat, you would all still be awake and not asleep.

14

Let me enter a caveat please. In this paper, I take a global view. I do not address any particular individual or group of persons. I speak always in the abstract with no intention to paint a literary picture of any demon or angel.

THE LAWI promised not to bore you with textbook semantics of definitions of key terms. I feel entitled to assume that you understand the meaning and definition of “the law”, “the society”, and “rights” in relation to “ the individual”. Well, I am not so sure that I understand these terms precisely myself. To guide me, and to help me focus on the subject matter, I shall rely on some straightforward definitions, which can be found in any standard dictionary of the English language. I shall also borrow from certain classical definitions which I have found attractive.

Again, I assume that you remember that most English words have more than one meaning, at least from the academic or semantic standpoint. The law is not an exception. It can, and is usually defined from given perspectives. In a broad sense, it may be defined as the regime that orders human activities and relations through systematic application of the force of politically organized society or through social pressure backed by the force in such a society3.

In this broad sense, the law in a given society, is the aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents and acceptable legal principles or the body of authoritative grounds of judicial and administrative action. It is the body of rules, standards and principles that the Courts of a particular jurisdiction apply in deciding controversies brought before them4.

There are some narrower or specialized classifications however. For instance, law can mean the set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system. For example law of the seas, insurance law, contract law, tort’s law etc5. We shall not be concerned with this narrow perspective in this paper.

I make another assumption-that we all understand that “law” and “society”, are two sides of a coin. They are inter-dependent in the sense that the law cannot operate without a society while a society cannot exist without laws. In a few words therefore, we can say that law means the body of rules established by authority or custom, regulating the behaviour of members of a society be it a primordial community or an organized nation state.

Within a given society, there are certain laws which are believed to be divinely ordained. They are called natural laws by scientists in the sense that they are rooted in nature. These are usually assumed to be immutable laws subject to strict cause and effect relationship, so fixed, as to be supposedly inexorable, for example the law of gravity, the law of averages, the physical laws. The Buddhists and believers in Hinduism may also include the Law of Karma. When these laws are broken, nature

15

exerts punishment without mercy. For instance, he who plays with fire knows that fire burns and would burn without sentiments, in accordance with the law of averages. And he who pays no heed to the warning about AIDS must know that AIDS has no cure and according to the law of averages, once contacted, it would kill.

There are also other classification of law, which is subsumed within the belief in God and the divine. This class of laws is based on the principle that God is good and that man, made in God’s likeness must share God’s attributes of goodness. The laws are founded in morals, mores, norms, customs and traditions of a given society. These are not strictly laws enforceable by sanction or by some punishment backed by force. They are laws in the sense that the given society draws a distinction between right and wrong, do’s and don’ts, correctness and taboos. Most of the time, the only punishment which the society exerts for breach is the shrug or sigh of disapproval or the laconic comment, “oburo ome nani” or as the English would say “it’s not done”. At times, the society leaves punishment for breach of these societal laws in the hands of God believing that God on the day of judgment, whether in futuro or instanta, would met out appropriate punishment.

THE ESSENCE OF LAW

The need for law arises from the imperative of an ordered society. It has been said that the codes of conduct which are at the bases of civilized societies have emerged often painfully from eras in which private disputes were resolved by the use of physical violence. It has also been articulated that in the absence of accepted codes of procedure relating to the settling of disputes by arbitration and other forms of adjudication, there would exist the possibility of a return to the private warfare, which was widespread in the lawless eras of human experience.

Those who belong to the anarchist school of thought reject all formal law and legal institutions. They say that law fetters men’s creative abilities and enslave mankind. The anarchist conceives a society in which all the mutual relations of its members are regulated not by laws, and not by authorities be they self-imposed or elected but by mutual agreements between the members of that society and by a sum of social customs and habits, not petrified by law, routine or superstition but continually developing and continually readjusting in accordance with the ever growing requirements of a free life stimulated by the progress of science, invention and the steady growth of higher ideals.

Apart from the inherent contradiction in this premise or proposition, there appears to be no record of experience of a society based on anarchic doctrine. It is not possible to give an empirical and accurate assessment of the anarchist’s utopia of a lawlessness society. There is however ample evidence from history suggesting that the absence of law does not remain for long, unaccompanied by violence, chaos and the plunder of the weak by the strong.

16

It is not surprising that modern nation states as well as the integral societies that make them up, organize themselves within the doctrine of separation of powers and the rule of law as the basis for enduring stability in the society.

SOCIETY AND LAW

Society connotes a community of people particularly those living in a polity. We are concerned for the time being and in this context with a society constituted as a polity, in the sense of a society as a politically organized State.

For this purpose, we perceive the law as a set of rules imposed and enforced by a society with regard to the attribution and exercise of power over persons and things within the polity6.

We shall contemplate a collective term for the rules of conduct for a people living in a legal order who expect for the system to be effective, that the rules are to be followed7.

For our purpose, the most convenient definition of the law is that offered by Goodheart who defined the law as those rules of conduct on which the existence of a society is based, and violation of which tends to invalidate its existence.

In a polity organized as a nation state and a democracy under a written Constitution, and the rule of law, any act whether by the organs of Government or by the citizen which tends to override the Constitution or the law or laws, invariably invalidates the existence of the polity unless the appropriate sanction is enforced as a remedy. In a democratic setup like ours, obedience to the Constitution is paramount and imperative since all key office holders under the Constitution are made to take oath of office which enjoin us to observe, protect and defend the Constitution8.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is right, and we so believe, that the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath. This means that the law is made for man and not man for the law. There is an Igbo equivalent to what Jesus Christ said- It is the people that assigned Nkwo market to Edo, if Eke market had been assigned to it instead, it would not have protested. The society makes the laws for the good order of the society and every violation of the law which goes without sanction, tends to invalidate the existence of the society. Every act of impunity or arbitrariness within the polity which is permitted to endure without sanction or redress, throws the law into a state of uncertainty and without certainty, the law yields place to anarchy or chaos, thereby

17

invalidating the very articles of faith and the social contract which formed the basis of the existence of the polity.

Subversion of the law and invalidation of the existence of the society can come in various ways. The list cannot be exhausted within the time available. We shall however discuss a few such violations which tend to vitiate or violate the common will, essence and existence of the polity and tend to render the law prostrate and toothless except as a weapon for the oppression of the weak by the strong. These negating vices include:-

(a). Electoral malpractice(b). Executive delinquency(c). Legislative dereliction(d). Judicial rascality(e). Civic impunity

ELECTORAL MALPRACTICE

Electoral malpractices are offences contra bonos mores. The most pernicious specie of this vice is the subversion of the will of the electorate through State sponsored political disenfranchisement of the electorate. In a permissive society, this State sponsored political disenfranchisement of the polity may be clothed in the rather despicable euphemism, “godfatherism”.

The manifestation of this devil in any given polity is epitomized by Executive take over of the political will of the society. The Executive then bestows overwhelming political power, as patronage on certain barons or lords of his manor whose business it becomes to ensure that at any election, the concept of universal adult suffrage is rendered a ruse. The voters may turn out in their numbers at the polling stations. They may vote as their wills dictate but the “godfather” would get the verdict for whomever he wants, and who in turn holds his public office not as a mandate from the people but as a stooge of a political jobber who fronts for the Chief Executive.

Hon. Justice Emmanuel Joel Igoniwari, the Chief Judge of Bayelsa State was published as saying that, “in the course of his duties as a Judge, serving in various election petitions tribunals, across the country, between 1999 and 2003, there was no election that could be described as ‘free, fair and democratic’. According to him, in some cases the results of the elections were known and fully documented several days before the voting. He concluded that “it is therefore not an exaggeration to say that many elective office holders were not voted for and are holding office by their personal mandate, not the mandate of the electorate”9.

Other species of electoral malpractice pale into minor devils in comparison with this basic and awesome monster devil. Unless the practice of State sponsored disenfranchisement of the voting polity is erased from the psyche of those in power

18

for the time being in any given polity, the exercise of periodic mimicry of general elections will remain nothing but proof of the invalidation of the existence of the polity as a state. The people will continue to be dumb to their fate, their voices stolen by their leaders for personal and private interests. Asked whether the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Bello Masari is still smarting under executive threat to his political fortune, Hon. Uche Onyeagocha, Honourable Member of the House answered as follows:

“I would not think that he is still threatened, as long as Masari ensures that the welfare of members of the House is paramount in all his decisions. As long as he does not trample on the rights and privileges of members of the House, then definitely he would not be threatened10”.

This is the bane of electoral malpractices. It throws up a leadership class made up of fakers who did not win election through the vote of the electorate and who owe no loyalty to the people. “Leaders”, whose only reason for being in office is to take care of their welfare, rights and privileges. For a leadership such as this, attainment of political power, riding on the back of a State sponsored political jobber is more expedient than the honour and pride of true statesmanship derived from contesting and winning or losing in a free and fair election.

For such a leadership, the spoils and perquisites of office even if ill-gotten is to be more coveted than pursuit of the long term good of the society as a State.

EXECUTIVE DELINQUENCY

The Chief Executive in any given government ought to be the political custos morum of the State. His charge ought to be circumspecte agatis. This ideal is defeated, whenever the Chief Executive indulges himself in the sponsorship of political brigandage and electoral malpractices. The Chief Executive would lack the locus standi to preach good morals or fight corruption when political patrons under him do not attain such status through altruistic service to the nation but through subservient hero worship of the Chief Executive in exchange for a trade off of the collective will of the electorate. The Chief Executive ceases to represent the people, when he deals with the people only through political middlemen permitted by him, to operate under the antithetical sobriquet “godfathers”.

If the Chief Executive is delinquent, one single individual can assault the collective national consciousness by publicly proclaiming that he single-handedly installed all the members of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the State House of Assembly and the Chief Executives of Governments without regard to the electorate. That political jobber, could tell the nation that the Chief Executive of a State purportedly installed by him did not win the gubernatorial election and did not even know how the victory was achieved. He could do this and get away with it without

19

being called upon to make any form of explanation whatsoever to the nation, if the Chief Executive of that nation is thoroughly delinquent.

In this milieu, a political jobber would attempt to remove an elected Governor of a State with the assistance of serving police officers with impunity and without any premonition of some form of reprisal from the central national Government.

The Chief Executive of any country operating a Constitution identical to the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria is the Chief Security Officer of that country. The Chief Executive would, without a doubt, be delinquent if hoodlums with dane guns and double barrel short guns were to overrun the Police Force in any part of the country and are able to unleash mayhem, arson and unbridled hooliganism on the polity, destroying public and private property in the process, with the central national Government doing nothing about it whether before the event or afterwards.

The Chief Executive of any Government is no doubt delinquent in a country where extra-judicial killings, murders and assassinations take place by the day without the State machinery for crime prevention being able to deal with it either by stopping further occurrence or by uncovering the perpetrators of any one of this sordid incidents.

If the Chief Executive is delinquent, the Constitution of that nation could be overridden at will whenever it comes into conflict with the wishes of the Chief Executive. For instance, Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria obligates all authorities and persons in Nigeria to obey and enforce the decisions of the Courts established by the Constitution. No functionary of the State or State sponsored political jobber however highly placed is permitted by the Constitution to disobey or refuse to be bound by Court orders and decisions made applicable to him and no such functionary of the State has a discretion as to whether to enforce or abstain from enforcing any subsisting Court order. It is antithetical to executive responsibility when a Chief Executive decides upon his own will and caprice to pick and choose which Court judgments or orders to enforce or apply or obey and which to ignore11.

In a state of executive delinquency, power is exercised arbitrarily, the culture of impunity takes over the polity. The weak becomes weaker and at the mercy of the strong. Anarchy follows and everybody lives in fear not only fear from personal insecurity but fear of the Chief Executive himself who might have become a constitutional Frankenstein monster. This state of affairs cannot be accommodated in a nation governed by a written Constitution based on the rule of law and tends largely to invalidate the very Constitution and the social contract which produced it.

LEGISLATIVE DERELICTION

Legislative dereliction occurs, leading to invalidation of the existence of any polity, when those whose duty it is to make laws for the good government and order in the

20

polity abdicate their function for purely personal and perfidious interests. The bag which served as the hold-all for the Ghanaian citizens during their exodus from Nigeria may become for any depraved legislative class, the symbol of corruption and graft. In that case, no organ of government may do more to popularize the Ghana- must-go bag as a symbol of legislative iniquity.

Enactments may then either be passed or not passed for value, depending on whether Ghana-must-go played a part. It may come to a climax when the polity may well find the legislature invalidating the very Constitution which brought it to being by elongating the tenure of the Chief Executive for reasons totally irrelevant to their position as watchdogs over the Chief Executive. The only motive for this betrayal of the Constitution may be the gain of elongated tenure for the legislators themselves and a few Ghana-must-go bags

When this ultimate invalidation of the Constitution is eventually achieved, the polity shall have in its hands the culmination of the twin evils of executive delinquency and legislative dereliction. The principle of universal adult suffrage would become totally meaningless. The constitutional declaration which professes that the Constitution is an expression of the will of the polity, becomes absolutely irrelevant because the Constitution ceases to be the true representation of the will of the people but a statement of the desires of the delinquent Chief Executive and members of the derelict legislature.

JUDICIAL RASCALITY

Judges are supposed to be superhuman in comparison with the political class of both the executive and the legislature. Superhuman because the judiciary is the only organ where the principal officers, the Judges are not only superlatively educated, but have also put in a lifetime in the service of the law and the state in a strictly professional sense.

It is expected of Judges that they would at all times live above board being totally unblemished and modest in their comportment, demeanor and desires.

Over the years, all over the world, men have sat on the bench with outstanding distinction helping to shape the destiny of various nations. But unfortunately, there are a few judges who in their conduct have exhibited such crass ordinariness in their comportment, demeanor and desires that they have brought the various judicial systems which they serve or served into unwarranted disrepute. There is a close connection between law and politics, and between legal principles and the institutions of the law, and between political ideologies and government institution. It is the expectation of the society within any given polity, that the Judges are not bound in any way to political dogma. Although a Government will use legislation in the pursuit of political ends, the Courts are expected to remain aloof from the controversies of the political forum.

21

It smacks of judicial rascality when a Judge abdicates his duties to the law by proceeding in a manner inconsistent with the Code of Conduct for judicial officers and by deliberately misapplying the constitutional prescriptions either for greed of private benefit or for fear of political reprisal.

CIVIC IMPUNITY – THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

Certain written Constitutions contain specific charter of fundamental human rights to which the individual is entitled as inherent attributes of his personality. Some constitutions also contain fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy, which the individual as a citizen may use as a gauge to evaluate the achievements of the Government. There is usually also a guarantee for the individual’s rights as a citizen.

It is with these bulwarks of individual rights in mind that the Constitution goes ahead to assign governmental functions to the three arms of Government namely, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. When these three arms of Government perform their respective functions creditably, peace and order shall prevail and the individual would go about his business and enjoy the full benefits of his belonging to the polity, feeling the full pride of patriotism. He may then not ask what his country may do for him but what he may do for his country. He would carry his country’s flag with pride and sing the anthem heartily while reciting the pledge with his chest fully thrust out.

When however the Executive is delinquent, the Legislature is derelict and the judiciary is rascally, the political arena becomes mucky and electoral malpractice becomes the rule. The rule of law takes an exit. In that circumstance, civic impunity and irresponsibility prevail. The society is then devalued and invalidated to the extent of the executive delinquency, legislative dereliction and judicial rascality.

Unless good examples are set by the leadership, the proverbial man in the street pays a heavy toll in insecurity of lives and property as well as mental development and health. Anarchy breeds a winner takes all situation which emphasizes might over right.

Impunity in the society is the surest way of gauging the level of failure in Government. When crimes against the State are extolled or even rewarded, the signal, which goes out, is that anything goes and that it is foolish to be on the side of the law rather than on the side of Government. There would be no other way to explain the fact of rampant murders, assassinations and judicial murders that may become prevalent. There would be no other way to understand the fact that hoodlums could march against the institutions of State power and majesty and inflict mayhem, arson and brigandage on it in full assurance that no sanctions or retributions would follow.

22

When this state of arbitrariness is permitted to exist, apparently with executive support, it becomes sheer arrogance on the part of the leadership to preach patriotism to the polity. No one would need to wonder why students cheat at exams, policemen extort bribe on the roads and justify it in pages of newspapers and legislators popularize the Ghana-must-go. No one would need to wonder why no clear difference could be drawn between a cult and an ordinary fraternity of men or women.

In moments like this, nothing would be certain. Professionals are unable to practice their professions in the true spirit of the ethics of their professions. Everything is hawked by the roadside from medical services to engineering services and even to legal services.

CONCLUSION

The rights of the individual can only derive from a society governed by law made certain and applicable to all members of the society without regard to class or standing in the society.

It is meaningless to speak of a society without laws just as it is idle to speak of laws without the society. It is the society that determines the code of interdependence binding on the members of the society. These codes define the rights of the individual. The individual in a society can be said to enjoy only those rights which are free and permissible according to the laws of the society. Obedience to the laws ensures and assures the individuals very existence and value as a member of the society. But these laws, to serve their purpose must be certain, be of general application and be just.

In the final analysis it boils down to the quality of leadership in the society and religiously that leadership is committed to the preservation of the basic laws of the society.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, KSC, SAN.NODES

1. Harvard Law Professor, Author of many books including Chotzper 2. Hon. Justice, Anambra State High Court3. Blacks Law Dictionary4. Ibid5. Ibid6. Vinogradoff 7. Wortley8. Credited to Hon. Justice L. M. Uwais, CJN, Daily Sun 6th December, 2005

page 4.9. Daily Sun 6th December, 2005, page 4.

23

10. Daily Sun, 6th December, 2005, page 5.11. See Hon. Justice L. M. Uwais, Daily Sun 6th December, 2005, page 4.

THE COURTS AND POLITICS IN NIGERIA TODAY

BEING THE TEXT OF THE PAPER PRESENTED BY CHIEF, THE HON. U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN AT THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, 1999 – 2004 AT THE UNIVERSITY OF

NIGERIA, NSUKKA ON THE 22 ND DAY OF APRIL, 2004.

The classical approach to academic paper presentation, as I was taught, is to begin by defining the terms. So I should probably define such terms as “courts” and “politics”. By “today“ we shall refer to the time frame starting from the 29 th day of May, 1999, being the day when Nigeria began yet another experiment with Constitutional democracy as a form of Government. That time frame shall expire today, as I present this paper, since I cannot pretend to know what will happen tomorrow.

“Politics” is defined as “the art and science of Government, public life and affairs”1. I find this definition intriguing, because the same source defines “politic” in relation to an action, as “judicious”, “expedient”. And of a person as “prudent”, “sagacious”. One therefore expects a “politician” to be one who acts judiciously and one who is prudent and sagacious. Whether this definition holds through in relation to the politician in Nigeria today, is a matter for serious debate.

“Court”, means a judicial body hearing legal cases2. For our purpose, we are concerned with the institution, which under the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, are vested with the judicial powers of the federation3. In this context, it is appropriate to discuss very briefly, the trinity doctrine in relation to the plenitude of the powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Let me state here that whenever the term “Constitution” is used in this paper, that is a reference to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

24

The Constitution, and indeed the other Republican Constitutions of 1963 and 1979 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria adopts in principle the concept of Separation of Governmental Powers and the exercise of these powers by three organs, namely the Legislature, the Executive and the Judicature. Chapter 1, part II, of the Constitution deals with this separation of powers. The National Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives, constitutes the Legislature of the Federal Government.4 The House of Assembly represents the Legislature of each State Government5. I shall say no more about the Legislature, except so far as is necessary to relate its activities positive or negative to the theme of this paper.

Section 5 of the Constitution provides for the Executive powers of the Federation. These are vested in the President for the Federation and the Governors for the States. Again, I shall say no more about the Executive except in so far as the exercise of the Executive powers impacts on the exercise of judicial powers and functions today.

THE JUDICATURE

The Judiciary is that branch of the government charged with the exercise of the judicial powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 6 (1) of the Constitution enacts that the judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the Courts to which the section relates being Courts established for the Federation. The Courts so established are The Supreme Court of Nigeria, the Court of Appeal, the Federal High Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the High Court of a State, the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State, the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the Customary Court of Appeal of a State; such other Courts as may be authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the National Assembly may make laws; and such other Courts as may be authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction at first instance or on appeal on matters with respect to which a House of Assembly may make laws6.

The National Assembly or any House of Assembly may establish any Court other than those listed in the Constitution to exercise subordinate jurisdiction to that of the High Court. Furthermore, the National Assembly or any House of Assembly may abolish any Court which it has power to establish or which it has brought into being7. It will be safe to generalize by saying that the Courts vested with the exercise of the Judicial Powers of the Federation include the Magistrate’s Courts, the Customary Courts and such other Tribunals and Courts as the Legislature may

25

establish from time to time either for the Federation or for any of the States of the Federation. It is these Courts both expressly mentioned in the Constitution or within the contemplation of the Constitution that constitute the judiciary or the judicature under the Constitution. When used in this paper therefore, “Courts”, “judiciary” and “judicature” shall refer to the same institution, namely the organ or branch of government charged with judicial functions and vested with the judicial powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

CHECKS AND BALANCES

The fundamental character of the concept of Separation of Powers as envisaged under the Constitution is the interplay of Checks and Balances. By this interplay, the fiction is, that each arm of government shall be a check onto the others, and that each arm of government shall be autonomous within its sphere. This is a fiction properly so called because the three arms of government are by the Constitutional framework expected to operate an overlapping system of administration. Each must carry on in a manner complimentary to and not subversive of the other two towards peace and good government. This however, is outside the scope of this paper. We are to concentrate on the place of the Judiciary in the Constitutional scheme of things and we shall be concerned specifically with an inquiry into how well the Courts have faired today in the face of the political realities of the day. It is only within this narrow perspective that we shall delve ever so briefly into the scheme of separation of functions and of interplay of checks and balances.

JUDICIAL POWERS

Section 6 (6) of the Constitution enacts that the judicial powers vested in the judicature by the Constitution shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary to all inherent powers and sanctions of a Court of law. It shall also extend to all matters between persons or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person.

Section 36(1) of the Constitution provides that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations including any question or determination by or against any Government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a Court or other Tribunal established by law and constituted in such a manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.

26

Section 46(1) of the Constitution also prescribes that any person who alleges that any of the provisions of chapter IV of the Constitution, dealing with fundamental human rights, has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.

Section 232(1) of the Constitution, vests in the Supreme Court, to the exclusion of any other Court, original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between the States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question whether of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends8. Based on these general powers, the various Courts have jurisdiction conferred on them by and under the Constitution. This is usually amplified by the jurisdictions of the various Courts as set out in the various statutes establishing them.

Without prejudice to the general jurisdiction of the Courts, the Constitution further enacts at Section 4 (8) of the Constitution that except as the Constitution otherwise allows, the exercise of Legislative powers by the National Assembly or by the House of Assembly shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law and judicial tribunals established by law. Accordingly, neither the Federal Legislature nor the State Legislature shall enact any law that ousts or purport to oust the jurisdiction of a court of law or of a judicial tribunal established by law.

It can be seen from this general survey of the Constitution that it is the Constitutional intent that the judiciary under the Constitution shall enjoy the exclusive prerogative to adjudicate over disputes, whether as it concerns citizens alone or as it concerns the government or any branch thereof. This includes the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution. It is this extensive power that has engendered the debate as to whether the Courts are not higher than the Constitution in hierarchy. It is argued that the Constitution remains a dormant peace of literary art until the courts breath life into it by interpreting it. This however is not the place to pursue this debate. Suffice it to say, that the power of adjudication including the interpretative jurisdiction vested in the Courts is however circumscribed by a number of limitations including Constitutional limitations, political constraints and the factor of judicial self-restraint.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION

The Constitution itself imposes a number of limitations on the judicial powers of the Courts. Under Section 6 (6) (c)(d) of the Constitution, the judicial powers of the Courts shall not except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authority or person or as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy set out in Chapter 2 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it shall not as from the 29th day of May 1999

27

extend to any action or proceedings relating to any existing law made on or after 15th January 1966 for determining any issue or question as to the competence of any authority or person to make any such law.

There are other limitations and these must include those enacted in Section 143 (10) and 188 (10) of the Constitution, which excludes the jurisdiction of the Courts from entertaining any proceedings or determination of the panel or of the Legislature or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination in connection with proceedings for the removal of either the President, the Vice President, the Governor or the Deputy Governor.

The Courts in Nigeria have consistently held that matters pertaining to impeachment of the President, the Vice President, the Governor, and the Deputy Governor are not matters fit for judicial determination in the regular Courts. Yet, some unscrupulous Legal Practitioners bent on abuse of the judicial process and goaded on by politicians have continued to tempt the timorous souls within the judiciary into breaching this rule. In an essay titled “THE JUDICIARY – THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB” published in chapter 3 of his essays on the judiciary in the Government of Nigeria, T. A. Aguda of blessed memory pleaded very passionately that:

“We should cease making the judiciary the sacrificial lamb of people who put themselves on trial and deliberately (or is it inadvertently?) decide later to seek the protection or intervention of the judiciary. It is no answer to say that, that is why the judiciary exists. I think that I have the responsibility to say that I have never known of any impeachment exercise either in Great Britain (where it originated) or in the United States of America which has ever been decided in the Courts”.

This prayer which has crystallized and become sacrosanct in Nigerian jurisprudence has only been breached once within the political experience of Nigeria and that breach took place in the Court presided over by Hon. Justice S. W. Egbo Egbo9.

POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS

Political constraints come in the nature of undue attempt by the Legislature or the Executive or a combination of them to influence the Courts. These constraints are usually in the nature of pressures exerted on the judiciary in matters touching upon the self interest of the Executive and members of the Legislature. It also comes in the nature of deliberate selection of persons to be appointed Judges based on political expediency. It also comes in the nature of subtle maneuver by the

28

Executive and the Legislature to manipulate the judicial institution, for instance, by withholding funds due to the judiciary or by witling down the prestige of judicial officers.

Every Judge, as officer in the temple of Justice therefore, will have to encounter and deal with many species of institutionalized abuse of the rule of law and the essence of justice. The Courts must confront the specter of political intimidation from the Executive and the Legislature. Today in politics, the Presidency has sought and apparently has acquired over bearing influence both over the Legislature and over the judicial system. It is the function of the Court to deal with the misguided complaints of those in the corridor of power to whom justice can only be just when it vindicates them or their interest.

It is the function and indeed the burden and the duty of a Judge in any Court not to condone the ambivalence and perfidy of the Legislature or the Executive. The proper mood of the Court had been captured quite trenchantly in the case of OJUKWU VS. GOVERNMENT OF LAGOS STATE10, where Lord Justice Kayode Eso, said as follows:-

“Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 the Executive, the Legislative and the judiciary are equal partners in the running of a successful Government. The powers granted by the Constitution to these organs by section 4, section 5, and section 6 are classified under an omnibus umbrella known under Part II to the Constitution as “Powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. These organs wield those powers and one must never exist in sabotage of the other or else there is chaos. Indeed there will be no Federal Government. I think for one organ and more especially the Executive which holds all the physical powers to put up itself in sabotage or deliberate contempt of the others is to stage an executive subversion of the Constitution it is to uphold. Executive lawlessness is tantamount to a deliberate violation of the Constitution.”.

In UNONGO VS. AKU11 the then Chief Justice of Nigeria the Hon. Justice M. Bello in a comparative restatement of the law said:-

“In the United States of America, it is trite rule of Constitutional law that in consequence of the principle of separation of Governmental Powers embodies in the Constitutions of the United States and of several States, any statute by which the legislature attempts to hamper judicial functions of Courts or to interfere with the

29

discharge of judicial duties or to unduly burden the exercise of judicial functions is unconstitutional and void”.

In SOFEKUN V. AKINYEMI & ORS,12 Aniagolu J.S.C. put it this way:-

“It is essential in a Constitutional democracy such as we have in our country that for the protection of the rights of the citizens, for the guarantee of the Rule of law which includes according fair hearing to the citizen under procedural regularity and for checking arbitrary use of power by the Executive or its Agencies, the power and jurisdiction of the Courts under the Constitution must not only be kept intact and unfettered but also must not be nimbled at”.

It must not be presumed that the Courts have limited themselves to these tantrums and grumblings. In appropriate cases, they have invoked their interpretative jurisdiction so as to overcome or circumvent the effect of harsh legislation, and the ambivalence and perfidy of the Executive and the Legislature.

The Courts, even under military rule, adopted the interpretative axiom that exproprietary statutes which encroach on a citizen’s proprietary right must be construed fortissime contra proferentes, that is, strictly against the acquiring authority and sympathetically in favour of the citizen whose property rights are affected. Therefore, as against the acquiring authority, there must be a strict adherence and compliance with the formalities prescribed in the enabling statute otherwise any ouster clause in the statute will be circumvented by a decision that the act complained of is not one done under the statute and protected by it. See A-G BENDEL STATE VS. ALDEYAN (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 118) P. 646. See OBIKOYA & SONS LTD. VS. GOV. LAGOS STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 50) 385.

This activist judicial approach is even the more necessary and expected under a regime of Constitutional democracy. The Supreme Court has in a number of recent landmark decisions demonstrated this13. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will in the near future have the opportunity to decide the vexed question whether the President has exclusive power of control over the Nigeria Police Force, to the extent that he may at his whim and caprice deny a State Governor of the authority to give to the Commissioner of Police in charge of the Police contingent stationed in the State appropriate directives for the maintenance of law and order in the State, including provision of necessary Police protection to sustain itself in Government14.

30

Every Political attempt to impair the independence of the Judiciary is both unconstitutional and in principle counter-productive. Unfortunately this fact is often lost to the members of the Executive and Legislative branches of government who are political officers elected usually in a general election. But this tendency to subvert the judicature is a temptation, which ought to be resisted in the interest of good democratic culture and good governance.

In O’Donoghue Vs. United States15 the United States Supreme Court made the very trenchant observation and warning that:

“If it be important to separate the several departments of government and restrict them to the exercise of their appointed powers, it follows, as a logical corollary, equally important, that each department should be kept completely independent of the others – independent not in the sense that they shall not co-operate to the common end of carrying into effect the purposes of the Constitution, but in the sense that the acts of each shall never be controlled by, or subjected, directly or indirectly, to, the coercive influence of either of the other departments.”

It is in recognition of the imperative of judicial independence that the National Judicial Council was created as an independent body by the Constitution and its membership also expressly set out in the Constitution. The National Judicial Council is an independent body in the sense that in exercising the power to make appointments or to exercise disciplinary control over Judicial Officers, it shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority or person. It is significant that the Chief Justice of Nigeria is the Chairman of the National Judicial Council while the next most Senior Justice of the Supreme Court is the Deputy Chairman. It is even more significant that membership of the Council is drawn exclusively from within the judicature and the legal profession, except for two members who, not being Legal Practitioners, are persons who in the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Federation are persons of unquestionable character16.

No member of the Council may be removed from office except by the President acting on address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause or for misconduct.

This, it can be seen, is a strong Council and it is to it that is assigned the function of recommending persons for appointment into all the Superior Courts of record in Nigeria as Judicial Officers. It is only on the recommendation of the Council that the President may appoint Judicial Officers either on his own or as the case may be subject to confirmation by the Senate or a State House of Assembly.

31

In the appointment of Judges therefore, Executive and Legislative influence ought to be kept reasonably minimal. How well this operates, in practice will depend however on the behaviour of the President at any given time. Where the President is determined to override the sphere of authority of the Legislature and the Judiciary in a bid to totally control all the powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the otherwise adequate Constitutional provision might become subject to presidential subversion. The National Judicial Council has played its role very creditably and enviably so far despite the determination of the Executive and the Legislature from time to time to undermine its success.17

In the matter of removal of Judicial Officers especially the Head of the judicial arm of government, the position is less satisfactory. Section 292 (1) (a) of the Constitution makes the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the Administrative Heads of all the various Courts within the Judicature at the Federal level removable by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate.

Similarly, the Chief Judge of the High Court of the State and other administrative heads of Superior Courts in the State may be removed by the Governor acting on an address supported by a two-thirds of the majority of the House of Assembly of the State18.

The warning about a lawless Executive, hell – bent on the subversion. of the trinity doctrine of separation of powers in the Constitution becomes more ominous here. Where there is a collusion between the Legislature and the Executive against the head of the judiciary, the fate of the judiciary becomes glaringly exposed to jeopardy.

This was demonstrated in Ebonyi State, when the Legislature and the Executive co-operated to remove the Chief Judge of the State from office even when the National Judicial Council had in a letter requested both organs to stay action on the matter pending investigation by the National Judicial Council.

It is suggested that in the nascent democratic culture, which we are nurturing, exclusion of the National Judicial Council in the matter of removal of principal Officers of the judicature is unsatisfactory. In fact, the removal of the head of the judiciary ought exclusively to rest upon an advice by the National Judicial Council addressed to the President or the Governor. It has been sufficiently demonstrated by the Legislature that the impeachment process is the first weapon of choice whenever the Legislature wishes to subvert the will and independence of its own leadership or that of the Executive. The Legislature will not hesitate to use the same procedure in the event of the slightest irritation by the judicature. Surely, it cannot be objectionable to suggest that the National Judicial Council which

32

recommended the head of the judicature for appointment in the first instance should be involved in the process of removing him.

Unfortunately, the goal of total financial independence for the judiciary is yet to be attained both under the Constitution and by appropriate legislation. It would appear that a self-accounting judicature would remain a goal to be pursued but never attained. For as long as the goal remains elusive, it would continue to be convenient for the Executive to act the benevolent pay-master dictating the tone for the piper – the Judiciary. It is in the nature of political power in Nigeria today that the holder tends to see everything in terms of political patronage, even facilities necessary for smooth operation of the various branches of government. In a situation such as this, it takes the very quintessence of judicial imperturbability and equanimity to survive on the bench and do justice between the state and the citizenry. On the other hand, it will take a Statesman President, or Governor mindful of the best interest of the people of Nigeria, and able to sublimate his ego and self interest to the over all good of the nation and posterity to allow a bold and independent judiciary to function. In the politics of today in Nigeria, I am afraid to say that I am unable to find that Statesman President and the absence of such a Statesman President does not encourage the emergence of the Statesman Governor.

JUDICIAL SELF RESTRAINT

Apart from limitations to its powers under the Constitution and the other limitations contrived by the Legislature and the Executive, the Judiciary by deliberate policy imposes additional limitations on it self. Only a brief reference to some of these can be accommodated within the time left to us:

(a) In the performance of their interpretative functions, the Courts abstain from reading into the express words as enacted meanings extraneous to them. Therefore where words are used in the ordinary sense, the Courts give them their ordinary meaning. Where words are used as terms of art, the Courts interpret them in that manner19.

(b) The Courts abstain from enlarging their jurisdiction. Thus if it is clear from the words used that the Constitutional intent is to oust the jurisdiction of the Court, the Courts scrupulously uphold the view which excludes their jurisdiction. Section 6 (6) (c) and (d) and Sections 143 (10) and 188 (10) of the Constitution contain such ouster provisions. See now the decision of the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Judicial Division in ABARIBE VS. ABIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2000) FWLR (Pt. 9) 1558.

33

(c) The Courts concern themselves with the declarations of the law – jus dicere as opposed to the making of the law – jus datum. Accordingly, Courts do not as a rule make policy pronouncements as to what the law ought to be20.

(d) In the performance of their juridical as well as judicial functions, the Courts abstain from deciding hypothetical questions not even in the exercise of the very wide powers to make declarations. Through the principle of locus standi, the Courts have always demanded that whoever moves the Court must show his standing and allege a legal right in jeopardy21.

RECILIENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

The Judicature is the only arm of government, which has never been subjected to total dismissal by the Military usurpers and pretenders since the beginning of the Nigerian experiment. It can claim therefore to be the most mature, most enduring, most stable and professional of the three arms. It is also the only arm, which demands of its members not only the best education possible and the highest intellectual exposure possible but also a long period of professional training and a code of conduct internalized in this training. It is indeed, the only specialized branch of the three arms of Government. It is therefore the most well equipped of the three to succeed. That it succeeded successive Military governments and the Political brinkmanship of successive political governments in the past, is a tribute to its resilience and relevance.

To continue to survive and succeed, both the Executive and the Legislature must desist from infiltrating it with persons of questionable character who are not therefore fit and proper persons to be appointed as Judges. They must also desist from involving the judiciary in the resolution of essentially political question for which the usual political wheeling and dealing process is a better option. Thirdly, they must desist from seducing or intimidating the judiciary “to toe Government line”.

In spite of total neglect of the infrastructure of the Courts, members of the political branches of the Government, the Executive and the Legislature feel no compunction proclaiming the Courts as the last hope of the common man. But they will continue to exhibit ambivalence and perfidy towards the judiciary! However, any Judge who lends a helping hand to the desecration of the temple of justice is a misfit in the Court and a disgrace and dishonour to the judiciary.

It was Honourable Justice T.A. Aguda who once referred to the Judiciary as “the sacrificial lamb". Indeed, it is the beast of burden. Like the donkey, much is

34

expected of it but little is invested on it22, even by men and women who after every four years must go to it to revalidate their hold to political power.To those who aspire to be Judges in spite of the daunting tasks and bleak prospects, they should be reminded of an advice previously given by the Honourable Justice T.A. Aguda drawn from the words of Jesus the son of Sirach as recorded in Ecclesiastes in the Apocrypha Chapter 6 V. 7 “Do not aspire to be a Judge, unless you have the strength to put an end to injustice; for you may be intimidated by a man of rank and so compromise your integrity.”

THE COURTS AND POLITICS IN NIGERIA TODAY

We, as the present generation and citizens of this country, Nigeria have inherited a nation with a chequered political fortune. We started as independent nationalities and tribes. We became an amalgamation of diverse nationalities under colonial administration. Eventually we became an independent nation under the Commonwealth of Nations. We started off as a parliamentary democracy after the British model. Then, we fought a bitter war of national reunification. We became a republic organized after the American model. No sooner had we taken off as an independent nation than our political elite began an unwitting walk down the road to perdition. The evil seeds of social injustice and political disequilibria began to germinate and to take root. Professor Chinua Achebe in his prophetic political fiction – A MAN OF THE PEOPLE – captured in bold relief the steady decline of our national ethos, down the abyss, down to the time when our soldiers broke out of their barracks and ineradicably jeopardized the development of civic and political culture of governance, social responsibility, social justice and the rule of law.

By a twist of fate, whenever the soldiers retreated to the barracks, Chief Nanga would resurrect and pick up his old tricks. By the process of evolution, he eventually transformed himself into a Military General and continued the process of political disorientation of the country. On retirement from the army, he transformed himself into a Civilian President exhibiting the same old characteristics.

This unfortunate distortion of political culture, social values, norms and ethics brought about more than three decades of military disorientation of our political perspectives, growth and development. From one military coup to another, the very fabric of our political and civic norms and values suffered progressive and inexorable debasement.

35

Life has become devalued, our currency is devalued, our educational system is devalued, our social culture is devalued, our political ethos is devalued. Every regiment of military adventurers in power who marched by, further trampled upon the debris of our social debasement and shame.

The consequence of this state of aberration is that during the short intervals when civil rule was reintroduced and when the culture of democratic governance came in for relearning, most political dramatis personae lacked any ethical precedents to draw from and therefore went about their act as if the object of politics is to grab power and money by any means. Many politicians for lack of civic culture and the attribute of statesmanship became more of ordinary political animals than statesmen. The greatest obstacle to unbridled pursuit of power, money and influence, is the rule of law. Chief Nanga therefore considers the law and the Courts established to apply them as an uncomfortable straightjacket from which he must free himself if he could, or otherwise as a device to be used to legitimize the fraud and oppression of the citizenry. This was basically why the experiment of Civilian Government failed between 1979 and 1983. The military created a distorted political landscape and ushered in the civilian politicians to gambol in it. The ex – soldiers soon got bored with the odium of early retirement and spectatorship and therefore jumped into the political bandwagon and made straight for the driving seat.

In the year 1999, we began another experiment. This time, the level of social decadence and absence of refined civic and political culture had reached an unimaginable proportion. Politics has become a trade and the merchants make stupendous financial outlay for the sole purpose of hijacking the structure of Government, both executive, legislative and judicial, with a view to controlling the State and its treasury to the detriment of the ordinary man. It does not matter at what level in the political pecking order the citizen finds himself, the philosophy of greed and avarice have become the order of the day. I liken it to an endangered specie scampering out and away from the cesspit. The rule of survival is to kick the one below as hard as you can while doing all you possibly could to overtake the one above you.

In a setting such as this, justice is the victim. The judicial system becomes the scapegoat for the masses who throw all their frustrations at it and blame it for all their travails and confinement to the bottom of the cesspit. The Courts become mere trading post for the mindless rich who go before it with the credo that the cash justifies the judgment. In this State of Affairs, what does the Rule of Law mean? What is the function or relevance of the Judge? What is the value and content of Justice? What has the Judge or the Court to do with it? Where lies the energy and impetus for social reform?

36

Replicando! The Judge and the Court have a lot to do with it. The Judge must necessarily impact on the State of Affairs either positively or negatively. He impacts on the system negatively, by becoming a part of the decadent system, sharing in the decadence of the system and confessing an inability and lack of the moral strength to change the system. He becomes therefore, like the woman of easy virtue, willing and available to be cajoled or seduced or otherwise subverted by Chief Nanga and his political fellow travelers and the mindless rich, merely in a bid to survive and hopefully, one day, to approach the top of the cesspit. He covets political influence and is ready to trade off justice for a little political benefit. He begins to dream dreams of becoming a millionaire through political paychecks in exchange for justice and honour. He begins to value himself in terms of the Lexus Jeep and extravagant opulence. The Judge impacts on the system positively, by rising above the system and its decadence in other to make things better. He becomes a catalyst for change to the better. He refuses to be purchased with ill-gotten money in order to serve the ignoble purposes of corrupt political journeymen like Chief Nanga. This needs a great deal of boldness and fearlessness, an ability to place the polity and posterity above self, the summoning of higher ideals of what is Godly and therefore just, the courage to shut down the cesspit and in its place to build a temple of justice and a heaven for the citizens and the oppressed.

The question is how have the Courts chosen to play under the Nigerian politics of today. Unfortunately, two Judges in particular have given the judiciary a very bad name. For reasons other than pursuit of justice they have undertaken to breach very badly the rules enshrined in the code of conduct for judicial officers just to satisfy political godfathers. Before delving into the sad experience at the High Courts level of the judicature, a brief mention must be made of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

THE SUPREME COURT

It can be said justifiably that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has remained resilient, vibrant and a role model of what a Court of Law and not only an apex Court ought to be.

This statement may well be open to criticism from certain quarters. It is true however, that the Supreme Court has so far maintained a remarkable resilience despite the valiant effort to politicize it. Any person who has access to the work of the Supreme Court and who understands the dynamics of its business can only but marvel at its ability to withstand the political pressures increasingly brought upon it.

THE COURT OF APPEAL

37

What is said of the Supreme Court is to a large extent true of the Court of Appeal. It is unfortunate however that very recently the Court of Appeal sitting at Enugu had been exposed to public opprobrium. It is said that in the course of reading a judgment, the audience in the Courtroom became restive and even made a move towards the bench compelling their Lordships to hastily retire into chambers.23

Two things must be said about this event. Firstly, it is unfortunate that due to political pressure, the Court of Appeal was exposed in the eye of the public as being suspect. I will say no more on this since the dust is yet to settle.

Secondly, it is unfortunate that the audience in a Courtroom became so disenchanted and alienated from the confidence and respect that ought not naturally to inure to the Court that they had to desecrate the Court of Law in protest.

Harry Nwana, a columnist with the Vanguard Newspaper wrote an insightful article titled “SHOWING INDIFFERENCE TO EMERGING ANARCHY”. He said inter alia:

“All the paraphernalia of respect, packaged for the Bench, are now progressively and dangerously being eroded. The excuse is that democracy permits freedom of speech and action not even where both are stupid and irresponsible. Shrouding Judges in some kinds of awe and magnificence for effectiveness makes a lot of sense. Therefore, for a gang of unruly protesters to scare four Tribunal Judges into escaping from side doors for safety at Enugu, is an introduction of a bad trend. Should it endure, and go unpunished it will signal the onset of anarchy in Africa’s biggest nation. If the stage has come when Judges and Chairmen of judicial inquest can be intimidated and their lives openly threatened in Court, we might as well not have Courts and Judges24.

Surely, I share this sense of outrage. But those who have the privilege and the honour to be Judges in the affairs of their fellowmen, must remember and bear well in mind that respect must be earned not demanded. Respect must not be taken for granted. They must consider this very axiomatic observation by Chinua Achebe, that if a rational man believes that what is being shared will go round and that he would get his share when it is his turn, he is most likely to sit down and wait for his turn. If however, he entertains doubt about the justice of the sharing process, and believes that his share might elude him if he didn’t do something to help himself, he might start a scramble.

38

Those who live in glass houses must not throw stones. He who brings home ant-infested faggots must not complain when lizards come to party.

THE KANGAROO

The Nigerian Constitution did not provide for Kangaroo Courts. It provides for Courts guided by rules. This is because Nigeria had never pretended to be a rogue State operating outside the fringes of world civilization, even though it may have been categorized high in the list of corrupt nations. In fact, Nigeria signed the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights and made it a part of the Nigerian corpus juris, thereby signifying with pride that Nigeria is a member of the committee of civilized nations which respect the rule of law. Aniagolu, JSC once said that the moment a Court ceases to do justice in accordance with law and procedures laid down for it, it ceases to be a regular Court to become a kangaroo Court.25

Some Judges in this democratic dispensation have made themselves misfits and a curse to the higher bench, having sold their souls to the devil and become ministers in the temple of Lucifer.

I shall now trace the tragedy of Hon. Justice S. W. Egbo Egbo and Hon. Justice S. C. Nnaji to sketch from contemporary political events how these two gentlemen, supposedly learned in the law and unfortunately elevated to the higher bench, brought the citadel of justice to gross disrepute and did their images eternal disservice.

THE POLITICS

When President Olusegun Obasanjo was sworn into office on the 29 th day of May, 1999 he made a speech. In that speech, he spotlighted the keynote of his presidency. He was going to march on toes! He was going to cause pain! He would take on the low, the high and the mighty!

Apparently, to ensure delivery on these promises, he engaged a strong team of Private Legal Practitioners to wage his legal campaigns in various Courts in execution not only of his personal wars but in defence of his allies. He also engage rapid reaction Amada of image launderers to wage his public relations campaigns. It became their main objective to thoroughly abuse and vilify anyone who dared to criticize “baba” no matter how constructively26.

His first articulated action was a confrontation with the Senate. He began a deliberate assault against the independence of the Senate and its leadership. He orchestrated the downfall of one Senate President after another in order to find a

39

stooge. He began a frenetic cat – and – mouse struggle with the Speaker of the House of Representative in a bid to obtain absolute suzerainty over the Executive and Legislative arms of Government. He made a valiant bid for total personal control of the party apparatus of the ruling party to which he belonged. He took on the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), but when the heat became unbearable for him, he turned to the Courts for protection

These battles remained inconclusive until the end of the President’s first term. He apparently made up his mind that neither the incumbent President of Senate nor the Speaker of the House of Representatives nor indeed the leadership of the party would return during his second term, the materialization of which, he was in no doubt about. The President of the Senate Pius Ayim Pius took one look at the behemoth that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had become and backed away from further participation in politics. The Speaker of the House of Representatives Alhaji Umar Na’abba, the intrepid, picked up the gauntlet. He was “dismissed at the polls”!. The leadership of the party of course was changed. Labour still smoldered like a restless volcano under judicial surveillance.

Come 2003, a person who believed he lost an election into the Senate and who filed an election petition at the appropriate Tribunal was in the meantime declared elected by INEC in a revised declaration of results. And even when this declaration was still hotly being challenged at the Election Tribunal, and the issue whether INEC was competent to alter a result once declared, was pending before the Court, a Federal High Court at Abuja ordered that he be sworn in as a Senator. He was! and of course eventually became the President of the Senate, while all the judicial proceedings were still pending in the Courts!

I read from the Daily Sun Newspaper of Monday, April 12 th, 2004 a front page teaser “I’m a stooge – Wabara.” I was then referred to page 12 of the publication. I went to page 12 of the publication and this is what I saw:-

I’m a stooge, says Wabara

“Senate President, Chief Adolphus Wabara, has said he is contented with being called a stooge or rubber stamp Senate President.

Speaking at his country home in Ohambele in Ukwa East, where some Local Government chapters of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from Abia State paid him a solidarity visit at the

40

weekend, Wabara said his joy of being a stooge was derived from the fact that he had used the rubber stamp position to attract development projects to Abia State and the entire South East.

“I have been told that I’m a stooge; a rubber stamp; my joy is that before you rubber stamp a document, you must first of all read it. So I accept to be called a rubberstamp Senate President. I don’t have anything to hide.

“By being a stooge or rubber stamp, I have been able to bring Julius Berger to rehabilitate roads in Abia: the Alaoja electricity project has been restored at more than N5 billion and the Aba – Owerri Road has been rehabilitated.“I rather remain a stooge and get things done than being fighter who gets nothing at the end of the day for the State”.

It is possible that the President of the Senate was thoroughly misquoted. In fact, I choose to believe that he did not extol the benefits of being a stooge and that he did not in fact refer to himself as a stooge. But it appears to me that what was ascribed to the President of the Senate represents politics in Nigeria today. You must be a stooge to make political progress and there is nothing else but political progress to be made. To “succeed” or to “obtain benefits for your people” or to “successfully hold any office” you must be someone’s stooge. If you cannot be the stooge of Mr. President, then better be the stooge of someone who is lucky enough to be a stooge of Mr. President.

One man who appeared to be not willing to be a stooge whether of the President or of the President’s stooge is the Medical Doctor, Officer of the Order of the Niger, Chief Chris Nwabueze Ngige, the Governor of Anambra State elected into office on the 29th day of May, 2003. So precisely, on the 10 th day of July, 2003 a coup was staged to oust him from power. This coup was led by a serving Police Officer who up till he eventually died in retirement was never prosecuted or even interrogated.

When the coup failed, there was a switch of strategy. The beast of burden – the judiciary was called in and it was not difficult to find a stooge, sitting in one of the Federal High Court Halls at Abuja – the same one who produced the Senate President. This stooge was an overzealous kangaroo. He made an order ex parte ordering the Governor of Anambra State to vacate his office. There was an outrage nationally and internationally. Someone got terribly embarrassed. The Hon. Attorney – General and Minister for Justice was sent into Court to vacate the order. The Judge felt quite embarrassed and stammered, “well I didn’t do it after all”. The rest as it concerns that Judge is history.

41

Another stooge was found at the Enugu High Court. He gave an order to the Inspector – General of Police to remove the Governor of Anambra State from office “in the same way he helped to restore him after the botched coup of 10th

July, 2003”. Even the order of the Court of Appeal, Enugu suspending the order of the Enugu High Court has not recommended itself to the Presidency and the Inspector – General of Police for implementation. The same Attorney – General and Minister for Justice who rushed to Abuja to put an end to the judicial scandal at the Federal High Court there, has not summoned sufficient political courage and professional independence to do the same in respect of the judicial scandal of Enugu. This is politics today in Nigeria.

It is obvious that the President has not succeeded in imposing his will absolutely on the judicature including the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and the Anti-corruption Tribunal and the Election Tribunals. This is not however for want of a determined effort. You can ask Governor Ibori of Delta State and all those other recalcitrant and obdurate persons who have dared to manifest political independence. You may also ask the Chief Judge of Anambra State.

THE COURTS

Up till the year 2003, no one would have imagined that a Judge of the High Court would exhibit the kind of rascality so far witnessed between 2003 and 2004 in Nigeria. Before the year 2003, it was considered anathema for any High Court to order a Governor to be removed from office, let alone the Governor of another State.

Un till the year 2003, no one, could have imagined that under the political landscape of Nigeria in a Constitutional democracy and civil rule, Tribunals would be used to hunt down, intimidate and over awe “political decedents”. By decedents is of course meant people who have not accepted to be stooges. Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction in an election Tribunal to determine petitions as to whether the terms of office of any person under the Constitution has ceased. The same Constitution under Section 188 made copious provisions in relation to the removal of a Governor from office. That provision expressly excluded the exercise of any jurisdiction in the matter by a High Court Judge.

In 2003 and in 2004, two Judges have acted in breach of the Constitution by delving into these matters in breach of their oath of office and the code of conduct. That they have not been dismissed from service, despite the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, that it took or takes so long for the Executive to consider the decision of the National Judicial Council on the matter is an

42

indication that they are indeed well favoured stooges and that very soon, a device may be tried in order to “whip the National Judicial Council into order”.

QUO VADIS

The question is where are we heading to? Si a jure discedas, vagus eris, et erunt, omnia omnibus incerta. This translates roughly into “if you discard the law, you will go astray, and everything will become uncertain to everyone. The judicature must not be used as a political terror machine for inflicting pain on political opponents. It must not be perceived as an alternative device for gunboat politics under a Constitutional democracy. To do so, will be a return to Military dictatorship.

Those who today exploit the Courts for unjust ends should remember that the evil that men do lives after them and the distortions we create today may return to hunt our children tomorrow. To hand over to our children a banner without stain ought to be our chiefest resolve.

The Judges who sit in the Courts must remember that posterity will judge them. Those who wield political power must also remember that power like all things of this world is transient.

The words of Justice Krishna Iyer, contained in his book – LAW VERSUS JUSTICE holds through in Nigeria today. I am therefore temped to quote him as follows:

“The disease of corruption, in its widest connotation, has affected all parties, and even militant organizations, although substantial differences in degree and opportunity may exist. The purity and neutrality of the judiciary itself is in jeopardy. A broad consensus on vital values enshrined in the Constitution and a basic integrity in the instrumentalities and the actors who operate it, baffles our grasp”.

Until all players on the political platform starting from the President himself learn to treat the Courts with respect and to let the Judges work without being intimidated, subverted or manipulated, the dream of a great Nigeria will remain a utopia.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.Attorney – General / Commissioner for Justice

43

Anambra State.

NOTES

1. Oxford Dictionary of current English, 1996 Edition.2. Ibid3. 1999 Constitution – Section 6(1)(2) &(5)4. Ibid – Section 4(1) &(2)5. Ibid – Section 4 (6) & (7)6. Ibid – Section 6(3) & (5)7. Ibid – Section 6(4)8. A – G Fed. Vs. 36 States (2001) 7 SCNJ 19. FHC/ABJ/CS/400/2003- Dr. Udeh Vs. Dr. Chris Ngige & 8 Ors.- Ruling of 26 / 8 / 03

Contrast: (i). Balarabe Musa Vs. Speaker K. S. H. A (1982) 3 NCLR – 450 (ii). Musa Vs. Hamza (1982) 3 NCLR 229(iii). Musa Vs. K. S. H. A (1984) 5 NCLR 421(iv). A. A. Adesanya Vs. The President SC 1/81 of 15 – 5 – 1981 (v). Abaribe Vs. A. S. H. A (2000) FWLR 1558

10. (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 at 633 para G11. (1983) 9 SC 12612. (1980) 5 – 7 SC113. (i). A – G Fed. Vs. A – G 36 States (2001) 7 SCNJ1

(ii). A – G Lagos Vs. A – G Fed. & Ors. (2003) 6 SCNJ 1(iii). A – G Abia Vs. A – G Fed. & Ors.(2002) 3 SCNJ 158(iv). INEC & Ors. Vs. Balarabe Musa & Ors. (2003) 1 SCNJ 1

14. SC/3/2004 - A – G Anambra A – G Fed. & 36 Ors.15. Volume 77, Lawyers Ed. US 135616. 1999 Constitution, Third Sch. Part 1 paragraph 20 (I)17. Eg, the delay in implementing these disciplinary recommendations against S. W.

Egbo – Egbo & S. C. Nnaji 18. 1999 Constitution – Section 292 (1)(9)(II)19. Aburime Vs. The State (1978) 4 Fed 55 at 73

44

20. A – G Lagos Vs. Dosumu (1989) NWLR (Pt III) 552 at 57421. Nduhe Vs. Ibezim (2002)5 SCNJ 247 at 266 L. 35. See on Locus Standi–

Nkenchor Vs. The State (1985) S. C. 1 22. T. A. Aguda – The Judiciary in the Government of Nigeria – 1983 – P 9023. 23 E/EPT/19/2003- SEN. UBA VS. HON. UKACHUKWU & 4 ORS. date 26 / 2 / 200424. Vanguard: Vol. 20: No. 5491, Wednesday, April 4, P13.25. Edun Vs. Odan (1980) 8 – 11 SC 103 at 127 26. The Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka and Col. Umar Mohammed (retd.) have

recently been hit. Of course Ikemba Nnewi, Dim Odumegwu Ojukwu carries the scare of multiple hit.

LAW AND POLITICS IN NIGERIA’S FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY

THE CONCEPT OF RULE OF LAW IN A TRAUMATIZED POLITY:THE NIGERIAN EXAMPLE

BEING A SPEECH DELIVERED TO THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION AGUATA BRANCH DURING THEIR MAIDEN LAW

WEEK / BAR DINNER ON THE 26TH OF OCTOBER, 2005 BY U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ANAMBRA STATE

PREAMBLE

I must thank the members of Aguata Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association for taking on the task of organizing a maiden Law Week / Bar Dinner and for accomplishing it. I note with singular approval and interest the very thoughtful theme of the Law Week – LAW AND POLITICS IN NIGERIA’S FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY. I am grateful for the opportunity given me to speak on the sub-theme - THE CONCEPT OF RULE OF LAW IN A TRAUMATIZED POLITY: THE NIGERIAN EXAMPLE.

From the program, I notice that you assigned 55 minutes to this lecture. I shall try to keep within the allotted time though the topic which has been chosen for the lecture is a mouth full.

It is usual to start by defining key terms. Let me however first of all emphasize the obvious significance of the topic which has been chosen. It presupposes that Nigeria is an example of a traumatized polity. What then is the meaning of the term traumatized polity? What makes Nigeria a typical example of such a polity?

TRAUMA IN THE POLITY

45

The word trauma, using the ordinary English dictionary without any pretension to medical knowledge means: a mental condition caused by severe shock, especially when the harmful effects last for a long time. It also means: an unpleasant experience that makes you feel upset and anxious1.

What about polity? Again, I take a simple dictionary definition. It means: a society as a politically organized State2. At this juncture, I believe we can all agree that Nigeria as a nation State and a Federal Republic is a polity. I think we can also accept that it is a legal entity. I venture to think also that even legal abstractions without biological souls can suffer trauma. This will happen when members of the polity go through unpleasant experience or experiences which make them feel upset and anxious, or when they suffer such social shocks which affect their mental attitude and distort their psyche. This may produce harmful effects which may last for a long time.

The premise therefore is that Nigeria as a nation State and a Federal Republic had at some period of its existence, suffered traumas. Some specific occasions of these traumas may be identified. They include:-

(i). The period of forced amalgamation of various and varied ethnic nationalities into one incongruous nation of peoples with radically different cultural values and value systems, with the attendant culture-shock.

(ii). The arrangement of this amalgam into unequal social segments. This of course laid the foundation for the feeling of marginalization which has remained with us, distorting our social equilibrium.

(iii). The political upheaval in western Nigeria immediately after independence, which upheaval led to a declaration of a State of emergency in that region and culminated eventually in the trial and imprisonment of Obafemi Awolowo and others for alleged treasonable felony. This event was cited by the coup plotters as partly the reason for the first coup de tat in Nigeria in 1966.

(iv). The long drawn out and most divisive Nigerian civil war with the attendant total disorientation of the psyche of the igbo man, turning him into an extreme self-preservationist, with very little regard for scruples or the instinct for group perpetuation or survival.

(v). The Gowon and post Gowon era of coups and counter coups up to the draconian days of Buhari and Idiagbon and the abrakadabra days of Babangida and Abacha.

(vi). The second coming of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo.

Time does not permit a full discussion of each of these infamous epochs of our development as a nation. In my keynote address to the Magistrates during the

46

Magistrates’ Week activities, on the 24th day of March, 2004, I briefly traced the long term harmful effects of these traumas. I said then that we, the present generation and citizens of this country, Nigeria have inherited a nation with a chequered history. We started as independent nationalities and tribes. We became an amalgamation of diverse nationalities under colonial administration. Eventually we became an independent nation under the Commonwealth of Nations. We started off as a parliamentary democracy after the British model. We became a republic organized after the American model. No sooner had we taken off as an independent nation than our political elite began an unwitting walk down the road to perdition. The evil seeds of social injustice and political retrogression began to germinate and to take root.

Professor Chinua Achebe in his prophetic historical fiction – A MAN OF THE PEOPLE – captured in bold relief the steady decline of our national ethos, from grace to grass, down to the time when our soldiers broke out of their barracks and ineradicably jeopardized the development of civic and political culture of governance, social responsibility, social justice and the rule of law.

This unfortunate distortion of values, norms and ethics brought about more than three decades of military disorientation of our political perspectives, growth and development. From one military coup to another, the very fabric of our political and civic norms and values suffered progressive and inexorable debasement.

Life became devalued, our currency became devalued, our educational system became devalued, our social culture became devalued, our political ethos became devalued. Every regiment of military adventurers in power who marched by further trampled upon the debris of our social debasement and shame. The consequence of this state of aberration is that during the short intervals when civil rule was reintroduced and when the culture of democratic governance came in for relearning, most political dramatis personae lacked any ethical precedents to draw from and therefore went about their act as if the object of politics is to grab power and money by any means. Many politicians for lack of civic culture and the attribute of statesmanship became more of ordinary political animals than statesmen.

The greatest obstacle to unbridled pursuit of power, money and influence, is the rule of law. The military politicians and their imitators therefore considered the law and the Courts established to apply them as an uncomfortable straightjacket from which they must free themselves if they could, or otherwise as a device to be used to legitimize the fraud and oppression of the citizenry. This was basically why the experiment of Civilian Government failed between 1979 and 1983. The military created a distorted political landscape and ushered in the civilian politicians to gambol in it.

In the year 1999, we began another experiment. This time, the level of social decadence and absence of refined civic and political culture had reached an unimaginable proportion. Politics has become a trade and the merchants make stupendous financial outlay for the sole purpose of hijacking the structure of Government, both executive, legislative and judicial, with a view to controlling the State and its treasury to the

47

detriment of the ordinary man. It does not matter at what level in the political pecking order the citizen finds himself, the philosophy of greed and avarice have become the order of the day. I liken it to an endangered specie scampering out and away from the cesspit. The rule of survival is to kick the one below as hard as you can while doing all you possibly could to overtake the one above you.

In this state of trauma with its long time effect, the individual and social psyche is so completely devalued and distorted that the rule of law can only become the sorry victim.

THE RULE OF LAW

That then brings us to the concept or doctrine of the rule of law. What does rule of law mean? We can begin to define it by imagining the opposite of it. The opposite of the rule of law is simply rule by force. This represents the frightening proposition that might is right. It also implies arbitrariness, impunity, anarchy and uncertainty. It is encapsulated in the latin maxim si a jure discedas vagus eris, et erunt, omnia omnibus incerta. This means that if you discard the law, you go astray and everything becomes uncertain to everybody. The rule of law therefore is the opposite or antithesis of all these. What then does the rule of law connote?

It affirms the exclamation made by a great Anglo Saxon jurist and state’s man of great antiquity- be you ever so high and mighty, the law is above you! It connotes equality of all members of the polity under the law. It implies that both the lawmaker as well as the polity governed by the law are equal and subservient to the law to the same extent and degree. It connotes that in a polity as a civilized entity, nothing can be right which is not sanctioned by law and nothing can be wrong which is permitted by law. It is encapsulated in the latin maxim salus populi, est suprema lex which means that the welfare of the State is the highest law. There is immediately a collective resolution by the members of the given polity that the highest public policy in the polity is the affirmation that all shall be governed by the law. Is this utopia? NO. It is imperative if we want to break the vicious circle of unpleasant experience which has chained us to our traumatic past.

Scholars the world over would not discuss the concept of rule of law without mentioning its greatest modern exponent, Albert Venn Dicey, a Professor of English Law at Oxford University in the 19th century. But the history of the concept is very ancient. The concept over the years crystallized into a doctrine and there are two significant aspects of the doctrine. Professor Dicey in his law of the Constitution, 18853 noted these two aspects as follows:-

(i). The absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to influence of arbitrary power. This according to the Professor excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of Government. He declared that English men are

48

ruled by the law and by the law alone, and that a man may be punished for a breach of the law but he cannot be punished for anything else.

(ii). Equality before the law. This implies according to the Professor equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law Courts. In this sense according to him, the rule of law excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law, which governs other citizens, or from the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals4.

Let us emphasize immediately that it is not the focus here to discuss the concept of good and bad laws or just and unjust laws. We do not also want to go into the jurisprudence of the source of law, whether it is a command from a law giver or an aggregation of the consensus of the people in the form of social contract. Our focus is on the doctrine that the law as ascertained must govern all actions and inactions within a given polity without any exemption. All must be subservient to the law which must be applied universally and to the same extent equally to each of the members of the polity.

NIGERIA AND THE RULE OF LAW

If we now agree that we have settled the parameters of what we mean by the concept of rule of law, we must then decide whether this concept is part of the corpus jurist of Nigeria as a Federal Republic and a polity. To decide this, some scholars may go in search of the fons et erigo of social and legal authority in Nigeria. This implies identification of the Nigerian grund norm. This search for a grund norm has engaged academic lawyers and social scientists for a long time and I have had a number of them describe that object as elusive. We cannot embark upon the search here within a space of 55 minutes. We shall therefore anchor our further discussion of the concept of the rule of law on the supremacy clause enshrined in our Constitution, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution, makes a supremacy declaration. It declares that the Constitution is supreme and that its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons through out the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

This is a strong restatement of the doctrine of the rule of law. Some academics and legal pundits may and do in fact disagree on this. They are of the view that the grund norm does not reside in our Constitution. One of the reasons they give being that the Constitution itself is a military imposition and that the declaration “we the people” which prefaced the constitutional document is a fallacy. However, section 1(2) of the Constitution underpins the supremacy of the Constitution by declaring that the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed nor shall any person or

49

group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, set out a charter of fundamental objectives and directive principles of State policy which essentially underscore the importance attached to the rule of law as the fountain and source of social order and good governance of the Nigerian nation State. Section 17 (1) and (2) (a), (b) and (e) of the Constitution are very instructive and provide as follows:-

17 (1). The State social order is founded on ideals of freedom, equality and justice.

(2). In furtherance of the social order -

(a). Every citizen shall have equality of rights, obligations and opportunities before the law;

(b). The sanctity of the human person shall be recognized and human dignity shall be maintained and enhanced;

(c). ……………………………………

(d). ……………………………………..

(e). The independence, impartiality and integrity of Courts of law, and easy accessibility thereto shall be secured and maintained.

For us therefore, this should be grund norm enough. It means that the President of this country or any other functionary of the Government of Nigeria and all political parties in Nigeria including the political party in power must act in total subservience to the principles enshrined in the 1999 Constitution. Any conduct or exercise of power which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is pro tanto inconsistent with the paramount public policy of this country embedded in the doctrine of the rule of law as enshrined in section 1(1) (2) and section 17 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution.

On the part of the citizenry, obedience to the law should come as an article of faith. The citizen must have confidence in the leadership, which confidence the leadership must earn and not command. The citizen must therefore upon the assurance of good faith on the part of the leadership, obey the laws as a matter of conscientious obligation. Again, I ask whether this is utopia? I think it is not. There are other nations who have come quite close to it and disobedience to the law in those nations has become the exception rather than the rule.

50

The point being made is that the foundation upon which the Nigerian nation state was erected was weak and shaky from the start. The law of averages stipulates that if a system has an inherent or latent defect and therefore a predisposition to break down, then it is a matter of time but it will certainly break down.

The rule of law had always been conceived as the centerpiece of the Nigerian political arrangement. That concept was at the core of every constitutional arrangement contrived right from the pre-amalgamation days to independence and self-rule. However, from milestone to milestone, in our national development, traumas of structural imbalance, arbitrariness, impunity, perfidy, greed and graft began to eat deep into the fabric of the polity, thereby imposing great stress on the concept of rule of law, with long lasting harmful consequences which have endured. The citizen had expected that return to constitutional democracy in 1999 would usher in a glorious era for the rule of law, that expectation has unfortunately not materialized. This is because, under the present leadership, arbitrariness, impunity and disdain for the Constitution and Court orders have become the order of the day as far as the Government, especially the Presidency is concerned. The manipulation of the Electoral process was the ominous signal and the precursor to the political rascality now witnessed, executive impunity which followed it, legislative irresponsibility which came in toe and judicial impropriety which became manifest.

Court orders are selectively obeyed. The Presidency leads by infamous example in issuing executive judgments without regard to the separation of powers enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and in total disdain for section 6 of the 1999 Constitution. The legislature is either encroaching upon the executive functions of the State without regard to the Constitution or in its relationship to the Presidency, has become so emasculated that it no longer has the will or capacity to execute any meaningful function of checks and balances.

The judiciary has substantially acquitted itself creditably and had shown itself to be the only one of the three arms of government capable of cleansing itself from within by disciplining its erring functionaries. That notwithstanding, some bad eggs in the judiciary have managed to tarnish the image of the judiciary. In some cases, these bad eggs have been successfully thrown out by the judiciary itself, through the vigilance of the National Judicial Council. In other cases, they have triumphed over the judiciary and the polity through executive protection.

Some politicians in pursuit of power often have no regard for the law or the Courts until they find themselves outgunned in the political power play. That is when they run to the law and the Courts for protection. When it suits them, they extol the courage and wisdom of the Courts and when it does not suit them, they denounce the Courts.

Exposed to these vagaries and uncertainties which confront them in their day-to-day interactions with their fellow citizens and the State, some members of the society begin to cut corners, short-change the law and resort to all manner of impunity so as to survive.

51

QUO VADIS

If the rule of law is to be respected and enthroned, the leadership as well as the followership must become concerned stakeholders and act in collaboration to enthrone it.

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

The State, and by this, we mean the national leadership must lead the way by showing good example. The politicians must respect the prescriptions of the electoral legislations and the Constitution and play politics within the law. Rigging of elections is a direct impunity against the doctrine of rule of law. Electoral malpractice of any kind is an affront to the rule of law. Subversion of the independence of tribunals set up to adjudicate election disputes is also an impediment to the survival of the doctrine of rule of law. The leadership of the nation under a constitutional democracy such as ours can only be drawn from the political class. If the political class is rotten, corrupt and insensitive to the requirements of the rule of law, no viable national leadership can emerge from their fold, capable of enthroning the rule of law, and without the rule of law, this nation will progress inexorably to the abyss by passing through one trauma after another.

THE EXECUTIVE

The State can only be successfully administered under a constitutional democracy such as ours, if the executive, (particularly the President), the legislature, the judiciary and all other functionaries of the State machinery respect the rule of law in all dealings inter se and with the public. The most dangerous impunity which impedes the rule of law is when an arm of government seeks to interfere with the functions of the others or attempts to intimidate the others by the use of the State paraphernalia of power at its disposal to unconstitutional ends.

The executive is the arm of Government most often tempted to intimidate not only the polity but the other arms of government. The more eccentric the incumbent, the more prone he is to aspire to dominate others. It is not in keeping with the rule of law for the President to attempt to change the leadership of the legislature whenever he feels that the legislature is exhibiting manifestations of independence. It is also not in the best interest of the rule of law when the executive arm of government usurps the functions of the judiciary by issuing executive judgments sub judicial to pending litigations, or by orchestrating a scandal so as to intimidate the judiciary by disparaging the character and integrity of judges of even the highest Court of the land.

We all witnessed in the recent past, how the President went on the National Television to declare the Senate President of Nigeria guilty of bribery and to order his removal, even before appropriate impeachment proceedings had been initiated against the President of the Senate. We also witnessed a Federal Minister declared guilty of bribery by the President on National Television before he was ever taken before a Court of Law for trial. The question that one may ask is what happens if the Courts of Law vindicate both the

52

Senate President and the Federal Minister of Education. There lies the impunity of it. The President clearly usurped the functions of the National Assembly and the Courts in both instances and this amounts to an affront to the rule of law.

We have also witnessed how the President attacked the Supreme Court institution by accusing it of corruption so as to overawe the Court which the President perceives to be giving judgments unpleasant to the Federal Government.

Also recently, the President pronounced on the validity of the Governorship Election results in Anambra State as announced by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), ever before the Tribunal hearing a petition concerning that election had concluded its sittings. These conducts by the President is reprehensibly, very irresponsible and totally a disservice to the Constitution and the doctrine of the rule of law.

There is again the issue of removal of the Governor of Plateau State by the Presidency through declaration of a State of Emergency in that State without regard to the Constitution and the law. There is also the question of using the legislature and the judiciary to emasculate organized labour so as to stifle concerted opposition from the Nigerian Labour Congress. These are aspects of executive lawlessness and impunity which cannot stand in the face of the doctrine of the rule of law.

When President Olusegun Obasanjo was sworn into office on the 29th day of May, 1999 he made a speech. In that speech, he spotlighted the keynote of his presidency. He was going to march on toes! He was going to cause pain! He would take on the low, the high and the mighty!

Apparently, to ensure delivery on these promises, he engaged a strong team of Private Legal Practitioners to wage his legal campaigns in various Courts in execution, not only of his personal wars, but in defence of his allies. He also engaged a rapid reaction force of image launderers to wage his public relations campaigns. It became the main objective of this force, to thoroughly abuse and vilify anyone who dared to criticize “baba” no matter how constructively.

The President first articulated action was a confrontation with the Senate. He began a deliberate assault against the independence of the Senate and its leadership. He orchestrated the downfall of one Senate President after another in order to find a stooge. He began a frenetic cat – and – mouse struggle with the Speaker of the House of Representative in a bid to obtain absolute suzerainty over the Executive and Legislative arms of Government. He made a valiant bid for total personal control of the party apparatus of the ruling party to which he belongs. He took on the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), but when the heat became unbearable for him, he turned to the Courts for protection.

These battles remained inconclusive until the end of the President’s first term. He apparently made up his mind that neither the President of Senate nor the Speaker of the

53

House of Representatives nor indeed the leadership of the party would return during his second term, the materialization of which, he was in no doubt about. The President of the Senate Pius Ayim Pius took one look at the behemoth that the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria had become and backed away from further participation in politics. The Speaker of the House of Representatives Alhaji Umar Na’abba, the intrepid, picked up the gauntlet. He was “dismissed at the polls”!. The leadership of the party of course was changed, and changed again. Labour still smolders like a restless volcano under judicial surveillance, having been cut to size by the legislature following executive arm-twisting from the President.

In 2003, Wabara, who believed he lost an election into the Senate and who filed an election petition at the appropriate Tribunal was in the meantime declared elected by INEC in a revised declaration of results. And even when this declaration was still hotly being challenged at the Election Tribunal, and the issue whether INEC was competent to alter a result once declared, was pending before the Court, a Federal High Court at Abuja ordered that he be sworn in as a Senator. He was! and of course eventually became the President of the Senate, while all the judicial proceedings were still pending in the Courts! What impunity!!

I read from the Daily Sun Newspaper of Monday, April 12th, 2004 a front page teaser “I’m a stooge – Wabara.” I was then referred to page 12 of the publication. I went to page 12 of the publication and this is what I saw:-

I’m a stooge, says Wabara

“Senate President, Chief Adolphus Wabara, has said he is contented with being called a stooge or rubber stamp Senate President.

It is possible that Wabara was thoroughly misquoted. In fact, I chose to believe that he did not extol the benefits of being a stooge and that he did not in fact refer to himself as a stooge. But it appears to me that what was ascribed to the President of the Senate Mr. Wabara, represents politics in Nigeria today. You must be a stooge to make political progress and there is nothing else but political progress to be made. The rule of law does not matter! To “succeed” or to “obtain benefits for your people” or to “successfully hold any office” you must be someone’s stooge. If you cannot be the stooge of Mr. President, then better be the stooge of someone who is lucky enough to be a stooge of Mr. President, even if that stooge calls himself your godfather!

It is obvious that the President has not succeeded in imposing his will absolutely on the judicature except the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and the Anti-corruption Tribunal and the Election Tribunals. This is not however for want of a determined effort. As for the political party in power, the legislature and the political class, these have lost their identity altogether, having ceded their existence and thinking faculties to the President.

54

There is however another aspect to executive interference with the rule of law which is fast assuming disturbing proportion. There are too many incidents of unresolved murders. Some of these murders are considered to be political assassinations. Under the Constitution and the laws, the police and the Courts control the criminal justice system. It is therefore the function of the Police and other Law Enforcement Agencies to find the culprits and to charge them before the Courts of Law for trial5. It impedes public prosecution and the rule of law, holding back the arm of the law, when the executive interrupts police investigations and the due process by appointing mere Commissions of Inquiry to obfuscate the matter by polluting the stream of crime detection, thereby preventing the police from pursuing the offenders and catching them before they dissolved themselves into the mainstream of the society never to be discovered6. Some people have expressed the ominous fear that the Presidency adopts this ominous procedure so as to prevent the perpetrators of these murders from being found and punished. Giving the number of these murders and the standing of those murdered in each case, this ominous thinking by some citizens is understandable.

THE LEGISLATURE

The legislature under the present dispensation has eroded its own authority by the exhibition of greed, graft and brazen display of financial corruption. This State of moral bankruptcy occasioned by the conduct of some members of the legislature renders the institution easy prey to the executive, to be seduced when convenient, cajoled when expedient, intimidated at will and humiliated at will by the executive.

The lack of will and the attributes of Statesmanship on the part of some members of the legislature make them derelict in their functions and therefore a disservice to the rule of law. In many cases, they become willing accomplices collaborating with the executive to subvert the common good of the society. The rule of law envisages a strong, morally sound, intelligent and articulate legislature. The traumas this country has gone through make it imperative for a new breed of legislators to emerge, strong enough, sufficiently morally strong, intelligent and articulate enough to exercise necessary self-restraint in pursuit of their personal interest, and to courageously execute their functions as a watch over the executive. The process of the emergence of the present core of incumbents, unfortunately negatives this lofty expectation. It is hoped that as we further develop, political immaturity would give way to progressive political maturity.

THE JUDICIARY

The judiciary has continued to exhibit bold and courageous determination to defend the Constitution and the law for the good of the polity and within the concept and doctrine that the law is supreme and knows no sacred cow. Unfortunately, there had been instances in the recent past when the judiciary had come down to deserved reproach and opprobrium. It is however heartwarming that the judiciary as an institution never shied away from disciplining its erring members. Many judges including even judges of the appellate bench have had their reputation terribly dented by being removed from office for misconduct. The collective blame which is borne by the legislative and executive

55

arms of Government cannot be shared by the judiciary in this instance. This is because it is only the judiciary that strives earnestly to deal with impunity and graft within its rank decisively. There is no ostrich posturing within the judiciary such as is exhibited both at the executive and at the legislature.

However, it behooves all persons who sit in judgment over others as judges to abide by the rule of law by respecting the law and the oath of office which they took. This nation cannot afford a failed judiciary.

It is the function and indeed the burden and the duty of a Judge in any Court not to condone the ambivalence and perfidy of the Legislature or the Executive. The proper mood of the Court had been captured quite trenchantly in the case of OJUKWU VS. GOVERNMENT OF LAGOS STATE7, where Lord Justice Kayode Eso, said as follows:-

“Under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 the Executive, the Legislative and the judiciary are equal partners in the running of a successful Government. The powers granted by the Constitution to these organs by section 4, section 5, and section 6 are classified under an omnibus umbrella known under Part II to the Constitution as “Powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. These organs wield those powers and one must never exist in sabotage of the other or else there is chaos. Indeed there will be no Federal Government. I think for one organ and more especially the Executive which holds all the physical powers to put up itself in sabotage or deliberate contempt of the others is to stage an executive subversion of the Constitution it is to uphold. Executive lawlessness is tantamount to a deliberate violation of the Constitution.”

In UNONGO VS. AKU8 the then Chief Justice of Nigeria the Hon. Justice M. Bello in a comparative restatement of the law said:-

“In the United States of America, it is trite rule of Constitutional law that in consequence of the principle of separation of Governmental Powers embodied in the Constitutions of the United States and of several States, any statute by which the legislature attempts to hamper judicial functions of Courts or to interfere with the discharge of judicial duties or to unduly burden the exercise of judicial functions is unconstitutional and void”.

In SOFEKUN V. AKINYEMI & ORS9, Aniagolu J.S.C. put it this way:-

56

“It is essential in a Constitutional democracy such as we have in our country that for the protection of the rights of the citizens, for the guarantee of the Rule of law which includes according fair hearing to the citizen under procedural regularity and for checking arbitrary use of power by the Executive or its Agencies, the power and jurisdiction of the Courts under the Constitution must not only be kept intact and unfettered but also must not be nimbled at”.

THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

The police and all other law enforcement agencies of the Government must bear some of the blame for the failure of the rule of law. Most times, the police command, in an effort to carry out the supposed wishes of the executive become agents of political parties or persons or organizations perceived to be in the good books of the executive. The police in Anambra State do not often collaborate with the Anambra State Government in the maintenance of law and order within the State. They prefer to collaborate with the Federal Government and those factions of the political party in power perceived as cronies of Mr. President. This conduct of the police created a State of impunity which allowed hoodlums to invade the infrastructure and paraphernalia of Government in Anambra State in November, 2004 in a concerted display of brigandage, arson and mayhem under the full view of and apparent supervision of the police.

Presently, the motor union, the National Union of Road Transport Workers and an association of motor owners are involved in both inter and intra factional disputes. Some members of these organizations target the Anambra State Government which they consider unfriendly to their interests. They managed to obtain the alliance of enemies of the Government of Anambra State who are perceived to be allies of Mr. President. This alliance appears to give them the impunity to foment trouble in the State in the belief that the police would turn a blind eye just as it did in November, 2004. This conduct can only be a precursor to a breakdown of law and order. That any law enforcement agency could support a faction of the polity in a purely private dispute with another faction is an unfortunate affront to the doctrine of the rule of law. It is as repugnant as the spate of extra-judicial killings which the nation has witnessed for which the Law Enforcement Agencies have not been able to account.

THE PUBLIC

As a result of the rather bad example of impunity, arbitrariness, greed, graft and perfidy set by some Government functionaries, some members of the society resort to similar behaviour. Every novo riche wants to be the little god in his little kingdom at his village or town. He starts by making himself President General of the Town Union. If he has enough money to beat back all opposition, he takes the title of Igwe, the Royal Highness

57

of his town. It is either he takes the royal route or he makes a bid to grab political power as a godfather or both. No amount of interethnic upheaval, quarrels and fighting can deter him. No amount of destruction of State property can deter him. Not even the total relegation of the poor elements in his community can touch his conscience once he is able to donate the occasional cow and a few bags of rice to them in exchange for their obsequious adulation and obeisant acclamation of Igwe!!! or Ochiriozuo!!!

But meanwhile, the rat race is on. The struggle out of the cesspit is in progress. The end justifies the means. All rules are cast aside and the rule of law becomes a mere joke. It is in the nature of man that every oppressed person is an oppressor in relation to those beneath him. So, the chain of oppression builds from the grassroots to the Presidency. We become a nation of oppressors paying mere lip service to the rule of law. Using the Courts as either a weapon of operation or a shield to protect us from oppression. In the end, we become one huge oppressed and traumatized society.

In this whirlwind of impunity, no weapon is spared and no strategy or tactic is outlawed. Even some churches resort to spiritual intimidation and coercion and thereby criminally extort money from the hapless and gullible followers. We have heard the news recently of a worshipper who stole from her employer, a bank in order to given thanks or pay tithe to her spiritual overlord. The church to which this bounty was made did not ask about the source. This happens everyday in our churches and I say it is an aspect of breach of the tenets of the rule of law. Religious superiors owe utmost good faith to their followers and are required by law to ensure that any gift made by any inferior disciple proceeds from an exercise of free will and is not tainted by any semblance of suspicion as to the source.

THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER

I want to end this discussion by reminding us as legal practitioners that it behooves us to be champions of the rule of law at all time. We make a living by espousing the law and therefore we owe a duty to preserve the law. We must not teach others to flout the law and we must not show them how to bend it.

Above all, we must not use the law as a weapon of oppression for the intellectual and mental exploitation of the lay people for the purpose of enriching ourselves materially. To goad the uninformed into embarking on a legal dispute or suit just for the purpose of earning a fee by way of reward without regard to the merits of the case and the benefit of the litigation option is a disservice to the rule of law. To prosecute the weak at the instance of the strong merely on tender by the strong of acceptable fee without regard to the justice of the case both morally and legally considered is not the proper function of any lawyer worth his honour and is a disservice to the rule of law. To subvert the course of justice by interfering with due process or by misrepresentation of facts or suppression of facts is a disservice to the rule of law and unbecoming of a member of the legal profession.

58

To apply to a Court for orders to restrain the police from investigating a crime so as to bring the perpetrator to Court for trial is not only an abuse of judicial process, it is antithetical to the rule of law10.

It is no defence when a lawyer says that he is doing the best he can within the prevailing circumstances of the time. The lawyer by his training and calling is not an ordinary citizen. He is a privileged person and the repository of the public trust and confidence. He must act accordingly.

CONCLUSION

I have tried not to make this discussion unduly academic. An academic discussion of the topic will not be accommodated in a lecture of 55 minutes. I have also avoided historical and cotemporary analysis of some of the ideas which I have thrown up. All I have tried to do is to touch a few chords, provoke a few thoughts in the hope that the search for truly level playing ground for the interplay of political and social intercourse in Nigeria based on the rule of law may be moved forward. This paper is therefore in the nature of a social rather than an academic treatise. Our national trauma is the devil we must beat, if we aspire to rise to take our place amidst civilized societies administered under law.

I leave you therefore with this message – that the rule of law is the life of every lawyer. It is the lawyer’s gift to society. Through it, the lawyer finds his relevance. Every lawyer must therefore insist on the rule of law, strive for the rule of law and stand for the rule of law always. Nothing else is worth standing for. A lawyer who stands for anything else stands for nothing.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, KSC, SAN.Attorney General / Commissioner for JusticeAnambra State.

NODES

1. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary 6th Edition 2. Ibidem 3. 10th Edition4. Dicey Op. sit page 202 – 203 5. See Chris Uba Vs. A-G Federation et al CA/A/205/03:

judgment of 9th May, 2005. See also Fawehinmi Vs.CP (2003) FWLR (Part 108) 1335.

59

6. The killer of Dele Giwa is still not known, no one knows who killed Chief Harry and Chief Dikibo. The APO SIX are still waiting for their killers to be brought to book.

7. (1986) 1 NWLR (Part 18) 621 at 633 paragraph H.8. (1983) 9 SC 1269. (1980) 5-7 SC 110. Chris Uba Vs. A-G Federation et al (supra)

PUBLIC LECTURE DELIVERED BY UDECHUKWU NNORUKA UDECHUKWU, SAN, ON THE 15TH OF OCTOBER, 1997 TO MARK

THE OPENING OF THE 1997 LAW WEEK OF THE LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UYO

THE LEGAL PRACTITIONER AS ADVOCATE FOR THE ACCUSED

INTRODUCTION

I have chosen the topic of this lecture advisedly for a number of reasons. First, I intended to focus on an issue relevant to the theme of your 1997 Law Week. I am glad that you approved the topic. Secondly, I wished to raise vital issues which I expected would fire the thoughts of the Law student whose ambition is to become an Advocate. Thirdly, I considered my only credential for being invited to speak in the first place, the fact that I am an Advocate. I took it for granted that my lecture must relate to Advocacy. Fourthly, this lecture gives me the opportunity to continue a campaign which I have been waging for over two decades - the campaign to remove that popular prejudice against Advocates as a class, which deprives the profession of that full measure of public esteem and confidence which belongs to the proper discharge of its duties. This prejudice arises from the false claim often set up by the unscrupulous, in defence of questionable transactions, that it is the duty of the lawyer for a fee to do whatever may enable him to succeed in winning his client’s case, without regard for truth, honour or justice.

Unfortunately, this prejudice has let even the well-informed in the society to believe that the claim is true or well-founded.

60

When I sat for the entrance examination for admission to study law, the first question in the general knowledge paper was:-

“It is often said that the Law is an ass and that Lawyers are liars, Comment”.

Before then, I knew nothing worthwhile about Law or about Lawyers. And my eldest brother who advised me to pursue a career in the Law never suggested to me that I was going to be schooled on how to ride the donkey or in the ignoble art of lying. Eventually, I was never taught either. I thank God for this.

Recently, I was surprised to read in the Abia State University Law Journal, 1995, an article captioned, “THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS IMMUNITY FOR NEGLIGENCE: A RECONSI-DERATION OF PRINCIPLES” written by an eminent scholar, E.S. NWUCHE a Senior Lecturer in Law, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, wherein he expressed the same sentiment. He said, “Unpalatable as it may seem, the majority of our Counsel do not put the public interest before theirs. We dare say that we live in a country where Litigants/Complainants regard their matters in Court as a do or die battle. To them, victory is the end. We also live in a country where the reputation of Barristers as determined by the public is dependent on the number of cases which are won. There is thus the desire to win at all cost on the part of Counsel. In the prosecution of their cases, they advance their clients cause with the sole desire to win. Their public duty is vague as it has no direct practical or pecuniary relevance to the case they are engaged in”. (Underlining supplied).

These are strong words, and I presume that the eminent Scholar has his facts and figures to back up this assertion. Scholars, being intellectuals do not normally express their views in wide generalisations not backed up by empirical data. I, however, imagine that the legal profession particularly that aspect of it pertaining to advocacy has not degenerated to such abysmal level to warrant such strindent assertion to be made with justification.

No doubt however, the truth remains as noted by Breth, MR in MUSTER VS. LAMB (1883) L.R. II QB, 603 that “a Counsel’s position is one of the utmost difficulty. He is not to speak of that which he knows. He is not called upon to consider whether the facts with which he is dealing are true or false. What he has to do is to argue as best he can without degrading himself in order to maintain the proposition which will carry with it either the protection or the remedy which he desires for his client. If amidst the difficulty of his position, he were to be called upon during the heat of his argument to consider whether what he says is true or

61

false or whether what he says is relevant or irrelevant, he would have his mind so embarrassed that he would not do the duty which he is called upon to perform”.

It can be seen therefore that the career of advocacy is sufficiently complex and perplexing to be described as inscrutable. If therefore I succeed in the end to have fired your imagination in any positive way without inciting you by the issues which I shall raise or the perspective through which I direct you to view them, I would consider my effort richly rewarded.

THE PREMISE

I think I should proceed to establish my premise. Let me do so by stating that the duty of acting as an Advocate or one who pleads the cause of another person before a Court or Tribunal is quite exciting. It is even more exciting to act as Advocate for another person in defence of that other person’s right to life or liberty. To act as a defender of others especially in the protection of their fundamental rights to life, liberty and reputation in their relationship with the State is no doubt a noble and honourable calling. It was Yates, J. who in MAYOR OF NORWICH VS. BERRY, 1766, BURR 4 (PART IV) Page 2115, said of Advocates that the Courts must have ministers and that the attorneys are its ministers. This is the origin, I suppose, of the expression that the Advocate is a minister in the temple of justice. Lord Crampton J. later improved on this when he said that “This Court in which we sit is a temple of Justice, and Advocates at the Bar as well as the Judge upon the bench are equally ministers in that temple. The object of all equally should be the attainment of justice. We are all Judges, Jurors, Advocates and Attorneys together concerned in this search for truth: the pursuit is a noble one and those are honoured who are the instruments engaged in it”. See R.V. O’Connell (1944)7 IR LR 261 at 312 - 313.

This duty, like all duties carries with it certain responsibilities. By the very nature and demands of this unique duty however, the responsibilities are particularly onerous and burdensome. Honourable Justice Chukwudifu Akunne Oputa then of the Supreme Court, now retired captured the essence of the gravity of this burden when in Udo Vs. State (1988)3 NWLR (Part 82) 316 at 343, he said that “In criminal cases, Counsel should realise the enormous responsibility that they undertake, when asked to shoulder the heavy burden of defending an accused person in a murder case, an accused person on trial for his very life. The ethics of the profession require and dictate that Counsel should devote himself completely to this task, so that he may watch meticulously and constantly the interest of his duties in every criminal case but more especially in capital offences. This is one reason why our profession is called honourable”.

62

Lord Justice Nnaemeka - Agu J.S.C. (as he then was) put it succinctly thus:-

“.... A Counsel briefed or assigned for such a case must give utmost priority to the case against all other commitments”. (Ibid at p.330).

DEFINITION

Having stated my premise, I will briefly define the word Advocate. I will do this not by reference to who is an Advocate, but by reference to what an Advocate does. An Advocate assists, defends or renders legal advice and aid, and also pleads the cause of another or others before the Court, Tribunal or Commission of Enquiry.

To practice the profession of an Advocate in Nigeria, one must first become a Legal Practitioner. A Legal Practitioner is in this context, a person duly qualified to practice Law in Nigeria and enrolled as such with the Supreme Court under Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap 207, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. A person so qualified and enrolled is entitled to practice both as Barrister and as Solicitor.

It is not within the essential scope of this lecture to delve into the technical and narrow meaning of the various words; Barrister, Solicitor, Counsel, Attorney-At-Law, and Lawyer. It will be safe and sufficient to generalise and say that within the Nigerian context, these words are used interchangeably and an Advocate is all of the above.

I must henceforth confine myself and this lecture to the functions, duties and attributes of the Advocate as defence Counsel or Attorney in a criminal trial.

FUNCTIONS OF THE ADVOCATE AS DEFENCE COUNSEL

First, the function. The 1979 Constitution guarantees to any person accused or charged with a criminal offence, the right to the services of a Legal Practitioner right from the start of Police investigation. Under Section 32(2), any person who is arrested or detained shall have the right to remain silent or avoid answering any question until after consultation with a Legal Practitioner or any other person of his choice. And Section 33(6)(c) and (d) of the Constitution guarantees to every person charged with a criminal offence, the right to have his defence conducted by a Legal Practitioner of his choice. I should mention that where the offence carries the death penalty and the accused cannot finance the services of a Legal Practitioner, one is assigned to him by the State.

63

It can therefore be simply said that it is the function of an Advocate engaged by any person accused of a crime or any accused person in respect of whom the duty of defence has been assigned to the advocate, to render to the accused adequate legal defence at the trial.

Dealing with this aspect of the career of advocacy, the Supreme Court in KIM VS. THE STATE (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 233) 17 said thus:-

“The constitutional and statutory provisions requiring that a person charged with a capital offence shall be represented by Counsel implies that:-

(a) The Counsel shall be present all through the trial; and

(b) The Counsel shall render to the accused reasonable professional services all through.

In other words, the legal representation must be a representation in real terms”.

Perhaps, the most succinct description of the function of an advocate engaged in the defence of accused persons has been offered by Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. in his book, Journey to Justice. He put it this way:-

“Once engaged, defense attorneys must give themselves without reservation to protecting the constitutional rights of each and every one of their clients. For it is the zealous defense of the individual - however unpopular, however revolting the alleged crime - that guarantees the right of the peace-loving, law-abiding majority to live secure in its freedom. It is this - no matter what the personal cost - that makes a defense attorney more than just a profiteer of pain”. (page 92).

I can safely say cadit quaestio and so much for the functions.

THE DUTIES

Now, the duties. There are four perspectives to this: duty to the Law, duty to Justice, duty to the Court and duty to the client, the accused.

DUTY TO THE COURT

64

In so far as duty to the Court is concerned, the proper place to look is Regulation 3 of the Rules of professional conduct in the Legal Profession which states thus:-

“During the trial, the Lawyer should always display a dignified and respectful attitude towards the judge presiding not for the sake of his person but for the maintenance of respect for and confidence in the judicial office. It is both the right and duty of the Lawyer fully and properly to present his client’s case and to insist on an opportunity to do so. He should vigorously present all proper arguments against any ruling he deems erroneous and should see to it that a complete and accurate case record is made. In this regard, he should not be deterred by any fear of judicial displeasure or even punishment”.

It is very clear from the provisions quoted above that what is required of the Lawyer is not timidity or servility towards the Judge. In fact, the Rules of Professional conduct specifically prohibit the Advocate showing marked attention or unusual hospitality to a judge, and the advocate should avoid anything calculated to gain or having the appearance of gaining special, personal consideration or favour from a judge (Regulation 2). All that is called for is that an advocate should maintain towards the Court respectful attitude not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.

It is important to note that judges ideally are not wholly free to defend themselves against unjust criticism, clamour or newspaper sensationalism, therefore, they are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of the Bar against such unjust criticisms, clamour and sensationalism. Any conduct which tends to scandalise the Court must be avoided.

It is disrespectful of the Court for an Advocate to usurp the duties of the Court. The best an Advocate can do is to make submissions and leave it for the Court to decide the point and not to pontificate in a demagogic manner of the certainty of his case. See ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES OF NIGER CONTRACTORS CO. (NIG) LTD VS A-G KADUNA STATE (1987) 2 NWLR (PT 57) 381.

DUTY TO THE LAW

The Advocate’s duty to the Law has been the subject of many judicial dicta. Hon. Justice Niki Tobi, justice of the Court of Appeal put it this way:-

“Taking the matter most mildly, I can only hope that Counsel, a minister standing in the temple of justice in his capacity as an

65

Advocate, will always and as usual place all the facts of the case before the Court without let or hinderance. While nobody doubts the constitutional right of Counsel to defend his client with all professional strength, professional know-how and wisdom at his disposal, the ethics of our age-long profession demand that we do not withhold relevant facts from the Court”. See ALAKE VS THE STATE (1991) 7 NWLR (PT 205) 567.

By the reference to the ethics of the profession, His Lordship surely had in mind Regulation 24 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession. It stipulates thus in part:-

“Lawyers are in duty bound to uphold the Law; and no service or advice ought to be rendered or given by them to clients, corporate or individual, of any description or to any cause whatever involving disloyalty to the Law”.

DUTY TO JUSTICE

While the Advocate must remain at all times loyal to the Law, he must speak up for justice whenever the Law comes into conflict with justice. It is not generally realised that Law and justice do not always cohere. Justice for instance often suffers when laws are arbitrarily made. This happens usually when laws are made or decreed ad personam, or without respect for the rule against retrospectivity or in derogation from the rule against ouster clauses. This will happen whenever the democratic Government is subverted and displaced by a dictatorship. Law then becomes a weapon for subjugation of the resistor, the preservation of the de facto authority of the usurping dictator and the suppression of resistance. It also happens when the Judge had unjustifiably pandered to the strict letters of the law technically construed to the detriment of substantial justice, or when the Judge out of overt bias or immaturity descends into the arena and has his vision impeded by the dust of conflict, and his thinking beclouded by the clamour. At times like these, the Advocate must become a social engineer and use his learning to speak up for justice. He must appreciate that judicial activism whatever its virtues, cannot blossom under a military regime for the obvious reason that the decrees of the military regime are enacted profuse with a miasma of clauses obnoxious to universally approved legislative maxims and cannons. These include retro-active clauses, ouster clauses, and clauses which not only limit the jurisdiction of the constitutionally established Courts, but transfer such jurisdictions to Tribunals in which the trained Judge is made to sit merely as a member of a panel of adjudicators side by side with nominees of the army and the Police who invariably lack adequate understanding of the judicial process and the essence of the Rule of Law.

66

If it is appreciated that the most notable trials and prosecutions of persons accused under military regimes are done under these decrees and before these so-called Special Tribunals of an admixture of trained and lay Judges, then it can be easily appreciated what constraints an activist Judge who finds himself as member of such a Tribunal or who has to interpret and apply these decrees must work under.

In a situation such as this, the trial Advocate must become the mouth-piece of justice and speak out eloquently in the hope that through his effort, the Bar of public opinion may be galvanised into a concerted cry for a change of an unjust law.

In a speech delivered to the Law Society, Zambia in April 1970, Kenneth Kaunda put it this way:-

“The Lawyer in a developing country must be something more than a practicing professional man. He must be more, even then, the champion of fundamental rights and freedom of the individual. He must be in the fullest sense a part of the society in which he lives and he must understand that society if he is to be able to participate in its development and the advancement of the economic and social well-being beyond the narrow limits of the law because while the law is the instrument through which the society is preserved in its shape and character, it is a reflection of the society”.

DUTY TO THE ACCUSED

However, to the man in the street, the Advocate owes it to his client to get him out of trouble no matter the odd or cost. It is this error of perception that produced the misconception that an Advocate strives always to win at all costs. It is in fact true that as far as the accused person is concerned, nothing short of a win can suffice. Kutigi Hon. Justice of the Supreme Court pointed it out in NTITA VS THE STATE (1993) 3 NWLR (PT 283) 505 when he noted that the duty of an Advocate saddled with the defence of an accused person is not a light one. His duty is to save the accused from the consequences of a guilty verdict and not to accelerate his death by negative or nil advocacy.

The Advocate’s duty to the accused had been beautifully summarised by Hon. Justice Olatawura as justice of the Court of Appeal in OLEKAIBE VS THE STATE (1990) 1 NWLR (PT 129) 632 as follows:-

“where Counsel is assigned to defend an accused, or an accused has a Counsel of his own choice in accordance with our constitution, the

67

Counsel so assigned or briefed by the accused himself is expected to put in his best. If it is realized or appreciated that eighty per cent or more of those charged with criminal offence are people of feeble intellect, those assigned or briefed must at all times display that part of their knowledge acquired through special training. There is increased danger of conviction if a Counsel ignores the rules and practice under which an accused person is to be tried. Similarly, an appeal may be lost due to want of care or disregard of the rules and practice of the Appeal Court”.

The Advocate must not however advance the case of the accused beyond what is required by law. He must not make himself an accessory after the fact, nor is he permitted to do any thing to facilitate an otherwise untenable defence. He must remember that he is not the agent of the accused. Pollock C.B. said in SWINFEN VS LORD CHELMSFORD (1860) L.T. Rep. Vol. 2 (N.S.) 413:

“I always said I will be my client’s Advocate, not his Agent. To hire himself to any particular course, is a position in which no member of the profession ought to place himself”.

THE QUINTESSENCE OF ADVOCACY

What then are the attributes of real Advocacy ?

Advocates are managers of altercations. They manage disputes and controversies often carried on with heat and anger but do so in the dignified forum of the temple of justice. The Advocate in defence of an accused person must cultivate the following attributes:-

(i) The attribute of punctuality to Court and full participation at all stages of the proceedings.

(ii) The attribute of fearlessness and the ability to raise all issues whether of fact, of law or of procedure available to the accused.

(iii) The attribute of a considerable power of argument, not only to present his client’s case but to dislodge that of the prosecution.

(iv) The attribute of pleasant and cultured manner of speech and comportment so as not to stare the human prejudices of the Judge against the accused by the process of transferred malice, or misplaced aggression.

68

(v) The attribute of a sound knowledge of human nature so as to be able to analyse the human elements in the case and exploit his understanding of them, for the benefit of his client.

(vi) The attribute of nimbleness of wits to repel the unexpected attack or to launch a new one himself if the opportunity offers.

(vii) The attribute of calm and assiduous capacity for research into and marshalling of what are often extremely complicated and uncoordinated facts in an orderly sequence to the advantage of the accused.

(viii) The attribute of a sound knowledge of the law. The Advocate must be fully informed in relation to all relevant statutes and subsidiary enactments. He must be well versed in the applicable judicial opinions relevant to the case. He must avail himself of as much of the relevant writings on the subject by Scholars, Lecturers and Professors of Law.

NEGATIVE ADVOCACY

It is said that quitters never win and quitting is not an enviable attribute of an Advocate. An Advocate who undertakes to plead on behalf of an accused before a Court or Tribunal must appreciate that he bears in his hand the life and liberty of his client. This is a very solemn charge and must be borne with all seriousness, perseverance and dedication. The primary attribute of an Advocate is his capacity to persuade and persuasion is not achieved by provoking or intimidating the Court or by setting up a parallel intellectual disputation with the Judge to the detriment of the res litis contestatio (the subject matter of the trial).

It must be emphasized that the right of a Lawyer to withdraw from employment once assumed arises only from good cause. Even the desire or consent of the client is not always sufficient. The Advocate should not throw up the unfinished task to the detriment of his client except for the reasons of honour or self respect. Such reasons of honour and self respect may arise if the client insists upon an unjust or immoral course in the conduct of his case or if he persists over the Advocate’s remonstrance in presenting frivolous defences or if he deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation as to fees or expenses. Even in such a case, the Advocate may withdraw but never without due notice to the client and allowing the client time to employ another Advocate.

69

In DIMIS VS. C.O.P. (1962) N.N.L.R. 45, the Supreme Court made it clear that an Advocate has no right to withdraw altogether from a case and leave the accused unrepresented without the leave of Court. In ASEMAKHA VS. THE STATE (1965) NMLR, 317, the Supreme Court again said quite succinctly that it is highly improper for an Advocate to cease in the midst of a murder trial to attend proceeding without being excused by the Court.

Another grievous mistake very condemnable is the tendency of some Advocates to take issues with the Presiding Judge or Tribunal and thereby achieve a stalemate in the trial proceeding in a manner most detrimental to the client especially when the client is in custody and will remain so for as long as the stand-off lasts. A good advocate must weigh every move which he intends to make to assure himself that any such move is made, not out of temperamental lack of control or emotional outburst on his part but always made in the best interest of the accused whose life and liberty are after all at stake.

In the conduct of the case at the trial, as well as in the management of the case generally, the Advocate is no doubt dominus litis, and, as that very revered jurist, Lord Justice Kayode Eso, formerly justice of the Supreme Court but now retired, once said, the advocate could sometimes filibuster if he considers it necessary for the conduct of his case but subject to caution by the Court.

Filibustering becomes cautionable when it is in the nature of a wanton confrontation of the Court. Good Advocates do not confront the Courts normally. They find ways of persuading the Court to adopt their thinking and when they fail, they defer the battle until the appeal stage. I have no record of proceedings in the trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa and Co. I depend on the newspaper accounts. It was said that at one stage their Lawyers withdrew from the case. I can only say that it is most unfortunate that these men who were not Lawyers had to go through a trial for their very existence after their Lawyers had withdrawn and the best option they then had was a State-appointed Advocate, who, to say the least, must have gone through a most frustrating experience coming into the case at so late a stage. I am so happy for my learned friend, Mitee, who went on to defend himself very ably and very successfully and I am glad that he is alive today. I know Mitee, he is a fantastic advocate. I was therefore not surprised that he revelled the tribunal members and the Prosecutions team with his peculiar brand of humour and kept his head, bringing all his instincts as a quintessential advocate to bear in his own defence.

Bearing in mind that the function of an Advocate is to put at the service of his client, the accused, the full amplitude of his learning, skill and industry and to defend his client to that same extent to which the client himself would have done were he to be possessed of the requisite learning, skill and expertise, I am tempted

70

to believe that if Ken Saro-Wiwa and Co. had been advocates in the mould of Ledum Anazor Mitee, they too, like Mitee, would be alive today. They had first class advocates to defend them, it is a pity that for whatever reason, they were not defended to the end by these advocates. I think the fact that Ledum Anazor Mitee is alive today justifies the saying that “quitters never win”. Advocates quit at the peril of their clients.

In the case of Chief Alhaji Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, I think I am on firmer grounds since part of the proceedings are documented in our law reports. I will take for my analysis, the one reported in (1995) 7 NWLR (PT 405) 1, the citation is CHIEF ALHAJI MOSHOOD KASHIMAWO OLAWALE ABIOLA VS FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA. The facts briefly are as follows:-

Abiola was charged before the Federal High Court, Abuja, on a three-count charge of treasonable felony. An application for his bail was made orally by his Counsel but bail was refused. There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the refusal of bail. The Appeal was successful and the Court of Appeal granted bail to Abiola. The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court and obtained an order for stay of the bail pending Appeal. At the Supreme Court, both sides filed various applications. Some were heard while others were pending, having been called up and formally adjourned by the Supreme Court. All of a sudden, Counsel for Abiola filed an application seeking to disqualify seven out of the twelve Justices of the Supreme Court then serving from hearing the case, on grounds of likelihood of bias, the basis being that these Supreme Court Justices had sued a Newspaper Publishing Company in which Abiola has interest for libel. It must have been clear to Abiola’s Counsel that this would mean that there would be no quorum to hear the case because the issues involved raised fundamental constitutional questions and would require a full Court of seven Justices of the Supreme Court. It certainly must have been clear to Abiola’s Counsel that unless the legislature was persuaded to appoint additional Judges to the Supreme Court, their client, Abiola, would remain in custody for an indefinite period if the motion filed by them succeeded, since there would not be at least seven serving Justices left to hear the case after seven had stood aside. As it turned out, there are now only nine serving Justices of the Supreme Court, including the seven who had withdrawn from the appeal, making it practically impossible for a quorum to be formed at all.

In spite of these self-evident facts and reality, Abiola’s Counsel moved this motion and fell into the hands of fate when the Supreme Court granted the application. Abiola has remained in custody ever since. My argument is that no matter the reason which advised the move made by Abiola’s Counsel in the circumstance, the strategy did not take into account the well-being of Abiola himself. I do not doubt that Abiola may well have preferred to be kept perpetually in prison for whatever

71

political gain he may envisage. The fact that ever since, futile efforts have been made to secure his release, makes me suspect that it was not his decision to stay in custody by disqualifying the very judges who were in the position to free him. I may be wrong in my thinking in which case I stand most humbly corrected. It is however my respectful view that Abiola’s continued stay in prison custody is the consequence of negative advocacy. For another such example of negative advocacy, I will advise you to read LEKWOT VS JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL (1997) 8 NWLR (PT 515) 22.

CONCLUSION

I will conclude by stressing my premise, which is that the advocate engaged to conduct the defence of an accused person must recognize the enormous responsibilities assumed by him. He must manage the case in such a way as to curtail to the barest minimum, the physical, mental and emotional inconveniences and anguish, which a criminal prosecution invariably occasions to the accused. He must appreciate that life and civil liberty are priceless and that in the final analysis, it is not his own hair that may catch fire but that of his client who depends on him for deliverance. Above all, he must be careful not to throw away the baby with the bath water. He must always remember that the client, accused is a human being and not a guinea pig to be used for testing certain whimsical ideas and concepts that may catch his fancy. He must sublimate his ego and remember always that public praise for his spectacular showmanship is no solace for his client if in the end the client is consumed at the trial and all that he is left with is mere hue and cry of sympathizers. He must also appreciate and remain forever conscious of the fact that the accused person has a family of dependants, loved ones and relations who share his travails. These third parties are entitled to be considered whenever certain moves of doubtful forensic benefit are contemplated in the course of a trial. He must in the final analysis remember that his services are not free and therefore the accused client must not at the end of the day have purchased a liability merely because rather than serve the interest of the accused, the advocate spent time massaging his own ego, assuaging his own temper and satisfying his own whims, or playing to the gallery.

You are the future Advocates of Nigeria. Many of you will in future become Senior Advocates of Nigeria. I commend to you the following words of the Venerable and Erudite Lord Justice Nnaemeka-Agu, retired Justice of the Supreme Court to be found at page 579 of (1990) 7 NWLR (PT 146) at page 550 in the case of NDU VS STATE:

“In this respect I wish to reiterate what this Court stated in the case of Udo V. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 316. At pp. 334-335, I laid down the guiding principles thus:

72

1. Legal representation in capital cases is guaranteed by both the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act and Laws of this country. For this reason a Counsel who has been briefed or assigned either by the Court or Legal Aid to represent a person standing trial on a capital charge shall be present in Court throughout the hearing and conduct the case from the beginning to the end with all the seriousness and professional skill at his disposal.

2. “No more important professional duty ..... falls to members of the Nigerian Bar than that of representing persons charged with murder (and other capital offences) and ..... once Counsel accepts instructions in such a case he is expected to give it priority to all other engagements, however important or lucrative they may be. (See Queen V. Uzorukwu 3 F.S.C. 14; [1958] SCNLR 319).

3. “Only in the most exceptional cases should a brief for the defence of a person charged with a capital offence be returned when once accepted and then only if sufficient time remains for another Counsel to master the case. In no circumstances should a brief for the defence in murder (and other capital) cases be ‘devilled’. (See: The Queen V. Uzorukwu 3 F.S.C. 14; [1958] SCNLR 319).

4. I may refer to Practice Note reported in (1964) 2 All E.R. 400 which read

“Counsel who has accepted dock brief and finds that he has conflicting commitments, still incurs the obligation to represent the accused unless, on his application to the Court, the Court relieves him of this obligation. In such circumstances he may expect the Court to be helpful. This statement does not detract from the right of Counsel to demur to being selected for a dock brief, if he is of a opinion that an existing commitment prevents him from undertaking the brief”.

5. I should recommend it to the General Council of the Bar that they take time to draw up some more guiding rules on this most important matter for the legal profession so as to lay down definite rules to guide Counsel as to when they can reject a

73

brief in a capital charge, what is required of Counsel who accepts such a brief, what course a Counsel who finds on his hands two such cases fixed on the same day take, and so on”.

I should however inform you that relevant rules have been laid down in Nigeria for the guidance of members of the Nigerian Bar Association and all Practitioners of Law in Nigeria. These can be found in the Rules of Professional Conduct in the legal profession published as Legal Notice No. 69 in the Federal Gazette No. 5 of 18th January 1975.

DINNER LECTURE BY U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN

AT THE LAW DINNER OF THE LAW STUDENT ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA, UNIVERSITY OF UYO CHAPTER ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2000

OUR PROFESSION, OUR FUTURE, SAVE IT

I am glad to be in your midst today once again. I appreciate the persistence of your invitations. To my regret however, I had not been able to honour all your invitations intermediate to the last time I was with you. I assure you however that my inability had never been for want of desire. Novelty always appears handsome. So I presume that my absence for so long had made your hearts grow fonder of me. It is however clear to me that in the past, you took my excuses with a pinch of salt. This time you have schemed to overcome my prudence by inserting my name into your invitation cards and into your program and then confronting me with a fait accompli at the shortest notice. Your preemptive strike has paid off because this time I forgot to duck.

Let me congratulate you, students of the Faculty of Law, University of Uyo and members of the Law Students Association of Nigeria, University of Uyo Chapter for your far-sightedness in the choice of the theme of your Law Dinner for the year 2000.

“Our Profession, Our Future, Save it” captures the imagination and savours of a clarion call from your generation showing your collective determination to take a hand in the moulding of your destiny as future Practitioners of the legal profession. Is it also a plea to the political leadership and those responsible for policy connect with legal education?

It is said that a growing youth has a wolf in his belly. Your hunger is therefore to be fully understood. The theme, which you have chosen, conjures a vision of men and women tossed together by fate on a voyage aboard the Griselda, across a turbulent sea. Except that this time the Griselda will not sink. There will therefore be no need

74

to abandon ship. Every one of you as your theme suggests has vowed to play his or her part to keep the Griselda afloat so that it may eventually berth safely.

Can I seek your permission to digress a bit and tell you about the Griselda. In English Language Griselda means a woman of excessive meekness and patience. It derives from an old tale re-told by Boccaccio, Patriarch and Chaucer. It is also the name of an ill-fated ship, which was eventually wrecked at sea, due to a fire on board. When crisis struck, the Captain sent out a distress call. The first rescue boat which arrived was rather small and could only take in a few persons without the danger of itself being sunk. The Captain however, advised against stampede and decreed a special evacuation procedure. The sick and the infirm were first evacuated, while the rest calmly waited in the face of imminent danger. When the second rescue boat arrived, the old and children were allowed to board for safety. The next in line to go were the women, later the men and finally the crew. In the story it was said that the Captain and his crew nearly did not make it to safety because by the time rescue came for them the Griselda was already under water and they themselves were merely holding on to any straw available on deck. This is the origin of the expression Griselda order, which has ever since remained the standard procedure for evacuation in times of danger. I suggest that it ought also to apply in times of scarcity so that when there are not enough seats in the lecture hall gentlemen ought to allow the ladies to sit first.

OUR PROFESSION:

I now return to the theme. Our Profession, Our Future, Save it! What profession?We cannot take it for granted that merely because we are gathered here at a Law Dinner, we invariably refer to the profession of Legal Practitioners. Past events point to the possibility that it is not every graduand here seated would eventually gravitate into the profession as Legal Practitioner. In the first place, it requires more than a university degree to be a Legal Practitioner. In the second place, experience has shown that some people who attended the Law School and were eventually called to the Bar as duly enrolled to practice the Legal Profession, end up not practicing the profession.

Such is the luster of the legal profession that even men and women past their peak in life, including retirees from other vocations and professions aspired to enroll, not because of any burning desire to practice the profession in real terms but for the sole purpose of earning the appellation “Barrister” if they could not be advocates in our Courts or Solicitors in the office, they could at least be advocates at the village square during community gatherings. They could also act as unsolicited Legal Advisers while occupying the post of Chairman of family meetings.

The Barrister is still an enigma in any social setting and people are so enamoured of the glitter of the status that the prefix “Barrister” assures the owner of a place of pre-eminence in social settings in which in the past the owner had been nondescript.

75

For some young man and women, the wig and the gown and the sobriquet “Barrister” are mere keys to open the door to opportunities in politics, or the booming business of evangelical proselytism. People in this class never see the inside of a Court room except as litigants or spectators. They never teach law, they do not hold any position as Legal Practitioners in any office. In fact, there is nothing legal in the strict sense in what they do to earn a living. They cherish the sub nomen “Barrister”, and will affix it to their names, on political billboards and posters, and engrave it on their complimentary cards as if it gives irrefutable proof of their credibility and substance. The only time they use their wig and gown is when they take pictures with them in order to adorn their political campaign posters even if in the mean time they had sold the robe itself to raise political capital. At other times, they emphasize the fact that they are Legal Practitioners as if that fact alone confirms the truth of their pontifications as evangelists.

Actually people of this class are not Legal Practitioners. They debase the noble and very honourable profession by masquerading behind it for other purposes. They may be successful in what they do but what they do is not the practice of the Legal Profession. In most cases, they carry on in ways, which detract from the high ideals, which make the profession the most respected profession in the world.

You have to save our profession from this people by not joining their ranks. To this class of men and women, we implore with respect that when you decide to earn a living by other means other than the practice of law, please do not mislead the world by putting yourself forward as a Legal Practitioner!

Legal Practitioners care about the future of the Legal Profession and would want to save it. They carry the burden of saving it and it is a heavy burden. Those who merely use the profession, as means to other ends do not care about the future of the profession neither does it bother them that their attitude very adversely negate the image of the true professionals.

There is yet another class of non-practicing Legal Practitioners. These are usually women who merely wanted the prefix “Barrister” so that they may earn respectability as Chairpersons of exclusively women organizations such as Better Life for Urban Women. These clubs are usually registered as a non governmental organizations and Barrister Chairperson immediately acquires a leverage in the business of canvassing for foreign financial assistance and nomination as delegate to China or some other place for the advancement of the welfare of women. This class of “Barristers” it is conceded do no serious damage to the image of the profession. In fact with a little bit of clever maneuvering, the Barrister Chairperson may get some government recognition and end up being selected for appointment as a Judge of the Superior Court!

76

Who then is entitled to claim the Legal Profession as his own? In Greenough Vs. Gaskell, Brougham LC in 1833 said this of the Legal Profession

“The interests of justice cannot be upholden, the administration of justice cannot go on without the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the practice of the Courts and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which form the subject of all proceedings”.

This was another way of expressing the same views, which Justice Best had expressed in 1819 in Morris V Hunt when he said:

“There is nothing which has so great a tendency to secure the due administration of justice as having the Courts of the country frequented by gentlemen so eminently qualified by their education and principles of honour as at this time appear to discharge the duties which they are called upon to fulfill “.

It is to men like these that we refer when we talk about the Legal Profession and these are the men who care about the future of that profession and it is the proteges of these men that must be anxious that the profession be saved.

In our context, who are these men? They are men and women who by discipline and hard work have applied themselves to the arduous task of the study and mastery of the principles of law. Who have thereafter undergone the specialist training at the Law School leading to their enrolment as Legal Practitioners in Nigeria and who have thereafter chosen as their Profession, the Practice of Law as a calling. They may be advocates at the Bar. They may be Judges on the Bench. They may be Learned Lecturers of Law whose duty is to produce future Lawyers.

They may be Legal Counsel in Corporate organizations. Wherever they are, their calling is to offer legal advice and to espouse legal rights in our courts as advocates and generally to advance the course of justice, and the knowledge of the law.

These are the men and women who are constantly reminded instinctively of the ethics of the Legal Profession and the code of conduct for judicial officers and the need to observe both.

OUR FUTURE

If we have now reached the consensus that it is our aspiration to be stakeholders of this profession, what then is the prospect for our profession or what is our future? This must be a legitimate concern of every undergraduate ambitious to attain the stated goal.

77

Such a student is bound to be worried about the bottleneck which appears now to exist between graduation from this citadel of learning and admission to the Professional School-the Nigeria Law School, preparatory for life as a Legal Practitioner. There are a number of anxious prospects, which will worry every aspirant:

1. Law Profession being a conservative one in which seniority at the Bar counts as a paramount determinant of status, it is the expectation of every student that the university authorities would do everything to ensure that students are not delayed between the time of their graduation and the time of their entry into the Law School, so as not to suffer loss of seniority.

2. The student will be concerned that no artificial academic barriers are created for limiting entrance into the profession. Such barriers may arise from inadequate arrangements for the welfare and comfort of students at the Law School which invariably will result in mass failure at the Bar Exams. Another possible source of frustration may arise from the arbitrary fixing of cut off mark for success at the Bar Exams.

3. The high cost of books and the paraphernalia for Legal Practice especially in this computer age which may make the cost for the new entrant to the profession quite beyond his means.

4. The lack of adequate and sufficient openings in established chambers for meaningful pupilage.

These are but a few of the nagging questions, which must agitate the minds of the aspirant. My advice is that it is never as difficult to proceed as it ever was to start. It is gratifying that the Law School has been decentralized. It is hoped that this will reduce the hardship usually encountered when all students were compelled to cluster at Bwarri. It is also noteworthy that Lecturers of Law have recently seriously addressed the issue of availability of local source materials for the study of law. This they have done by publishing quality textbooks on various aspects of the law, which are comparatively affordable. In this regard I have to commend Lecturers of this university who have within the last two years to my knowledge authored and lunched various texts on the law.

The future, I warrant is bright. There is no serious cause for anxiety for Legal Practitioners. The horizon for Legal Practice is still very open and it is only the eyes of a child that fears the painted devil. All that is required is a mind prepared to try out new ideas and I have no doubt that he who dares still wins.

BUT WE HAVE TO SAVE IT!

78

Our future in the Legal Profession may partially rest in the hands of others but the task of saving it and the benefit thereof squarely rests in our hands. I have cited 17 th

century views on the standing of Lawyers to you so as to implant it in your minds that you are about to become beneficiaries of a very rich Professional Legacy. Elsewhere I had suggested ways in which misfits tend to debase the true value and worth of our profession. I will now proceed to give you a few hints as to how you can save the honour and respect of the profession:

1. Cultured Behaviour: A good archer is not known by his arrow but by his aim. It is therefore expected that every Lawyer must aspire to be measured by his conduct and not by his noise making. It is said that a fair face will get its praise though its owner may keep silent. A man never speaks of himself without a loss and a loud voice bespeaks a vulgar man. Therefore Lawyers must cultivate cultured behaviour and remember always that a gentleman should be honest in his actions and refined in his language.

2. Formal and Proper Dressing: It is said that a smart coat is a good letter of introduction. Lawyers must therefore form the habit of good presentation not only in words but in appearance too. In this regard I must commend you the undergraduates of the Faculty of Law, University of Uyo. I note with satisfaction the formality of your dressing at all times when I have been privileged to be with you. There is no sight as displeasing to the discerning as the sight of a Lawyer with crumpled bib and rumpled collar often over unclean shirt. It is hoped that you would carry from this university the culture of clean appearance which you have already cultivated into your lives as future practitioners in our courts so that you would not be counted among those Lawyers who blame their slovenly appearance on NEPA for failing to give them power to iron their court vests.

3. Elsewhere I had told you about the Griselda. That was a lesson in patience and orderliness too. A Lawyer needs these as much as clarity of thought and equanimity of mind. Let me just say by way of emphasis that when you do enter this profession, you do well to remember at all times that as far as Legal Profession is concerned, professional advice is confined to legal advice. So when you do interact with other members of the society, it will be appropriate not to bore your audience with reminders of your acquaintance with the law even when your professional advice had not been sought.

When last I spoke to you, I dwelled extensively on the rules of professional ethics. You may revisit that speech because in my view it contains rich guidelines on those things, which we should do in order to save this profession.

This being a Dinner Speech, I have advice myself not to make it too intellectual so as not to constipate the audience. I have also avoided making it too humorous so as not to cause you gastric injury. Above all, I have tried to keep it short so that you do not

79

get bored to death. Let me conclude by offering a word of advice to the young men amongst you who in the very near future would become members of the cherished and very honourable profession. There will be the urge to keep at the pace of the jet set. I will however caution that a little house well filled, a little land well tilled and a little wife well willed are great riches.

To the gentlemen in skate (as they are soon to be) let me also give you the following time-tested and inexpensive beauty hints. For attractive lips speak words of kindness. For lovely eyes seek out the good in people. For slim figure share your food with the hungry. For beautiful hair, let a child run his finger through it once a day and for poise walk with the knowledge that you will never walk alone.

ADDRESS BY THE HON. ATTORNEY – GENERAL / COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE, CHIEF THE HON. U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN AT THE SPECIAL COURT SESSION IN AWKA IN MEMORY OF THE LATE IFEOMA OLIVE

YVONNE CHIWUBA ON THE 21 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2004

(IFEOMA OLIVE YVONNE CHIWUMBA (ADA AWKA ODEZURUMBA)

It is with very heavy heart that I now speak about my predecessor who served as the Hon. Attorney – General / Commissioner for Justice of Anambra State, late Chief, the Hon. Ifeoma Olive Yvonne Chiwuba, a distinguished legal practitioner and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

She now lies here before us as we pay our last respect to her memory. Her loss to us is irreplaceable. It is a personal loss to me. The chair that I sit on in the hallowed office of the Attorney – General was last graced by her distinguished presence. The files that I treat contain the imprint of her work, in fact her elegant handwriting still drip of the freshness of the ink with which she wrote her directions. The memos that she wrote are profound sources of inspiration, information and knowledge to me. Her graceful picture hangs from the wall directly facing me as I do does things which until the month of May, 2003 it was her lot to do.

That picture stares me in the face every morning from every direction in the office like Mona Lisa, reminding me of that great singer Nat King Cole who sang of Mona Lisa.

“Are you warm, are you real Mona Lisa?Or just a cold and lonely, lovely work of art!”

That she is no more, that we are now looking at her mortal remains, that we have now to speak of her in the past tense makes me recall the words of the Preacher, the son of David King in Jerusalem:

80

A generation goes, and a generation comesbut the earth remains forever the sun rises, and the sun goes downand hastens to the place where it rises the wind blows to the south and goes round to the northround and round goes the wind and on its circuits the wind returnsall streams run to the seabut the sea is not full to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.

Ecclesiastes 1:4-7

But praise be to God and we thank him for his grace and goodness.

Ifeoma Olive Yvonne Chiwuba was not a cold and lonely, lovely work of art. She was warm, she was real and she was lovely. She was by no means lonely. The one we loved to call the iron lady lived a remarkable life. In June 2003, the Supreme Court of Nigeria paid to her a glorious tribute in her capacity as officer in the Temple of Justice. It was only a matter of time before she was elevated to the enviable rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Alas, she is no more! Her achievements are not however diminished in any way by her departure.

It was as Attorney – General of Anambra State arguing the case for the State in the case of Attorney – General of Lagos State Vs. Attorney – General of the Federation & 36 Ors., that the Supreme Court in the very words of that icon of jurisprudence, Hon. Justice Samson Odemwingie Uwaifo JSC said of Ifeoma Chiwuba as follows:

“ The Court is entitled to take account of and use such materials and information which it considers will help it to determine the true intendment of a statutory or constitutional provision in a purposive interpretative approach or which will lead to access the correctness of a meaning it has through the usual canons of interpretation given to such a provision. This is particularly so of a provision which is either ambiguous or seems to have become controversial. Chief Ifeoma Chiwuba the learned Attorney – General of Anambra State certainly urges on this Court that interpretative approach to Section 20 of the 1999 Constitution in the present case. So by her courtesy for which I again express my gratitude the relevant proceedings of the constitutional committee were made part of her argument on behalf of the 5th Defendant but in support of the Plaintiff”.

81

(2003) 6SCNJ 1at 33)

It takes a great one to identify another great one. That Uwaifo JSC picked out Ifeoma Chiwuba HAG for courtesy leaves no one in doubt as to the pedigree and status of Ada Awka Odezurumba as Legal Practitioner and Advocate.

I had said she was not cold and lovely work of art. She lived a life of inimitable achievements. She went to some of the best schools including Saint Bartholomew’s Primary School Asata, Enugu, Government School Awka, and the influential and elitist Queens School Enugu.

She was a roaring lioness, a proud product of that primus inter pares, the University of Nigeria. Of course she learnt the rudiments of the law from the quintessential faculty of Law of that University.

As a pupil advocate she sought out the best to groom her in the person of that pioneer secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association Chief Amanke Okafor. She went on to set up her private law office and enjoyed the confidence of her large assemblage of clients, and impressed both the Courts and her colleagues as a strong defender of the law.

She was an outstanding politician, she was elected to represent Awka Federal Constituency under the platform of SDP in 1992. She served in the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committee of the House.

She was again elected Chairman of the Awka South Local Government in 1996. Of course in March 2002, she was made the Hon. Attorney – General / Commissioner for Justice for Anambra State, a position she had until May, 2003.It is an axiom that a healthy mind often resides in a healthy body. Yvonne was an outstanding sports person. She was a member of the Nigerian contingent to various international competitions and took a haul of no less than 15 gold, 18 silver and 8 bronze medals in table tennis. She retired as the undefeated Lady’s Singles Champion in the former East Central State and later Anambra State in 1980. She even won the West African Universities Lady’s Singles Table Tennis Title during her last and final competitive outing in Yamassaukorou, Ivory Cost in 1981.

It is an eloquent testimony to her outstanding integrity and honour that she was always elected to the position of treasurer in most organizations to which she belonged. She was the Assistant Chairman (Finance of the Youth Sports Federation of Nigeria YSFON) in the old Anambra State.

Her community efforts and impact in Awka culminated in her being elevated to the Chieftaincy title of Ada Awka Odezurumba. What else can I say!

82

Let me invite you my Lord the presiding Judge to consider with me this anecdote about the great debate in the womb in the world of the unborn taking from Samuel Butler’s Erewhon and Erewhon revisited:

“They have no knowledge and cannot even conceive of the existence of anything that is not such a they are themselves. Those who have been born are to them what the dead are to us….To an embryo its mother is simply the environment and is looked upon much as our organic surroundings are by themselves. The great terror of their life is the fear of birth that they shall have to leave the only thing that they can think of as life and enter upon a darken unknown which to them is tantamount to annihilation. Some indeed among them have maintained that birth is not the death which they commonly deem it, but that there is life beyond the womb of which they as yet know nothing and which is a million fold more truly life than anything they have yet been able even to imagine. But the greater number shake their yet unfashioned heads and say they have no evidence for this that will stand a moment examination. “Nay” answered the others, “so much work so elaborate, so wondrous as that whereon we are now so busily engaged must have a purpose though the purpose is beyond our grasp” “Never!” replied the first speakers “our pleasure in the work is sufficient justification for it. Who has ever partaken of this life that you speak of and reentered into the womb to tell us of it? Granted that some few have pretended to have done this but how completely have their stories broken down when subjected to the test of sober criticism. No, when we are born, we are born and there is an end of us”.

Alas, in the hour of birth, when they can no longer reenter the womb and tell the others, they find it is not so!!.

I therefore say to the members of Chiwuba family and all those thrown into grief by the loss of Yvonne to take heart and master their grief in the belief which we share as Christians that she at the moment has gloriously found out the truth which shall continue to elude us until we rejoin her.

May the good Lord receive her in paradise.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.

83

SPEECH DELIVERED BY THE HON. ATTORNEY – GENERAL, CHIEF, THE HON. U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN., DURING THE COURT SESSION HELD AT

AWKA HIGH COURT ON THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2004 IN THE MEMORY OF LATE MRS. NKECHINYERE OGBONNE AMAECHINA

This world is indeed a stage. All mortals therein are actors and actresses. We have our entrances and we have our exits. We have our parts to play on the stage of life. We come in, play our parts take our bow and make our exits.

Put in another way, we are all pilgrims in progress, travelling in the train of life. The train makes its stop at every station and those for whom the journey is at an end make their exits. The train chugs along, picking more pilgrims as it goes and discharging them likewise.

On her birthday, the 5th day of May, 1974, Nkechinyere Igbonne joined the train at Aguata, in Orumba Local Government, Anambra State. She immediately began her odyssey as a pilgrim and an actress on lives inscrutable stage. She acted many a happy part, drawing standing ovation at various scenes.

To Michael Henchard created by Thomas Hardy in his book, the MAYOR OF CASTERBRIDGE, happiness in this life may well have been mere episode in a monotonous drama of pain. The reverse holds through for Nkechi and we thank God for this. In her life, pain was a mere episode in a lively and happy drama of joy. She was well liked, admired and respected by her peers. She excited and positively impacted on those who interacted with her and watched her as she played the ever-changing scenes of her life. She reveled many of us with her lively stories and sang with great enchantment in the choir. To her darling and divinely chosen husband, Dilibe, she was the definitive companion, confidant and cook.

On Monday, the 6th of September, 2004 at the early age of 30 years, she took a bow and quit the stage after a brave and gallant struggle with an unrelenting and implacable illness.

84

Her husband, Dilibe, her only son Chinonso, the people of Orumba Local Government of her birth, the people of Anaocha Local Government of here marriage, members of Amaechina family, her colleagues, members of the learned and very noble profession of law, her alumni of the Nigerian Law School, Abuja, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, the Federal Government Girls College, Owerri and the various primary schools at Aba, Kano and Awka, her fellow labourers in the vineyard of the choir of the chapel of redemption, Unizik, Awka, the Christian Lawyers Fellowship of Nigeria and Saint Michael’s Anglican Church, Ifite-Awka are now united in sorrow as they mark this occasion of her departure from the train. Alas! Amongst true friends, goodbye is the hardest word to say but someday somehow it must have to be said.

One inspired song writer and philosopher, once wrote that when one loves something of value very dearly, then, one should and ought to be prepared to set it free from captivity and let it fly to freedom.

We have loved this enchanting and very lovely lady very much and very dearly, we have savored her charming and endearing personality and shared her unforgettable memories. We enjoyed her interesting stories which she told with great animation. We have watched various sport programs with her and we have taken part in various Christian religious programs with her. But later in her life, we had also watched her suffer great pain and pangs of very unrelenting and implacable illness and discomfort.

We watched and agonized helplessly as she suffered the excruciating pains while we suffered with her in proxy. Now it has pleased God to make the ultimate choice for her by releasing her from the unceasing pains and granting her eternal release and peace.

As those who loved her, I call upon all of us without any exception to thank God for his mercies and accept his decision in this matter and also let us now also release Nkechinyere from the captivity of our love and wish her God’s sweet repose, as we verily believe that she has gone to meet her maker ahead of us having come to the end of her journey as our fellow commuter in this pilgrim train.

My dear friend DOC, I sent to you a thoughtful message of condolence when you called me on the phone very promptly to inform me of your wife’s transition. I said in that my letter that my mind went to something I read in Nelson Mandela’s Autobiography, LONG WALK TO FREEDOM. He was talking about two letters he wrote to his dear wife Winnie when he was in prison at Ruben Island and he said as follows:-

85

“I wrote Winnie two letters about a particularly beautiful tomato plant, how I coaxed it from a tender seedling to a robust plant that produced deep red fruit. But then, either through some mistake or lack of care, the plant began to wither and decline, and nothing I did would bring it back to health. When it finally died, I removed the roots from the soil, washed them, and buried them in a corner of the garden….Sometimes there is nothing one can do to save something that must die”.

I then said that thinking back, I cannot imagine what love or care you failed to show to your dear departed Nkechi both before and during her time of sickness. You stood by her in sorrow and happiness and in sickness and in health. You truly ran the race with her and must now look back with fortitude, knowing you gave her your all.

Let me now say something very profound to you. “The past is simply old scenes brought into present consciousness. The future is today’s concern with what is unknowable. What you think now of the past and the future are present thoughts, and only present thought determines whether you are happy or miserable…this is why the past and the future are the storied thieves of health and happiness . They rob the present of its vitality, effectiveness and peace. Shuttling between yesterday and tomorrow, the mind loses force in the present and hangs suspended, incapable of forward motion”. (Ervin Seale)

I cannot find any stronger words of exhortation to say to you now except to remind you that all through the travails when you fought side by side with your gallant wife we members of your Ministry of Justice family stood with you in spirit and prayed for you and for Chinyere. We missed you very much at the office. As the pillar of strength in the office of the Attorney – General, your inevitable distraction created a vacuum difficult to fill. Knowing what strength you drew from your dear wife, we knew how painful it was for you to remain on the fringe of the action at the office, unable to produce those intellectual punches which invariably knocked out our adversaries for us.

We hope that you will quickly recover from your loss and grief to rejoin us so that we can continue to draw inspiration from your unmatched skill, knowledge and painstaking research potential.

On behalf of the Ministry of Justice, especially the Solicitor – General, the Directors, the Law Officers and the nucleus of the trench soldiers in the office of the Attorney – General, I reaffirm our solidarity and prayer that God will give you the fortitude to keep your trademark pleasant smile and indomitable spirit.

86

May God do something soon to widen the smile on your face and reward you for your exceptional character and goodwill towards all of us and for your loyalty, devotion and care for Nkechi when it mattered.

Chinyere and your good self succeeded in garnering for yourselves a rich stock of well wishers and committee of friends. My wife and I count ourselves blessed to be in this elite company. We all pray that God will receive the soul of our friend and sister, your wife in paradise and richly bless you and Nonso.

On a personal note, your wife always called me Nnaochie. I grieve for her loss. I regret that she did not live to play her role as a state counsel in the Ministry of Justice, which role I looked forward to because she was an exceptionally brilliant lawyer. The Ministry has definitely lost an invaluable member by her departure.

May the soul of our sister Nkechinyere and the souls of all our loved ones departed find peace and succour in our Lord Jesus Christ in paradise.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANAMBRA STATEIN THE ONITSHA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ONITSHA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SPECIAL COURT SESSION IN HONOUR OF CHIEF PHILIP UMEADI, SAN, OZONMA ON THE 13 TH OCTOBER, 2005

A TRIBUTE TO CHIEF PHILIP UMEADI, SAN, OZONMA BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN

With heavy heart, I make this tribute to a man who for over 20 years stood in loco parentis to me and my family.

It is not generally known in these circles that Chief Philip Umeadi, SAN, Ozonma and I had been very close and that I owed a lot to him for what I have been able to achieve in the profession.

As an Awoist myself, my first acquaintance with the name of the man was when he ran for national office as running mate to Chief Obafemi Awolowo, QC, SAN for the office of President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the banner of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN).

87

Anybody acquainted with the life and philosophy of the great Awo knows that he never suffered fools gladly. He demanded the best both in terms of mental discipline and intellectual depth from his associates. When therefore the sage of yore picked Chief Umeadi as his running mate, I thought so highly of Umeadi that his name became fixed in my consciousness. I accepted it by faith that Umeadi must be a man of intellectual depth, outstanding mental discipline and exceptional courage. That was the only way he could have attracted the trust and confidence of the great Awo.

Awo himself was of course not only a politician but a legal practitioner of outstanding distinction. I began to look for common features between Chief Philip Umeadi, the lawyer and Awo, the lawyer. Of course, at the time I never knew that faith would eventually bring me closer to the man on whom I had lavished so much admiration from a distance.

When however I became man enough to need a wife and I had made the initial proposition to my heartthrob Juliet Nkiru, she declined to give any affirmative answer until I had presented myself to her uncle Chief Philip Umeadi. At first, I was surprised to know that my fiancée had such a close family relationship with the man for whom I had for so many years held such profound admiration from a distance. I was therefore glad to have an opportunity to meet the man in the flesh. Later, I visited my future mother-in-law to indicate my interest in her daughter. After making the usual inquiries about my job and my background, she asked if I knew Umeadi. I said I have heard about him but have never met him. She said I should go and tell him my intentions.

So, one eventful Saturday evening in November 1980, I went to see Chief Philip Umeadi at his office with my fiancée by my side. We made that initial acquaintance and I have never forgotten the event. He handed over two files to me on that first meeting. One had to do with an insurance claim. The other one was a Supreme Court brief which he had written in draft. He asked me to complete work on the insurance claim. He also instructed me to read the Supreme Court draft brief and make my observations in writing within two weeks.

That insurance claim concerned the father of my fiancée. As for the Supreme Court brief, I duly submitted my written comments two weeks after that first encounter. At this second encounter, Chief Philip Umeadi gave his approval and his go ahead and from then on, I never had any further difficulties with my courtship and my marriage to the lady who by the grace of God has remained my beloved wife and the mother of my children. Chief Philip Umeadi had continued to stand in loco parentis to me, my wife and my children until his death.

88

In time, I found out why I was asked to see Chief Umeadi and obtain his approval. He remained until his death the pride of his Nnaochie, the people of Nawfia particularly, the Nwakakwa / Meniru family of Umuriam, Nawfia to which my wife belongs. His Nnaochie held him at very high esteem. It is instructive that Honourable Justice PNC Umeadi, in his obituary notification described him as the patriarch of Umeadi family. He was indeed a towering iroko that provided succour and shelter for those who had the privilege to be his relations. He admitted me into this privileged group until he died.

As for the brief which I read in draft at his request, the Supreme Court judgment in that case is to be found in (1987) 3 NWLR (Part 60) at page 295. The citation is ONYEMA VS. OPUTA. It was a split decision at the Supreme Court. The issues argued were so intricate and statistical, the jurisprudence thrown up so profound that I immediately realized why the great Awo considered Umeadi his intellectual mate. Both the majority decision as well as the minority decision in that case make compelling reading. One thing that struck me was that Chief Umeadi wrote the brief while Chief FRA Williams argued it. This was a case of two giants coming together in a common and epic legal battle on one side of the divide. No wonder they split the Supreme Court!

It was Philip Umeadi who in 1995 called me to inform me that I had become good enough to aspire for elevation to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. He instructed me to “go and file your papers” after I had applied, Chief Umeadi further instructed me to “go back to your chambers and remain diligent with your practice. Do not bother to see anybody. You don’t need anyone to market your credentials, they sell themselves”. His words came to pass because in 1996, I was elevated based on the application I had filed on his suggestion.

He monitored my progress in this profession so closely that when I put my foot wrong by advocating the cause of someone considered improper to be admitted to practice law, he was the first to rebuke me and later ran intercession for me soliciting the understanding of other legal giants like GCM Onyiuke, SAN, Chief Rotimi Williams, SAN, Sir Clem Akpamgbo, SAN until I was forgiven my sins.

Later, in a politico-legal escapade, I came into a collusion with now disgraced Justice Egbo Egbo. Again Philip Umeadi stood by me, running intercessions for me and protecting me from the bruises that I might have suffered from that unfortunate event.

Our lord Jesus Christ asked his disciples “who do men say I am?” He then asked them again “and who do you yourselves say I am?”.

89

To those of us gathered here and those absent from here who love Ozonma and who respect him and cherish glowing memories of his impact in our lives, we can say that Chief Philip Umeadi was controversial, professing no faith in the Christian religion, and made a habit of swimming against the current. We may even add that he was a non-conformist, a maverick who fought legal battles which other overly reticent lawyers may be too squeamish to do. But we shall also say that he was a humanist, a true protector and benefactor and a true patriarch of his lineage. We shall conclude by saying that he was a fantastic advocate at the Bar and a very handsome man.

For every coin, there are two sides. Those who disagree with us may say he was an iconoclast. They would cite his alliance with Chief Obafemi Awolowo in the UPN when the great Zik was playing the beautiful bride. They may cite the case of the Ogoni judicial murder of Ken Saro Wiwa and others and the fact that he was the prosecutor. They certainly will say that he joined forces with renegade citizens of Anambra State to fight on the side of the tormentors of the people of Anambra State during the time of His Excellency, Dr. Chris Nwabueze Ngige, the only credible Governor Anambra State has had.

But replicando, there lies the greatness of the man. He had a mind of his own and he was not afraid to stand by his conscience and follow the dictates of his own mind. He had the courage to be different and the piece of mind to stand alone. Only the great know the virtues of solitude. Ability to chart a course different from the mainstream is a gift of the divine reserved only for the truly great and courageous.

Like the great advocate that he was, he fought against me at the Supreme Court and from either side of the divide, we threw every brick at each other but our friendship never suffered. This fact was never lost on the great jurists of the Supreme Court who observed us at a meeting of the Body of Benchers. During teatime, we were ensconced at a corner enjoying very intimate banter. Honourable Justice Salihu Modibbo Alfa Belgore, a great story teller and historian noticed us and commented that no one would have imagined that such intimacy existed between us. I can still recall what Umeadi said in reply. He said that there are more than law and politics that bind us. This is true. In fact, before his death, he left me a note in my office saying in his characteristic declaratory manner that I was over-due to become a life Bencher. I know he was working towards that and that certainly will remain part of his unfinished business.

Oh icon! Oh mentor! Oh pathfinder, past sojourner on this terrestrial sphere, I say farewell to you as you wend on your celestial passage. God will receive you in paradise, your religious faith or lack of it will never count against you. Actus non

90

facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. God will certainly give you the benefit of Section 15 of the criminal code during the final judgment. There must be law in heaven and God will never punish any one for what he did not know. No one really knows God. All our claims are presumptive only. You hurt no man, you lived a full life and you died in peace. You will rest in perfect peace and be remembered by those who love you and whose lives you touched.

May I at this stage conclude by expressing a deep sense of loss. I also extend my heartfelt condolences to members of Umeadi family, to the widow of my mentor, to his children including of course my colleague Philip Umeadi, Jnr., and to the Umeadi kindred and Agu Ukwu Nri people, and to the Nwakakwa / Meniru family of Umuriam, Nawfia, I trust that my Lord Justice P.N.C. Umeadi will step into the shoes of the departed patriarch to continue the leadership role in the family.

God will give us the strength to bear the loss.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, KSC, SAN.Attorney - General / Commissioner for Justice. Anambra State.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANAMBRA STATEIN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA

ADDRESS DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, U. N. UDECHUKWU KSC, SAN,

ON MONDAY 16TH DAY OF MAY 2005, TO MARK THE INAUGURATION OF THE 2005 LEGAL YEAR

I carry, and I bring to you felicitations and good-will messages from His Excellency, the Governor of Anambra State and members of the State Executive Council, on this occasion of the special court session to mark and inaugurate the 2005 legal year.

It is His Excellency’s wish that the blessings of the special service held to mark this occasion shall abide with us all and remain with My Lord, the Chief Judge, your brother judges, the learned Magistrates, and the Practitioners at the bar, learned members of the Nigerian Bar Association.

The administration of justice system is the fulcrum, which holds the political order and democratic governance in equilibrium. It is therefore significant that an occasion be set aside to remind all stake holders in the administration of justice system, as ministers in the temple of justice, of the essence of their being as champions of civil liberties and the rule of law. No other occasion meets this requirement better than the occasion for the inauguration of a legal year.

91

I heartily welcome all of us to this solemn session. I congratulate my lord, the Chief Judge and my lords the Justices of the High Court of Anambra State for a determined effort to decongest both the civil and the criminal cause lists before them even under very severe constraints. I extend the same sentiments to the learned Magistrates of the Anambra State Magistracy. Everybody knows that the courts have been operating under austere circumstances. I specially congratulate both the judicial officers as well as the practitioners who appear in our courts for making the available desirable when the desirable is clearly not available. You have collectively shown how tough you can be, by going on even when the going is rough. I commend the members of the bar for their resourcefulness in adapting to the Practice Directions in force even while criticizing certain aspects of them.

I congratulate members of the support and administrative cadre who have laboured to make this day and this event a reality and who from day to day oil the wheels of progress so that the judiciary may chart its course and make its motion unhindered. Sometimes they had raged like a troubled sea. Sometimes they had fluttered like tormented pigeons. Sometimes they had brought the entire system to a deadlock . May they find rest and release from their woes in God’s name.

It is my fervent prayer that the future should bring with it great improvement in the working conditions and working environment of every stakeholder in the administration of justice sector. I look forward to better and happier circumstances for the practice of law, for without the practice of law, the rule of law would have no meaning. The democracy we cherish would perish. The general populace would be the worse for it. But above all, we who glory in this noble cause as ministers in the temple of justice and repositories of the hope of the common man would loose our luster and lapse into irrelevance. May God spare us this ignoble end.

The Ministry of Justice has not faired too well within the last year. But I’m glad to say that we faired much better than we did in the previous year and are poised to do even better in the ensuing legal year. I must place on record my appreciation for the invaluable assistance I have been privileged to receive from my Solicitor-General, my Directors, and the various hierarchy of Law officers in the Ministry of Justice. We were able to activate more of our out stations so as to be better able to cover the various judicial divisions. I hope that the Aguata Judicial Division, which had been our soft underbelly, is being better serviced by the strong team which we deployed to that division.

Our out station at Nnewi is very competently manned and we have been able to cover all assignments within Nnewi Judicial Division, within the limits of our resources. Our Onitsha out station is also effectively manned and doing the best that can be done within the limits of our resources. The building accommodating us at Onitsha had recently been buffeted by very angry winds. I am relieved that His Excellency the Governor immediately he became aware of it made funds available for the repairs which I hope, would soon be effected.

92

We have difficulty in effectively manning the Otuocha division and the Ihiala division. Efforts are however being made to revamp our team assigned to both divisions. My Lord, the honorable Chief Judge and my Lords, the honorable presiding justices of these divisions, please continue to graciously accommodate our shortcomings.

The biggest problem confronting our DPP’s office is that of keeping pace with the enormous work involved in preparing and filing proofs of evidence for commencement of criminal proceedings at the High Court. It is not only that manpower is in short supply to meet the volume of work, the funds to service the paper work involved is also beyond the financial capabilities of the ministry.

It is for this reason that we came up with a plan to effect an amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law to enable criminal proceedings to be commenced at the High Court without filing proofs of evidence. I envisaged that this radical change would come under severe criticism both from the Bar and from the Bench and also from the academia. I therefore decided to seek a broad view consultation on the matter.

As I expected, the views are radically polarized. Some respondents said “do it” while others said “don’t do it”. In the end, the views expressed have been as profound as I anticipated. I thank all the respondents who most kindly reacted to my request for memoranda and opinions. I thank especially, my Lord the honorable Chief Judge, and my Lords, the honorable Justices of the High Court of Anambra State for their very serious though conflicting comments on the subject.

Evidently, the divergence of views on the proposed amendment has made our work more difficult because we now have to review every profound contribution made before we can take a decision on the matter after taking full advantage of your collective wisdom. I hope your expectations can bear a little more delay. I hope also that should we decide to seek further clarifications, you would continue to be generous with your response.

It is obvious that I continue to draw the ire of my professional colleagues concerning the vexed issue of grant of authority to private legal practitioners who wish to undertake criminal prosecutions on behalf of the Attorney General, but upon the initiative of private complainants as distinct from the official complainant, the Commissioner of Police. It appears I can never be vindicated, no matter what I do in the circumstance. The general complaint is that I am rather stringent and stingy with my discretion to grant authority to prosecute. But many of my colleagues including those who had asked for my authority to prosecute, had had occasions to turn in very vehement protests urging me to withdraw authorities to prosecute, which I had granted, to other counsel in cases in which the former are defence counsel, on the ground that prosecution in those instances were oppressive to their clients who happened to be the accused persons in those cases. Some others had even written in advance to request that I discountenance an application if made in specific instances. Others had succeeded in obtaining court orders restraining me from prosecuting their clients.

93

The lesson to learn from all this is that a lot of discretion is allowed to the Attorney General and he bears enormous responsibility to ensure that cases in which he grants authority to prosecute are those cases which he would have prosecuted himself. It requires that he must consider public interest and the need for prima facie case. I hope in the end my professional colleagues would forgive me for whatever wrong they perceive I have done either by granting any authority when I should not or by refusing to grant one when it would have suited them if I did or by choosing to prosecute when it would have suited them that I don’t. It is all part of an Attorney General’s work-a-day. A ratio of 4 grants to 1 refusal of authority to prosecute is not after all too niggardly.

As we launch forth into the next legal year commencing from today, I wish all of us bon voyage. May God continue to guide us as we discharge our noble duties as ministers in the temple of justice. As the organized labour would say, aluta continua.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, KSC, SAN.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANAMBRA STATEIN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA

IN RE: SPECIAL COURT SESSION HOLDEN ON THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005 IN HONOUR OF LATE HON.

JUSTICE F. G. C. UYANNA

SPEECH DELIVERED BY THE ATTORNEY–GENERAL / COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE, CHIEF, THE

HON, U. N. UDECHUKWU, KSC, SAN

When I began to record this tribute in permanent form, a sudden feeling of deja vu settled on me.

Sometime in 1982 I appeared before Hon. Justice Uyanna sitting at the High Court of Anambra State in the Nnewi Judicial Division. He was then the Administrative Judge of the Division, sitting at the High Court No. 1 at Nnewi.

I was then a fledgling at the Bar. I had a libel suit, which was assigned for pleadings before Hon. Justice Uyanna. In the writ of summons, I had used the

94

expression “wherefore the Plaintiff was exposed to redicule and has thereby suffered loss”.

When the suit was called up, Hon. Justice Uyanna after recording my appearance said a few nice things about my attire. He then went on to reduce me to size for failing to spell the word “ridicule” correctly. He took me through the rules of grammar and syntax and lectured me on the wisdom of using Bullen & Leak and Odgers as my guide when settling pleadings.

I left the Court with mixed feelings. First I was fazed by the caustic remarks and then elated by the brand new lessons which I learnt about settling pleadings and about keeping a good dictionary by my side when drafting legal papers. I also had a sense of fulfillment because even after the super seniors and my seniors had taken their turns, I was still accommodated well after 3:45pm.

Since that day, I have not lost my dread for the word “ridicule”. I would never be sure whether it is “ridicule”, “ridicle” or “redicule”, until I cross-checked with my dictionary. I have since learnt to avoid that word entirely, by using the alternate expression “wherefore the Plaintiff has been exposed to odium and obloquy and has thereby suffered loss”. I doubt if this escape route is totally hitch-free. The feeling of deja vu stems from the apprehension that my Lord Justice Uyanna, whose mortal frame now lies silent before us might well at this moment be relaxing in heaven, looking down at me and spotting another spelling or grammatical error or error of syntax in this script and growling like Ronald Reagan would do, “there you go again”!

Time, like an ever-rolling stream bears all its sons away! As we progress through life, we draw inspiration and learn invaluable lessons from our contact with others who influence us. The reference to my attire on that memorable day by my Lord Hon. Justice Uyanna is still one of the compelling reasons I strive to keep a white shirt, a white clean collar and a white clean and well-ironed bib. I have since learnt that these, in addition to a clean dark coat duly buttoned down, a pair of black trousers to match, and a well-polished pair of black shoes constitute a Lawyer’s proper dress code.

I also learnt from my Lord Justice Uyanna that good and diligent legal drafting wins the respect of the Judge even before issues are joined. I also learnt another trick–that good command of the spoken English and an ebullient and confident posture before the Court tend to captivate the Judge and make ones advocacy more pleasurable. Over the years, I tested these lessons against other Judges, and I am glad to say that I have never been let down by them. This is therefore my occasion to say farewell to Hon. Justice Uyannna and to thank God for giving me the

95

opportunity to learn from him as I progressed in this profession. I believe I speak not only for myself but for the many other practitioners who had the privilege to appear before Hon. Justice Uyanna and whose lives, like mine had been enriched by that experience.

Apart from this personal encounter in 1982, I continued to appear before Hon. Justice Uyanna over the years, from when he was sitting at Nnewi up to the years of his sitting as Administrative Judge and Judge of High Court No. 1 here at Awka and further still when he became the Ag. Chief Judge. On every one of those occasions, I drew inspiration from him and from the great lawyers who appeared to argue momentous legal issues before him including the legendary Chief FRA Williams, now of blessed memory, the inimitable G. C. M. Onyiuke also of blessed and illustrious memory and the enduring Ozo Amanke Okafor, Esq., doyen of the Bar who by the grace of God is still with us.

Hon. Justice Uyanna struck me as a member of that generation of Judges of whom we can only now nurse the nostalgia but the likes of whom we would very much love to continue to see and appear before as advocates at the Bar. He was punctual to Court. He was well turned out both in manners and in dressing. He had a good voice and a pleasant mien. To sum it up, he was tidy in appearance, tidy at work, tidy in thought and tidy in speech. Watching him at work, one got the impression that he was vigorously sifting through the pleadings, the evidence and the law for the sole and engaging purpose of finding out where the justice of the particular case lay and to declare eureka. When he admonished the beginner, he did so for the purpose of awakening in him the spirit of greater endeavour which invariably would improve him as an advocate. This was my experience, for which I would always remain grateful.

Speaking as Attorney–General and Commissioner for Justice, I might be forgiven for delving into or attempting to tell the live history of an icon whose life had been fulfilled even before mine began. But mindful of my limitations in this regard, I shall leave that aspect to those who knew Hon. Justice Uyanna better, either as age mates or school mates or colleagues at the Bar or on the Bench. He was already a Judge before I was called to the Bar and I can see from the records that he was already a Crown Counsel before I went to secondary school. Death at any age is a grievous loss to those proximately related to the deceased. No amount of sympathy on the part of the general company of friends and well-wishers can totally eliminate the gravity of the sense of loss. Being personal in nature, the bereaved must of necessity contend with the grief with dignity and fortitude. This is because death is inevitable when once there had been life. To wish a man immortality in the flesh is not a blessing. A man may only achieve immortality in name by his achievements and exploits in this realm. Socrates made

96

this point quite succinctly. When the hour of parting had arrived, his friends and disciples had inquired of him how he would like to be buried. Socrates answered, “you cannot bury Socrates, you may inter my bones but you cannot bury my name”!

I therefore, send this solemn message of condolence to our colleague Nworah and his brother Ossy and the other members of Uyanna family including other relations of our dear departed Francis Gabriel Chinafuzo Uyanna (deceased) emeritus Ag. Chief Judge of Anambra State. May God grant them the peace of mind to overcome their grief. May God shorten their grief and grant them continued good health and long life. Let them take solace in the good name and track record of Hon. Justice F. G. C. Uyanna. His Lordship no doubt, from the rocking of the cradle to the rolling of the hearse, left a legacy worth celebrating and of which any successor would be proud. Today, we shall proceed from here to inter the bones of FGC but thank God we will not and cannot bury his name!

Though I have avoided telling the life history of His Lordship, I need, out of share pride, to mention that I share something in common with him. We both passed through Christ the King’s College, Onitsha, though at different epochs. I therefore have to end this tribute by extending my heartfelt condolence to the worthy alumni of that great institution. We have been depleted by one through the exit of one. May we multiply a thousand folds through the continued existence of our Alma matter.

As Administrative Judge and Chief Judge, His Lordship, Justice F.G.C. Uyanna was an outstanding administrator. It was under his watch and by his initiative that the Magistrates Cadre in Anambra State obtained their charter of privileges and benefits. I understand that some of the gains he made have been lost in the years after his tenure. I therefore wish to use this occasion to say a few things about the Judiciary.

The judiciary is supposed to be independent of the executive and the legislative arms of Government. This ideal has been pursued over the years by makers of our various Constitutions. It was substantially achieved under the 1999 Constitution. This independence however may translate into bondage if it is not deployed for the good of the judiciary as an institution and for the good of the generality of the human element component of that institution. Unless there is internal equilibrium within the judiciary, both its leadership and its followership shall continue to be restive and shall continue to look up to the executive arm of Government for balance, thereby subverting the independence of the judiciary.

When we gather at occasions like this to respect the memory of a departed member, it is an occasion to ask ourselves how well we have catered for the

97

welfare and well being of the judiciary as an institution for the benefit of the members of the judiciary including the departed. Unless we make this sober reflection, what we do here would be make belief. It would only not be make belief, if we reflect and are able to say in clear conscience that we have gathered really as committee of friends and associates of the departed and not as an assemblage of mocking and cynical witnesses to an event which we have come to regard as a social ritual or spectacle.

The Attorney–General and Commissioner for Justice, is essentially an agent of the executive arm of Government. It is true that the office s created by the Constitution, but the Attorney – General is appointed by the Chief Executive and doubles as the Commissioner for Justice and a member of the State Executive Council. His only leverage within the judiciary is actually through his membership of the Judicial Service Commission. In that commission, he does not have any special vote or veto power. This is as it should be, otherwise, the executive arm of Government might through his activities encroach on the independence of the judiciary. I therefore owe it to myself to explain that whatever may be the collective success or failure of the Judicial Service Commission, I retain my personal views which may not represent the views of that Commission nor the views of the executive arm of Government. I draw a distinction between collective responsibility and guilt by association. I am primarily mindful of my position as a stakeholder in the legal profession being a senior officer in the temple of justice.

What I am driving at is that the judiciary as an institution is presently wallowing in a state of self-abnegation. The recent meeting of the serving Judges with His Excellency, the Governor of this State, was unfortunately an occasion when the seething frustration within the rank of members of the superior Bench gave vent to a rather embarrassing spillover. Anybody who now pretends that members of the Higher Bench in this State are happy with the state of affairs in the judiciary is deceiving himself. Any person who believes that members of the Bar are comfortable with the state of affairs in the judiciary in Anambra State is simply misguided. Any person who takes offence for the reason that I have dared to speak about these here is also living in a world totally different from mine. For this, I am sorry.

From documents and communications I receive very regularly, I know that members of the Magistrates Cadre in this State are restive and feel a collective sense of frustration. They do not consider that they have been treated fairly within the judiciary as it is now run. Their feeling of angst and despondency is so thick, you can touch it.

Members of the clerical and administrative staff have consistently gone on strike and have continued to manifest fundamental discontent with the state of affairs

98

within the judiciary. Recently, even members of the Customary Court Bench have started inundating my office with protests about their conditions of service. Again, the tension is so poignant you can feel it.

One of the policies which rankles the serving members of the Higher Bench is the suggestion that retiring Judges should surrender their vehicles when they retire, which vehicles would be inherited by the serving Judges, presumably in order of seniority. No doubt, the retired Judges do not like this measure and some of them have expressed their objections in very vehement terms. They argued that if the likes of Egbo–Egbo and Nnaji could retire or be dismissed and be allowed to go with their vehicles, a Judge who retires on merit and with dignity should not be subjected to the humiliation of being deprived of his vehicle at the time of his retirement. The serving Judges also resent the implied privilege of having to inherit vehicles used and abandoned by their predecessors. Surely, if we are truly friends and brothers, and if what we do here is not a charade, some arrangements could be worked out to cushion the effect of retirement which if we must face the truth, is a fate that awaits all of us, unless we die in service.

If the small issue of a personal car for a retired Judge is handled with such apparently unfeeling detachment and cynicism, one wonders what lofty thoughts remain in the area of providing some other support and benefits to cushion the loneliness of retirement. I believe and I have said that before that there must be life after retirement and that it is the duty of those in service to show some consideration for the welfare of those in retirement in order to entrench a culture of care of which they would become beneficiaries in future.

The baseline is that people who work in the judiciary should not be made to feel disadvantaged vis–a–vis their colleagues in other arms of Government or in vis–a–vis their counterparts in other States of the Federation. At the moment, this unfortunately appears to be the case. It should stand to reason that when budget provisions are made for the benefit of the judiciary and these provisions are atrophied through self-denial or unwarranted stoicism by the judiciary, then the judiciary has nothing to loose but its chains. It is only a cynical person that can contemplate cutting his nose so as to spite his face. The legal profession has over the years been the envy of other professions and the laymen. Lawyers have therefore come under a severe burden of prejudice against them wherever they are. The judiciary must not give further ammunition to the detractors with which to continue to humiliate or demystify the legal profession.

The judiciary must conduct itself in a manner that manifests humanness, fairness and equity for all. The judiciary must cater for the needs of the blessed Nwaogwugwu and also provide for the needs of the long-suffering Nwanosike.

99

Unless the blessed Nwaogwugwu and the long suffering Nwanosike feel genuine and corresponding sense of belonging within the system, a gathering such as this would only be make belief. The value of compromise and dialogue as the bases for harmony between the Ruler and the ruled is demonstrated by the Good Book. It is to be found at 1 Kings, 12: 1 – 20.

And now, Oh God, our father in heaven, mindful of your love and your promise, made through our redeemer Christ, we pray that you receive the soul of Hon. Justice Francis Gabriel Chinafuzo Uyanna in paradise in communion with the souls of all our dear loved ones departed. Keep them all comforted until we meet to part no more.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, KSC, SAN.Attorney – General / Commissioner for JusticeAnambra State.

SPEECH BY CHIEF, THE HON. U. N. UDECHUKWU, KSC, SAN.,THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE DELIVERED AT THE VALEDICTORY SESSION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL HELD IN HONOUR OF THE HON. JUSTICE JOSEPH JEREMIAH

UMOREN JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL ON FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2005 AT ENUGU

I speak with great joy and with gratitude to the Almighty God at this occasion when we are gathered to celebrate the meritorious service and glorious retirement of one of the best legal minds to have served on our Court of Appeal Bench.

I cannot but ponder how time flies! It is over 20 years ago, but it looks like only yesterday when I used to visit Uncle J. J. Umoren, Esq., (as he then was) at his pleasant palatial country home at Ikot Ekpene in the company of my brother and friend for life, Cletus Akpan Udoh, professional colleague and worthy knight. In those days, whenever I visited Cletus at Nto Odino, Ikot Ekpene, he would take me to visit Uncle J. J. Umoren and on each of those occasions, we were treated to very rich and excellent meals and served the best of wines including the Sherry which he told us was the traditional lawyer’s wine. He would entertain us with lively jokes and fascinate us with great stories of what life as successful legal practitioners held in store for us. There was a pipe organ at one corner of his large sitting room and Cletus would go picking at the keyboards to my bewilderment.

100

I had the privilege of watching Uncle J. J. Umoren at work in his Ekemini Chambers. He was punctual to Chambers, and put in many hours of hard work seeing his many clients and pouring through the books in his enormous library. Cletus and I followed him to Court a few times and watched him perform as advocate. He was brilliant, nimble witted, and had a robust sense of humour. He never said any hurtful thing to a colleague but he could be quite mischievous as a cross examiner, needling the witness and cajoling him until he got a favourable point out of him. He had extensive practice in the Cross River State, Rivers State and the then Imo State now Imo and Abia States. I was based in Aba and whenever Uncle J. J. Umoren came to handle his many cases at the High Courts at Aba I was always excited to appear with him and I envied my friend Cletus for the good fortune of working permanently with Uncle Umoren.

Later, when Uncle J. J. Umoren accepted appointment to the High Court Bench I was somehow bemused. I wondered what a debonair and very successful advocate at the Bar was going to the Bench for. At that time, all I could see which I so much admired were his opulent environment, well-furnished library, his imposing chambers by the major road from Aba to Calabar, his fleet of cars, and of course, his Oxon dale suits, Van Hussein shirts and elegant black shoes. I was later to appreciate that the man who so dazzled me at the time with the height of his achievements was merely standing at the brow of a hill and not by any means at the peak of a mountain.

He was to blossom and to be later elevated to the Court of Appeal from which he has now very meritoriously retired without any blemish. It is indeed a cause for rejoicing for people like me who looked upon him as a role model during my formative years as a fledgling advocate at the Bar.

Now that My Lord, Hon. Justice J. J. Umoren withdraws from the limelight of the Court of Appeal, I am tempted to ask him for a few hints about how he intends to spend his retirement. Would he continue sitting, but this time as an arbitrator? He may become a prodigy in the Alternative Dispute Resolution landscape. Would he rather retire to his base and seek to become the traditional ruler of his town and spend the rest of his days as a monarch in the service of his people? Some of his peers have done this. Would he found a church and become the Bishop? No one so far has taken the title of Pope! Would he rather settle down, take some rest and then write a memoir? Would he still have the time to receive the pilgrimage of young lawyers coming to visit in the hope of picking one or two hints to assist them in developing their personalities as future heavyweights of this most elite of all professions?

Whichever option My Lord considers, I wish him the best. I wish him long life of happiness in retirement. He was a role model for me as a fledgling advocate. The

101

judgments that he wrote both as a High Court Judge and a jurist of this Court of Appeal will ensure his immortality. Students of the law and the practitioners will refer to them as authorities. He has left his footsteps in the sands of time and his erudition and sagacity will remain beacons of light in the law reports.

Having now surveyed the crest of the mountain, he is about to start the journey back to his roots. He was kind to those of us he met on his way up. We jubilate as he makes his majestic return. He has paid his dues. He is a jolly good fellow. He is entitled to his rest.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, KSC, SAN.Attorney-General, Anambra State.

FELICITATION

BEING A SHORT SPEECH DELIVERED BY U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN., ATTORNEY – GENERAL ANAMBRA STATE AT THE FINAL COURT

SESSION IN HONOUR OF HON. JUSTICE DR. FRANCIS OLISA AWOGU ON THE 2 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2004

My Lord, the presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal,My Lords, Justices of the Court of Appeal,My Lords, Hon. Chief Judges of the various States High Courts,My Lords, Justices of the High Courts of the States of the Federation,My Lords, Emeritus Justices of the Court of Appeal and other Superior Courts of record, Your Honour, Learned Attorneys – General of the various StatesLearned Senior Advocates of Nigeria,Colleagues, members of the learned and honorable profession,Distinguished members of the clergy, my Lords spiritual,Members of the Nigerian Bar Association,Lady Dorothy Awogu and members of the family of Francis Olisa Awogu,Ladies and Gentlemen, friends of the legal profession and the family of Francic Olisa Awogu, It is with deep humility and firm faith in the immutability of God’s ordinance that I rise to join in this solemn celebration of life and thanksgiving in honor and memory of a great Nigerian, a great jurist and a worthy son of Osamalla.

102

When I saw the obituary publication, with the banner announcing that Hon. Justice Dr. Francis Olisa Awogu, emeritus Justice of the Court of Appeal, Officer of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (OFR), worthy Knight of St. Mulumba and great son of Osamalla had joined the line–up of the saints triumphant, and that he now matches with the saints, I intoned Alleluia.

If a man lived to be 80, and then departs from this world to eternity, it hardly calls for heart–rending sorrow and lamentation. This is because death is the certain end of all life. Whatever a man failed to achieve within 80 years of sojourn in this world, give him another 80 years and he would still not achieve it. When however, at age 80 a man had lived a life of great achievements and fulfillment, then death becomes merely an inevitable and happy transmutation to be celebrated with thanksgiving to the Almighty God.

My Lords it is my submission that our colleague whose glorious departure we are here gathered to celebrate, lived a long fulfilled life of great achievements. During his life, he left such large footprints on the sands of time that, for a long time he would be remembered for the good he had done. In moments like this, we are reminded of the axiom, that some day, we shall be missed and others will take our place, reaping from the fields we had sowed. We shall pass on from this life, only to be remembered for the work we had done.

There are certainly a lot of great deeds and achievements for which we shall remember Francis. His academic exploits traversed quite an enviable height and latitude. Educated within Nigeria and outside Nigeria he was indeed a world personality–a truly international person. It is those like him that the expression ‘’learned man” fit, for the sages of Igbo land had said that the traveler is invariably wiser than the hoary-head.

He started his primary education at the hallowed grounds of Holy Trinity School Onitsha. His pilgrim progress took him to St. Mathias School Lagos and later to that prestigious school, St Gregory’s College, Lagos where he received his Secondary School education. Circa 1958, he proceeded to the United Kingdom and enrolled in the Gray’s Inn. He was also a student of the University College London.

In 1960, he was called to the English Bar as a member of the Gray’s Inn London. He returned immediately thereafter to Nigeria to thirst the shores of his fatherland and exploit its opportunities. The outbreak of hostilities distorted the expectations of many young men during the ‘60’s. At the end of the war therefore Francis left Nigeria for the United States of America and enrolled at Howard Graduate School and obtained a doctorate degree in Law. It is clear therefore that our illustrious colleague acquired the best education that money can afford.

When he returned to Nigeria in 1973 he became a Principal State Counsel in the Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos. He advanced to become Legal Adviser in that Ministry. It was therefore fitting that in December 1976 he was appointed Chief Registrar of the Court of

103

Appeal and indeed was a pioneer of the Court of Appeal institution and its administration in Nigeria. As a legal practitioner, his colleagues at the bar will no doubt remember him, of the nimble wit and profound mastery of the fine points of the law. These were the very qualities which recommended him for elevation to the higher bench, for he was duly appointed a Judge of the High Court.

As a Judge of the Onitsha Judicial Division he presided over a number of delicate and sensational cases. He was soon distinguished as an adroit sagacious and courageous Judge. He was fearless in his views, charitable with his criticisms, very polite to counsel and upright in his carriage as well as in his moral standing. In August, 1987 he was made a Justice of the Court of Appeal. It was indeed as Justice of Court of Appeal that he blossomed, both as a gentleman of sterling qualities and disposition and as a jurist of outstanding knowledge and comportment. The Law Reports wherein he has left his indelible records in jurisprudence and social engineering will remain a veritable source of learning, insight and assistance to lawyers both at the bar and on the bench. He was however known not to suffer fools gladly.

I became a victim of this his reputation in 1993 after he read the leading judgment in Ezuka Vs. Mbadinuju, CA/E/4/89. I was not involved in the case at the High Court level. Two eminent Senior Advocates of Nigeria had argued the appeal before the Court of Appeal. I had the effrontery to later file a notice of appeal against the Court of Appeal decision and to crown my iconoclasm, I brought a Motion praying for interlocutory injunction pending my appeal to the Supreme Court. His lordship the Hon. Justice Francis Olisa Awogu, made short shrift of my application and of course dismissed it.

The out come of that appeal is contained in the (1994) 8 NWLR (Part 364) 535. The way the legal community reacted to the Supreme Court decision in that case more than amply showed that in carpeting me for daring to take the matter to the Supreme Court, Justice Awogu was in very good company.

It is to the glory of God that Francis Olisa Awogu, citizen, lawyer, jurist and icon lived to retire meritoriously from the bench and to enjoy a long spell of life after retirement. His, indeed is a life to celebrate and to thank God for. I therefore felicitate with Lady Dorothy while bearing in mind that the death of a loved one is always a wrenching emotional blow. While I felicitate therefore, I pray God Almighty to relieve her grief by granting her the fortitude to bear the loss of her friend of a lifetime. To Francis (Jnr.), Ambrose and Elizabeth I say may God grant you the wisdom and the strength to step away from the pain and frustration of your loss so that from you the grand children may appreciate that the departure of their grand dad is not a terrible misfortune but an inevitability. Implant it in their minds that grand dad is matching with the Saints and that he has joined the line – up of the Saints triumphant.

104

My Lord the Hon. Presiding Judge accept my felicitation and my deep condolence at a moment such as this. May the good Lord preserve you and your brother Judges and grant you long life and good health.

I crave your indulgence and permission to extend the same sentiment to the entire people of Osamalla, Ogbahu L.G.A. and to pray that God would give them a worthy replacement for the loss of this icon. May God save our nation. May God save our Judges and give them strength and good health. May God enrich the legal profession with men such as Francis. May the soul of Hon. Justice Dr. Francis Olisa Awogu and the souls of our dear beloved ones departed rest in peace in the bosom of the Lord.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SANAttorney – General / Commissioner for JusticeAnambra State.

SPEECH DELIVERED BY CHIEF U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN,

AT THE SPECIAL HIGH COURT SESSION OF THE HIGH COURT OFABIA STATE HOLDEN AT UMUAHIA ON THE 10TH DAY OF JULY

2003IN HONOUR OF LATE SIR S. N. IBEZIM

ADIEU, THE GENTLE ONE

When a short while ago, I saw Sir S. N. Ibezim, it was manifest to me that he was getting really weak. But he remained the quintessential advocate. Clean, immaculate white and appropriately ironed bib and collar; clean white shirt; and custom designed suit. This is the picture of the man I got to know as a learned friend and professional colleague for a period of over 17 years.

I practiced in this Court with him. The last case we did together was HU/15/87: K.O.K. Onyioha Vs. Imo Newspapers Ltd. & Anor. I am Counsel for the Plaintiff in that case. Sir S. N. Ibezim was Counsel for the Defendants. Judgement of the High Court was for the Defendants. The matter is presently on appeal as CA/PH/177/2000: Chief K.O.K. Onyioha Vs. Imo Newspapers Ltd. & Anor. It came up at the Court of Appeal on the 8th of July 2003. My learned friend was no longer available to continue the case. Some other Counsel must now step into his position and continue the case. As they say, life goes on though men may fall out from time to time.

105

In moments like this, we are reminded of the axiom, that some day, we shall be missed and others will take our place, reaping from the fields we had sowed. We shall pass on from this life, only remembered for the work we had done.

When I saw Sir S. N. Ibezim on that last occasion we met, I said to a colleague standing by that this is the beauty of the legal profession. Any other mortal in the condition of our learned friend at that occasion would have long since retired. But Sir S. N. Ibezim remained harnessed and quite appropriately it will be said with justification that he died in harness, his terminal illness notwithstanding.

My Lords, other speakers who know my learned friend’s pedigree outside the law profession will speak or have spoken of his exploits in other spheres. They will mention his exploits at school, the various parts which he played on the world’s stage. They will speak of his labours in the Lord’s vineyard and his influential standing in his community of birth. I speak of him as a learned friend who enjoyed his advocacy and his friendship and who like most of us here present will cherish evergreen memories of him.

Sir S. N. Ibezim was a very brave man who did not allow the vicissitudes of life, particularly, certain organic limitations to prevent him from practicing his chosen profession to the best of his ability. He manifested integrity in adversity, which appeared to arise from the virtue of a lifetime.

In Reg Vs. Rowton (1865) 10 COX CC 34, Erle C.J. had said that means of knowledge is the foundation of general inference of character. No doubt, Sir S. N. Ibezim was not only thoroughbred and highly cultured, he was also an educated man and a man of significant learning. He brought a lot of these qualities to bear on his carriage and in the discharge of his professional duties.

It is certainly of men of his caliber that Best J. said in Morris Vs. Hunt (1819) 1 Chit. Rep. 555, that “there is nothing which has so great a tendency to secure the due administration of justice, as having the Courts of the country frequented by gentlemen so eminently qualified by their education and principles of honour as at this time appear to discharge the duties which they are called upon to fulfil”.

The Latin scholar would say “Deus solus haeredem, facere potest, non homo”. In the language of this Court, this means “God alone and not man can make an heir”. May the God Almighty make our departed learned friend, Sir S. N. Ibezim, an heir and partaker of his kingdom. May the Holy Spirit bear him on the wings of glory as he sings his way to Paradise:

“Storms do not alarm me,They sometime must cease,Trials cannot harm me,For I have blessed peace,All I’ve left behind me,

106

I long for no more,Better things shall find meOn Canaan’s shore.”

I extend my sympathy and condolence to the bereaved members of his family. May God grant them the strength to overcome the grief of their loss. I extend my condolence to the Chairman and members of the Umuahia Bar. May God grant them the fortitude to forge ahead in spite of their grief. I extend my condolence to the President and members of the Nigeria Bar Association. May God in his infinite mercy protect all of us from grievous and uncertain deaths such as have been the lot of some of our members lately.

My Lord, the Chief Judge of Abia State, accept my condolence and may God protect the judiciary and our Judges and grant them good health, wisdom and long life of dutiful service to the nation.

May the soul of Sir S.N. Ibezim, our departed learned brethren, and the souls of all our colleagues departed find peace and rest eternal in the bosom of our Lord Jesus Christ in the kingdom of God.

Chief U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.SPEECH DELIVERED BY CHIEF, THE HON. UDECHUKWU NNORUKA UDECHUKWU, SAN ATTORNEY GENERAL / COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE ANAMBRA STATE AT THE SPECIAL COURT SESSION IN HONOUR OF OKAY ACHIKE (NNAYELUGO) JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT (1998 – 2002)

ADIEU JOLLY GOOD FELLOW

We have again gathered at this solemn occasion, as is our tradition to hold a special Court session for a colleague who in the recent past walked and worked in these precincts with us.

In moments like this we are reminded of the axiom that someday we shall be missed and others will take our place, reaping from the fields we have sowed. We shall pass on from this life only to be remembered for the work we have done.

Other speakers who knew my Lord the Hon. Justice Okay Achike’s pedigree outside the law profession will speak or have spoken of his exploits in other spheres. Mention will be or has been made of his odyssey through school, the various parts which he played in the stage of life, his labours in the Lord’s vineyard and his influential standing in his community of birth and in Nigeria and the world.

I speak of him as one who was tutored by him and who later practiced the legal profession with him as colleague and also later appeared before him both as a Judge of the High Court, a Judge of the Court of Appeal and a Judge of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. I speak of him on behalf of the many generations of alumni of the Faculty Of

107

Law, University of Nigeria who passed through him. I speak of him as a friend and on behalf of a large array of friends who loved him, admired his easygoing ways, marveled at his capacity to combine that with inimitable capacity for hard work and who will forever cherish evergreen memories of him.

Death and the grief it occasions are in deed personal to the dependants, next of kin and other relations of the dead. All that friends and well wishers including professional colleagues can do to make this personal grief less painful is to show sympathy and solidarity with the bereaved and offer them words and deeds of encouragement and assistance. I am certain that the survivors and children as well as the relations of our dear colleague for whose obsequies we are here gathered, would draw strength and solace from what we do here.

I am also certain that this special session will have some salutary effect on their morale. May God grant to them the fortitude to bear their bereavement.In an article titled “Teach me to die” published at Chapter 9 of that invaluable book TAKE OFF FROM WITHIN, by Ervin Seale, he said inter alia, “if death is a friend we ought to prepare to entertain him; if an enemy, to overcome him. Certainly, death can be formidable and fearful only when it comes as a stranger”.

For our illustrious colleague Okay Achike, Nnayelugo, Professor of Law, retired Justice of the Supreme Court, member of the distinguished Agbalanze society of Onitsha, death came following on the heels of a cardiac arrest which afflicted him while on active service as Justice of the Supreme Court. The aftermath of that sad event reduced his ability to perform his functions as a Supreme Court Judge and eventually led to his premature retirement, on the 15th of July 2002.

Echoing the sentiments of his colleagues on the Supreme Court Bench the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice M. L. Uwais, GCON had this to say of him:

“Hon. Justice Achike who is an accomplished author is considerate, warm, friendly and cooperative in character: He has three works to his credit, namely, “Nigerian Law of Contract” which was published in 1972, it has been a standard book on the subject it covers and it is widely used in the Law Faculties of Nigerian Universities, “Military Law and Military Rule in Nigeria” published in 1978 and “Commercial Law in Nigeria” published in 1981. In addition, he had local and international journals. He had delivered many papers at conferences. Indeed, Hon. Justice Achike had made his mark as a Justice of this Court and the Court of Appeal. His judgments will remain forever in the pages of our Law Reports for the enrichment of our jurisprudence”.

Yes, oh yes my Lord. But Hon. Justice Okay Achike paid a heavy price as some of his illustrious brother Judges had paid in the past and more may pay in the future unless special attention is as a deliberate Government policy given to the vital matter of the welfare, well being and health care of Judges. Indeed our Judges are supermen or

108

perceived to be so. They are expected to perform the most vital balancing function of maintaining the democracy we practice, a function which demands onerous, mental and physical exertion, under the most incongruous circumstances.

Here let me repeat the words of my learned brother silk Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, President of the Nigerian Bar Association during the valedictory session to mark the retirement of Hon. Justice Okay Achike from the Supreme Court on the 30 th day of September, 2002.

“He suffered an attack of stroke while in active service and his retirement from the bench on 15th July, 2002 was not as a result of old age or clocking the statutory age of 70 years but purely on ground of ill health. The tasks and duties of a Judge are demanding and daunting. The risks are high while the expectations are tall. Every part of the human body or system is involved in attending to his daily routines. In the process the system wears out gradually and the body gets vegetated. A Judge needs a reasonable number of attendants to effectively discharge his onerous assignments. He needs the provision of some basic where-with-alls and comfort to maintain his sanity or keep it afloat. He needs medical attention often or periodical both within and without the country. He is not inferior to the politicians in the Executive or Legislative Arms of government. Indeed his roles are more sacred than theirs. To this extent he should not be denied his basic rights. He should not be allowed to suffer pains or agony. His nation should not abandon or neglect him in his hours of need”.

I have taken the pains to quote Chief Wole Olanipeku, SAN in extenso if only to remind the politicians in the Executive and Legislative arms of the various governments in Nigeria that patriotism is not a beatitude you preach to others but a virtue you practice and demonstrate in the management of government affairs for the overall well being of the Nigerian project and for posterity. Non sibi sed aliis. (Not self but others). For a healthy nation and a stable democracy to exist both the Executive and the Legislature in Nigeria must recognize the imperative of according special respect and regard for the Judges of our various Courts and make adequate provisions for their welfare and health needs.

Those of us who passed through the man Okay Achike as students or who practiced against him as advocates or who appeared before him as a Judge will remember him as the perfect gentle man imbued with a huge and cultured sense of humour – a really jolly good fellow.

Those of us for whom his various literary works were recommended texts will forever be grateful to him for helping to mould us into what we have become in life. For my law class of 1973 – 1976 we shall forever remember him as a humane lecturer always ready to accommodate our deficiencies and always ready to encourage us to improve. We will

109

continue to remember him for the words of farewell with which he dismissed the class at the end of every lecture -“very well, see you next time”!

Very well ebullient and gentle master! We hope to meet you again in paradise.

God bless the noble profession of Lawyers, God bless and protect members of the Nigerian Bar Association, God bless and protect our Judges and grant all of us long and eventful lives.

I extend my heartfelt condolences to the distinguished and prestigious Agbalanze society of Onitsha whose illustrious member Nnayelugo was. The latin scholar would say “Deus solus haredem, facere potest, non homo”. In the language of this Court, this means “God alone and not man can make an heir”. May the God Almighty make our departed learned friend, Okay Achike, an heir and partaker of his kingdom. May the Holy Spirit bear him on the wings of glory as he sings his way to paradise.

“Storms do not alarm me, They sometime must cease, Trials cannot harm me, For I have blessed peace, All I’ve left behind me, I long for no more, Better things shall find me On Canaan’s shore.”

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SAN

SPEEECH DELIVERED BY THE ATTORNEY – GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE, CHIEF, THE HON. U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN, AT THE SPECIAL HIGH COURT SESSION OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANAMBRA

STATE ON THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2004 IN HONOUR OF LATE JUSTICE MOSES OKECHUKWU NWEJE

My Lord, the Chief Judge of Anambra State,My Lord, the Administrative Judge of the High Court, of Anambra State, Ogidi Judicial Division, My Lords, the Hon. Justices of the High Court of Anambra State,My Lords, visiting Justices of the Superior Courts of other States here present,My Lords, Emeritus Chief Judges of Anambra State here present, My Lords, Emeritus Judges of our Superior Courts both within the State and beyond,My Learned brothers of the Inner Bar, Distinguished Senior Advocates of Nigeria,Your worships, learned Magistrates of the various Magisterial Districts, Distinguished Chairman of the Local Bar, My Lords spiritual, My learned friends, members of the Nigerian Bar Association of various branches,Distinguished Senior Special Assistant to the Governor – legal matters, Members of the family of Hon. Justice Moses Okechukwu Nweje, and distinguished members of the Nnobi Community, Distinguished and adorable members of the Association of Judges’ Wives,

110

Distinguished and adorable members of the Association of Lawyers’ Wives, Distinguished friends of the Legal Profession,Members of the Press,Ladies and Gentlemen,

With much diffidence and a deep sense of humility, I now proceed to make this brief comment at this solemn occasion, in honour of late Justice Moses Okechukwu Nweje.

I am diffident and humbled, because this illustrious forebear belonged to a different generation from mine. I can say that I entered this life at the twilight of his own. I was not even born, when he obtained his First School Leaving Certificate in 1940. By the time he acquired his LLB leading to his call to the bar and enrollment to the Supreme Court, in 1959, I had not even obtained the First School Leaving Certificate.

He practiced as a member of the Onitsha Bar from 1959 to 1963. During that time, I was merely hoping to enter the secondary school. Our paths only crossed in 1981 when he was a Judge of the High Court at Nsukka. I was then a fledgling starter on the uncharted sea of forensic business.

I appeared before him with my learned friend and very senior colleague Chief Obianyo on the other side. I was an impetuous youngster at the bar and Chief Obianyo was already a grand master at forensic combat. It was indeed a battle between a David and a Goliath. His Lordship Justice Nweje (as he then was) listened to both sides quietly and courteously. He accommodated the conflicting styles. At the end he delivered a clear, concise and correct decision with the same equanimity with which he had listened to argument and endured the theatricals on either side. There was no appeal against that decision. Apart from this brief encounter, I regret to say that I did not enjoy any further privilege of arguing the law before Hon. Justice Moses Okechukwu Nweje again until he retired in 1992.

With this brief encounter however, Hon. Justice Nweje left an indelible impression in my mind – that of a Lawyer’s dream Judge. The one that listened carefully, interjected courteously but sparingly and decided wisely. The one that exhibited neither temper nor tantrum, loquacity nor insolence. Never abused counsel and wrote in flowing and beautiful judicial language. Above all, the one that exercised tight control over proceedings before him by the sublime force of his personality and comportment. It also struck me through out the proceedings in that suit that he started his Court at 9.00am everyday.

My Lord, you can therefore understand my predicament when by virtue of my office, I am now called upon to make a speech in honour of someone whose footsteps on the sands of time cover so large a terrain beyond my vision. You must therefore forgive me if I chronicle his history from information which I have derived only from second hand information.

111

He was an alumni of St Mary’s School, Onitsha, an alumni of Prince Institute, Onitsha. He obtained the London Chamber of Commerce, School Certificate and the Senior Cambridge School Certificate in 1946. He attended the University of Hull formerly the University College Hull, Yorks, England. He obtained his LLB (London) in June, 1956 and was admitted into the middle temple London. He was called to the Bar on the 10th of February, 1959, and was enrolled at the Supreme Court on the 12 th

of June, 1959.

After barely five years in private legal practice, this illustrious forebear was made a Magistrate in 1963. By June 1972, he had attained the position of Chief Magistrate. In 1978, he became Chief Registrar of the High Court and became a Judge of the High Court in 1981.

He combined his judicial functions with some extra – judicial duties. He was Chairman Board of Inquiry into Allegations of Malpractice in the State School System in 1977. In 1987, he was Chairman Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the worship of Efuru Deity. In 1995, he was Chairman Aguleri – Umuleri Disturbances Judicial Commission of Inquiry.

There is no doubt that whilst we shall surely inter the flesh and bones of our dear forebear, we shall never bury his name and his achievements. He had indeed traversed a long, impressive and profound terrain. God indeed gives life and he takes it away at his own time. In Psalms 9:2 – 6, it is written:-

“Before the mountains were brought forth or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Thou turnest man back to the dust and sayest: “Turn back, O children of men!” For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. Thou dost sweep men away, they are like a dream, like grass which is renewed in the morning: In the morning it flourishes and is renewed, in the evening it fades and withers”.

And so to each of us there is a morning and an evening. For Moses, Okechukwu Nweje, late Barrister – at – Law, Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court, Emeritus Judge of the High Court of Anambra State and elder citizen of the ancient town of Nnobi, the morning began on the 13th day of August, 1927 when he was born. The evening came on the 24th day of May, 2004 when he died at the age of 77.

Death may be a release from the thralldom of this world. But to those left to rue the loss, it remains a painful experience. But death is an inevitable end. It must come when it will. Let me therefore offer these words of solace to us all both as we bow our heads in sorrow at the departure of this illustrious forebear and as we contemplate or remember the death of our other loved ones:-

112

“Anyone who has watched and listened with the dying knows that they often see something that cheers them on. Edison, in his chair would lapse into a coma and then open his eyes and smile and say, “It is very beautiful over there.” My brother at twenty eight, would rouse and say to another brother, “there is power there.” And another in his last moments whispered, “I wish I had the power of writing or speaking, for then I would describe to you how pleasant a thing it is to die.” All these instincts and hopes and intimidations have sustained generations from the ancient Egyptian to the modern astronaut. But hope is first cousin to fear, and without something more substantial the human heart still has its sorrow and its loneliness.

It is helpful to remember that these too have their good offices – that our grief comes to make us stronger to conquer the small troubles and to understand our kind. It is helpful to remember that anything so universal as death cannot be all bad. We who suffer because another has departed have not been singled out by fate for some special burden.” (Ervin Seale – Take Off From Within 1971)

May I therefore on behalf of the Ministry of Justice express our heartfelt sympathy for and solidarity with the Members of the Bench at this moment of grief. May God bless the noble profession of Lawyers and protect members of the Nigeria Bar Association and our Judges and grant all of us long and eventful lives, and the peace of mind to understand our loss.

To members of the Nweje family and members of Nnobi town, we send solemn message of condolence. May God grant you all the fortitude to bear this loss. Please remember that it is the ultimate hope of man to die someday and be reunited with God. To us, of the Christian faith, we believe that our destination is paradise and that is why we sing:-

“We love the place oh Godwherein thy honour dwells the joy of thine abode all earthly joy excels ….Lord Jesus, gives us graceOn earth to love thee moreIn heaven to see thy faceAnd with thy saints adore”

My lord, the Hon. Chief Judge, permit me to end these Sentiments by touching upon an issue which may not now concern our departed forebear but which for a certainty calls for our attention. Our colleague retired from the bench in August, 1992. It means he enjoyed life in retirement for 12 years. How did we relate with him in his lonely

113

retirement? How did we identify with his fortune during retirement? I suggest that the fraternal ties that bind us should hold for eternity, never severed by cessation of active relationship at the Bar or on the Bench. There must be life after service and it should be the obligation of those of us in service for the time being, to keep in touch with the retired and the infirm members. By so doing, we lay solid foundation for our own well being and welfare in the future when others would assume the responsibility to look after us and to inquire into our welfare. Once in a while, both the Bar and the Bench should organize and arrange visits to both the retired and the infirm members of the profession. Such salutary gestures will serve to remind them that even when all other companions fail, the professional brotherhood will not.

May the soul of our beloved Moses Okechukwu Nweje, late Justice of the High Court of Anambra State, illustrious son of Nnobi rest in the bosom of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SANAttorney – General/Commissioner for JusticeAnambra State.

ADDRESS BY THE HON. ATTORNEY – GENERAL / COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ANAMBRA STATE, ON THE OCCASION OF THE OPENING OF THE 2004 LEGAL YEAR AT AWKA ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9 TH , 2004

Your Excellency, Dr. Chris Nwabueze Ngige (OON), Governor of Anambra State;Your Excellency, the Deputy Governor of Anambra State, Sir Ugochukwu Nwankwo, OON; The Speaker, Anambra State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Mike Balonwu;My Lord, the Chief Judge of Anambra State, Hon. Justice C. J. Okoli; Your Honour, the Secretary to the State Government, Mr. Alex Chukwurah, mni; My Lords, the Hon. Justices of the High Court of Anambra State;Head of Service, Anambra State;Distinguished Legislators of the State House of Assembly here present;Honourable Commissioners and other Members of the State Executive Council;My Learned Brothers, Distinguished Senior Advocates of Nigeria;Your Honour, the Chief Registrar of the High Court of Anambra State;Members of the Learned and Honourable Profession of Law; The President, and Members of the National Executive Committee and Representatives of the Nigerian Bar Association; The Chairmen and Members of the Executive Committee of the various branches of the Nigerian Bar Association; Special Advisers and Assistants (EG); My Lords, Spiritual Chairmen, Local Government Transition Committees;Permanent Secretaries;Your Royal Highness;Learned Magistrates;

114

Media Representatives;Ladies and Gentlemen; It is with palpable foreboding that I speak to you on this rather peculiar occasion of the formal opening of 2004 legal year.

Nigeria as a Nation State and as a Federal Republic is turning and turning in a widening gyre. The falcon can no longer hear the falconers and share anarchy is unleashed on the polity.

For the people of Anambra State in particular, these are really days of anomy. Days of infamy when the collective welfare of the polity is sacrificed for the peevish and selfish interest of a few. When the political fortunes of Anambra State are peddled from outside the State’s borders by political merchants of Abuja and bartered within the State in exchange for the soul and well being of the people to greedy and avaricious descendants of Esau.

Lord Langdale M. R. had said as far back as in 1844 that justice can be peaceably and effectually administered there only where there is recognized authority and adequate power (Duke of Brunswick Vs. King of Hanover: 6 Beav.49). But in Anambra State the Government of the State is denied the coercive power of the Nigeria Police for the maintenance of law and order and for the effective exercise of its authority.

This State of Affairs must assault the sensibilities of every right thinking person. This is because within the context of any civilized democracy and within the text and spirit of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria a Government exists or not according as it has organize coercive force in the form primarily of a Police Force to maintain its existence and authority and to enforce its laws.

It is, therefore, to be deeply regretted that in these days of universal awareness and clamour for democratic governance, the very essence of that form of governance is being debased and subjected to peevish manipulation in the hands of those who by the grace of God presently wield political power on the National platform. They are the falcons who having attained the highest political summit height through the votes of the common man cannot now heed the call of the falconers. It is said however that those who sow the seeds of the evil wind, shall reap the whirlwind. When we bestow and hand over a distorted notion of control of democratic power to our children by worshipping self and not serving the polity, the children shall later curse us in our graves and posterity shall spit on our tombs. A word is enough for the wise.

As usual, the ceremony for 2004 Legal Year commenced with a religious service. It is fitting and proper that we solicit at all times the guidance of God the Almighty, the fons et origo of justice. May we look up to God in unison and pray that he extends his benevolence to Anambra State so that the mental distortions that have produced the sociological inadequacies in the thought process of the generality of the political elite in Anambra State shall be corrected for good, in line with the aspirations and policies of the

115

administration of His Excellency, Governor Chris Nwabueze Ngige (OON) in whose hands he has in his infinite might and wisdom entrusted the governance of Anambra State today.

Let us consistently remember our Judges and Magistrates in our prayers. These are supposed to be men and women of rare genius. Social Engineers in the temple of justice entrusted with the hallowed duty of directing the solemn proceedings at the temple. May God give them the strength and character to live up to the high expectations of their office and to merit the confidence reposed in them by the public particularly the under-trodden who look on the law and the instrumentalities of the administration of justice as their last hope.

Let us also reflect on the functions of the advocates who minister in the temple of justice. I say with great emphasis that they are ministers in the temple of justice. Yates J in 1766 had said that the Court must have ministers, and that the Attorneys are its ministers (Mayor of Norwich Vs. Berry (1766) 4 Burr Part IV page 2115).

I call on my colleagues members of the most Honourable Profession in the world to rise and stand up for the highest ideals of our calling namely, knowledge, courage, integrity and candor. Let me remind you of the words of Brougham L. J. in Greenough Vs. Gaskell (1833) 1 Myl & K 98 when he said that the interest of justice cannot be upholden, the administration of justice cannot go on without the aid of men skilled in jurisprudence, in the practice of the Courts, and in those matters affecting rights and obligations which form the subject of all proceedings.

Perhaps, I may also ask you to draw inspiration from the lofty words of Best J in Morris Vs. Hunt (1819) 1 Chit. Rep. 555 when he said that there is nothing which has so great a tendency to secure the due administration of justice, as having the Courts of the country frequented by gentlemen so eminently qualified by their education and principles of honour as at this time appear to discharge the duties which they are called upon to fulfill.

I have delved into antiquity for the deliberate purpose of reminding us that we are beneficiaries of a rich and hallowed heritage embedded in humanity itself right from the cradle of modern civilization. We must hold with pride and a sense of acute responsibility this heritage so that we can pass it on to posterity untainted.

In these days of political adventurism, we must withstand the temptation to join the bandwagon. We must remember that we are men of special breed. By our knowledge, education and comportment they should know us. We must remember, as did Pollock C. B in Swinfen Vs. Lord Chelmsford (1860) L. T Rep. Vol. 2 (NS 413) that we had always said that we will be our clients advocate and not his agent. To hire ourselves to any particular course is a position in which no member of the profession ought to place himself.

116

I therefore implore you to be mindful what you do and how you act when politicians approach you with vulgar ideas that can only produce a negative impact on the propagation of sound democratic ideals. I also implore you to deal honourably with the Courts and your colleagues by offering sound and proper advise to all clients in a way that enhances the interest of the clients and the polity rather than yours.

Let me at this stage make a few comments about the application for the authority of the Attorney – General to represent the State in criminal proceedings. I have chosen my words very carefully because I have not found in the statute books in force in Anambra State any provision which empowers the Attorney – General to grant an authority to any counsel to represent any private individual in a criminal prosecution proceeding. Section 69(1) of the High Court Law provides that in the case of a prosecution by or on behalf of the State the State may be represented by a Legal Practitioner duly authorized in that behalf by the Attorney – General. Section 77 of the Magistrate’s Courts Law contains identical provision.

I make the proposition that the Attorney – General of Anambra State has no power to issue “a fiat” to any Private Legal Practitioner to commence or prosecute any person for any criminal offence upon the motion or the mere desire or whim of any aggrieved individual. But since the State must be interested in maintaining law and order and prosecuting felons who constitute a threat to law and order, the Attorney – General has a derivative power to instruct a Private Legal Practitioner to prosecute for any offence when the State is the complainant, de jure. When the Attorney- General does this it is presumed that by the fact of so doing he assumes responsibility for the prosecution as the Chief Law Officer of the Government. It is for this reason that as Attorney – General I shall only consider granting authority to prosecute to a Private Legal Practitioner in the following cases:

1. Criminal cases pending at the High Court initiated by the office of the Attorney – General.

2. Criminal cases pending at any competent Court of criminal jurisdiction in which the State has a policy interest, and the offence alleged is mala in se. These will include offences of stealing, forgery, fraud, indecent assault, removal of boundary marks, obtaining by false pretences, illegal trafficking in prohibited items, forcible entry and allied offences and also offences which the Magistrate’s Court have no jurisdiction to try.

I most earnestly request that my colleagues understand my stand and that no application for my authority to prosecute in the name of the State shall be entertained in respect of matters civil in nature or in respect of which the aggrieved persons are better advised to avail themselves of their remedies in civil proceedings or undertake Private Prosecution if they so wish.

I shall be guided at all times by the wise words of Oputa J (as he then was) in UFELE & 4 ORS. VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1973) 3 ECSLR 42 at 45 where he advised

117

that it is undesirable that parties to a civil action over the ownership of land should try to use the criminal Courts and the criminal process either to punish their opponents or to obtain redress.

The office of the Attorney – General is genuinely concerned about the delay in the administration of justice. In the area of dispensation of criminal justice, the Ministry is putting in place appropriate measures to ensure that criminal cases are speedily attended to and disposed of. To this end we are in collaboration with the office of the Honourable Chief Judge in the project for reintroduction of assizes sessions so that criminal cases would receive periodical, special and exclusive attention by the Courts with a view to clearing the backlog of pending cases. The major obstacle in the way of the Ministry of Justice in the prosecution of criminal cases is of course the difficulty in getting the witnesses to attend Court. We are however devising some synchronized measures with the Police to ensure that the witnesses are reached and informed of the pending cases to enable them appear to testify. The Attorney – General will welcome gladly applications from Private Legal Practitioners for authority to represent the State at assizes sessions.

My Lord the Chief Judge, the budget 2004 of Anambra State may well not have provided all the money needed for the work of the judiciary. It certainly did not provide as much as the Ministry of Justice would require for its own functions. I had earlier in this speech lamented the State of Affairs in Anambra State. The focus of the administration of His Excellency, Governor Chris Nwabueze Ngige (OON), is to ensure that workers are paid their salaries, that our children go to school regularly, that our roads and infrastructure are rehabilitated substantially, and that those who have served this State for the better part of their productive lives are not starved to death in retirement or disillusioned by the non payment of their pensions. These I must say are priority areas for the time being.

It is therefore my hope, and I trust that I reflect the attitude of government when I plead that the revenue available should be put to judicious use for the maintenance of the best working relationship among the stakeholders in the administration of justice sector. Probity and accountability must be the governing principles in the administration of both men and materiel. I became the Attorney – General under a crisis situation. My first few steps were tentative and faltering. Then, as events gradually unfolded, I found myself gasping for breath in a deluge of litigation of the most bizarre kind. During all this trials and travails, the people of Anambra State across the political party divide as well as my colleagues both on the bench and at the bar, and my colleagues in Government, have been exceptionally charitable with their criticism, steadfast with their support and loud with their cheer. I thank you all. I wish to use this opportunity also to thank each and every one of the citizens of this State who believes in the course of the Government of Anambra State for every kind gesture of support. I request that you continue to pray steadfastly for the State and for us who fight its course in the frontline. I thank you for listening to me. May God bless our Chief Judge, may God bless our Judges and Magistrates, may God protect all stakeholders in the administration of justice sector, and may God protect the Governor of Anambra State and save the Government of

118

Anambra State and deliver it from the hands of avaricious political predators, and from the inanity of perverted and unscrupulous Judges with “extra – territorial jurisdiction” and “lawyers” who practice before them.

May God give us victory in our struggle and justice in our time.Thank you.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.Attorney – General of Anambra State.

SPEECH BY U.N. UDECHUKWU, SAN, AT THE SPECIAL HIGH COURT SESSION IN HONOUR OF LATE IKECHUKWU UCHELABU AGWOR

IROHAM ON FRIDAY, THE 28 TH DAY OF APRIL 2000

My Lord, the Hon. Chief Judge of Abia State,

My Lord, the Hon. Chief Judge of Imo State,

My Lords, the Presidents of Imo and Abia States Customary Courts of Appeal,

My Lords, Hon. Judges of the High Courts of Imo and Abia States, and the Customary Courts of Appeal,

The Hon Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Abia State,

My brother silks, Learned Senior Advocates of Nigeria,

Learned Magistrates of the Imo and Abia State Magistrates Courts,

Distinguished members of the Executive Committees of the Nigerian Bar Association, various branches,

119

My Learned Colleagues, members of the various branches of the Nigerian Bar Association,

My Lords, spiritual,

Ladies and gentlemen,

My Lord, the Honourable Chief Judge of Abia State, with your leave, may I observe all other protocols notionally. I do recognise the presence at this session of titled men, traditional rulers, dignitaries and friends of the Bar particularly members of the Bench who are now on retirement. I pay my compliments to all of them. I also recognise the presence of the representatives of the bereaved family and community of Otamkpa in Isuikwuato L.G.A. I express my heartfelt condolence to them.

I speak in dual capacity at this session. First, I represent my brother silk, leader of the Abia State Bar, I.N. Umezurike, SAN, who is unavoidably absent. I received his message requesting me to stand in for him only yesterday.

I also speak on behalf of those noble hearts, the lions and lionesses who were weaned from the Faculty of Law, University of Nigeria, Nsukka in 1976 and who went on to be admitted to the Bar as Legal Practitioners in 1977. I can see some of them here present at this session. On my behalf and on their collective behalf, dear Colleague, I.U. A. Iroham, we roar your farewell. My Lord, it is customary at sessions like this for statements to be made concerning the pedigree and socio-cultural antecedents and achievements of the departed. I shall leave this aspect to those who know my Colleague and friend more intimately.

My life crossed that of the departed when we were both classmates at the Faculty of Law, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. I remember him as a middle-aged student then working in the Nigerian Railway Corporation and doubling as a student of Law. It is a testimony to his industry and intellectual quality that he was able to swim in both waters simultaneously and successfully. As a classmate, he was of outstanding character and nobility. A great conversationalist, whose intelligence and humour showed in everything he said, be it in the field of Law or in the realm of philosophy.

After we were called to the Bar in 1977, each went his several ways in search of a future. It took well over ten years for us to meet again in the well of the High Court No. 1 at Umuahia when he visited from Lagos as Counsel to the Nigerian Railway Corporation. As true and loving alumni, we were locked in a bear hug

120

and later settled down to catch up with the old days. Typical of Iroham, he remembered all our classmates by name and inquired after their welfare one by one.

After that memorable meeting, we later continued to meet on more regular basis as Practitioners in these Courts. Each time I met Iroham, he was as fresh, warm and truly friendly as ever. Speaking as a mortal that I am, I am constrained to say what a pity, he is no more!

But on second thought, bearing in mind the full life which he lived, the many achievements that he made, the many footsteps he left on the sands of time, might it not be better that we view his death not as a loss but as a transition to glory? Charles Frohman once said that death is the most beneficial adventure in life. Echoing the same philosophy, Walt Witman in his book, Starting from Paumanok, noted that nothing can happen more beautiful than death.

I am satisfied that Iroham lived nobly and died the same. It takes good living to die nobly. I used the word, ‘good’ as meaning not moralistically good but enlightened. He was a very enlightened person.

When we begin our lives, death is far away and unreal. It happens to others never in our family. I believe they are sad indeed to whom death comes as a stranger. If they have not atimes before called upon the unthinkable and made their peace with it, they are overwhelmed. I know that the bereaved family of our dear departed Colleague is now experiencing this pang.

My Lord, permit me to advise them and the rest of us that we have to learn two lessons at once. First, how and what to think of death and secondly, how to bear grief. I submit My Lord, that every emotion is part of life’s symphony. It is how we put the moods together that determines music or dissonance. True grief is noble and ought to be nobly experienced and expressed and then conquered. Grief is cleansing, humanising and strengthening. It hallows the heart.

But My Lord, let me further submit that grief prolonged is selfish. It means we are thinking more of our own loss than the departed one’s gain. At least, when one dies after a fulfilled life or after much suffering, death is a release, and if the philosophy and religion of this world over the years and the instincts of our hearts are right in suggesting the continuity of life beyond the grave, then part of us at least can rejoice that death has set our loved one free. Even if death ends all and there is nothing hereafter, there is still relief from pain and suffering and the thraldom of this flesh.

121

It is therefore on this note I wish to end. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. May the noble soul of our departed friend and Colleague, I.U.A. Iroham, rest in the bosom of our Lord and may the Lord our God grant all of us the strength to bear our grief.

Chief U. Nnoruka Udechukwu, SAN.

GOODNIGHT DEAR COMPATRIOT

BEING THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH DELIVERED BY THE HON. ATTORNEY–GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, U. NNORUKA UDECHUKWU, SAN, DURING THE SPECIAL HIGH COURT SESSION HELD TO MARK THE PASSAGE OF HON. JUSTICE ALEXANDER ANIJAH–OBI, EMERITUS JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANAMBRA

STATE, ON THURSDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF MAY, 2004

My Lord, the Hon. Chief Judge of Anambra State, I rise again to carry my heavy burden of making a speech at this solemn occasion of a special High Court session in honour of my predecessor in office and a towering giant in the legal firmament of this country, Alexander Anijah–Obi, Ogbuefi Nnayelugo, Onu-n’ekwulu-ora, emeritus Judge of the High Court of Anambra State.

Between February 1966, and September, 1999, our dear colleague, and forebear gave the best part of his life in the service of this country and the legal profession. He progressed from the eminent position of State Counsel in the Federal Ministry of Justice to the lofty position of High Court Judge where he sat to dispense justice until he retired in September, 1999.

In between these epic heights, he served as State Counsel Ministry of Justice, Enugu, Legal Adviser State School Management Board, Enugu, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Ministry of Justice, Calabar, Administrator General and Public Trustee, Ministry of Justice, Calabar, Director of Civil Litigation, Ministry of Justice, Calabar, Acting Solicitor General and

122

Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Calabar, Solicitor General / Director General, Ministry of Justice, Calabar and Attorney General & Commissioner for Justice, of the Old Anambra State.

It is said that the height attained by great men is not achieved by a sudden flight. Alexander Anijah – Obi, was born on the 5th of September, 1935 at Anam in what is now Anambra West Local Government Area. He was an alumnus of that ancient citadel of learning, Metropolitan College, Onitsha. He proceeded to the equally prestigious North Western Polytechnic, London, and the University College, London. He crowned his pursuit of his ambition to be a Legal Practitioner by securing admission into the inner temple in London and later by being called to the bar in Nigeria as solicitor and advocate of the Supreme Court.

He’s is no doubt a full life. An eventful life and a fulfilled life. He raised a family founded in love. He had four children and from the information made available to me, one of them is a Chemical Engineer while two others are my colleagues of the noble profession of Legal Practitioners.

He left to mourn him, his adorable wife, Dr. Franca Anijah – Obi who in spite of her grief, found time to formally notify me of the sad event of the passing away of her beloved husband who is my esteemed predecessor. We are immensely grateful to madam for remembering to inform us.

Death is a necessary end of all living things. In the life of man, death after 69 years of fulfilled and fruitful existence, cannot however be described as death at the dusk, calling for celebration. At 69, a man is only beginning to know his children and the children are only beginning to understand and appreciate their father. The death of my dear predecessor at 69 can therefore be nothing but a grievous and painful lost to the family he has left behind.

My lord, the Chief Judge of Anambra State, in the name of the Ministry of Justice and on my own behalf, I extend this heartfelt message of condolence to your lordship and to your brother Judges for the loss of one of the best amongst you. I ask for your permission to extend the same sympathy and condolence to lady Anijah – Obi, and her children Uzo, Ikenna, Chukwuemeka and Adaobi and members of the extended Anijah – Obi family.

The Legal Practitioners who had the privilege of arguing before him will fondly remember him as the exemplary Judge who listened courteously, considered wisely and decided justly. I extend my condolence to the Chairmen, members of the branch Executive Committees and members of the five branches of the Nigerian Bar Association in Anambra State. Let me remind us that the best tribute we can pay to the memory of our beloved member now departed is to continue to practice our profession in the best tradition of learned and honourable men.

May God give us all, the peace of mind to accept this inevitable passage of an illustrious man, even as our faith teaches us that death is only a transmutation – a change of scene. Not an end.

On our part, we the Law Officers of the Ministry of Justice, Anambra State salute our forebear and wish him a smooth journey to the face of his maker, our God. We shall remember him as one who walked on the path which it is now our privilege to walk on. The files he treated, the legal opinions he wrote or vetted, his trenchant minutes, the cases he argued, these will remain for us evergreen reminders that we belong to his pedigree. May his soul and the souls of all our departed forebears rest in the bosom of the lord. We trust in their intercession on our behalf before the throne, most high, as we continue working the field they left behind.

123

May the land of Anam never lack men and women of stature to stand in the place of the one who left on the 22nd of April, 2004. May God continue to watch over those who now grieve the lost of this man. May God grant all of us long life in good health all the days of our lives. As we sorrow and grieve now, let us also meditate upon this poem, taken from the song of sol.

“He stays me falling, lifts me up when down Reclaims me wondering, guards from every foe Plants on my worthless brow, the victors crown Which in return, before his feet I throwGrieved that I cannot better grace his shrine Who deigns to own me his, as he is mine”.

“While here, alas! I know but half his love But half discern him, and but half adoreBut when I meet him in the realms above I hope to love him better, praise him moreAnd feel, and tell, amid the choir Divine How fully I am his and he is mine”. (Rev. H. F. Lyte {1833})

And finally, may we commit the gentle soul of our dear departed compatriot to the right hand of God, the Almighty creator of all things. We pray God to take a benevolent view of our compatriot’s achievements in this sphere and to grant him eternal rest in peace and glory in the kingdom of God.

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SANAttorney – General & Commissioner for Justice

ON THE WINGS OF A DOVE

TRIBUTE TO GODWIN EKWUSIAGA EZEUKO, SAN BY CHIEF, THE HON. U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN, ATTORNEY-

GENERAL/COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE AT THE SPECIAL COURT SESSION HELD ON THE 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2003.

Godwin Ekwusiaga Ezeuko, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, knight of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, Chancellor of the Knights of Saint Mary, now lies before us in his mortal frame.

He was born at Achina on March 4, 1928, being the second child of late Chief and Mrs. Ezeuko. He led a regular life. Had his early education at Saint Joseph’s primary school Adazi and Christ the King College, Onitsha.

He began his life of independence as an employee of the Federal Government in the department of Customs and Excise. He left public service to pursue the proverbial

124

Golden Fleece in England in December 1954. He enrolled in the London School of Economics and Political Science where he studied Law. He was called to the Bar in 1960, joining the hoary heads in the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn.

When he returned to Nigeria, he joined the Chambers of that ferocious eagle at the Bar, the legal and literal giant, G.C.M. Onyiuke (may his soul rest in peace). It was in this distinguished law office that Ezeuko horned his skills, which in his practice made him such a revered opponent to contend with in this temple of justice.

When he set up his own Chambers in 1964, it was the beginning of a tale of roaring success, culminating in his elevation to the apex rank of advocates as Senior Advocate of Nigeria in 1993. He maintained two Chambers, one in Onitsha and the other in Abuja.

He served his clients with distinction and served his God no less. The Pope in November 2001 elevated him to the rank of member of the Order of the Knights of Saint Gregory the Great. Until his death, he was Chancellor of the Knights of Saint Mary’s Sub-Council, Onitsha.

He left to mourn him, his adorable wife, Kate and six children, three of whom are members of the legal profession.

In the course of his legal practice, he trained very many other lawyers, some of whom are here present either as advocates at the Bar or as Judges on the Bench.

By God’s ordinance, he completed his acts on the stage of this world on Monday the 6th day of October 2003 and took a graceful bow and the curtain was drawn.

My Lord, the Presiding Judge, I have just reduced seventy-five momentous years of existence of one of the best lawyers Nigeria has produced into a narration of less than 10 minutes! This is not fair to the legend who now lies lifeless before you. May I pray for my Lord’s indulgence therefore to proceed to touch upon a few milestones by which we shall remember him from today henceforth.

Court Sessions such as this are occasions when members of the legal profession meet to pay their last respect to a deserving and fallen comrade. “Deserving” not because the departed amassed stupendous material wealth or garnered enviable political and social clout during his lifetime. Rather, “deserving” because he was a role-model in the legal profession, a committed member of the fraternity of his professional brethren and the Nigeria Bar Association and an outstanding advocate in the temple of justice. In one word, because he lived and died a fit and proper person to be honoured in a Session like this. That we are gathered here, in this solemn proceeding is conclusive evidence of the standing of our fallen colleague. We salute his memory. We salute his achievements. We congratulate his survivors and dependants. We hope that they

125

will be consoled in their grief by our solidarity and our glorification of their icon and prodigy.

I did not have the opportunity, which I so much longed for, of practicing as an adversary against G.E. But I witnessed him in action. I also knew him by reputation. Perhaps, it is in my best interest that I did not tangle with him. He was indeed, in the endearing parlance of the Bar, a ferocious foe.

Advocates at the Bar are trained in the science of management of controversies and disputes. They carry on with heat and clamour the adversarial business of resolution of human disputes and controversies, not with bows, arrows, machetes or other weapons of mass annihilation or destruction but with books, words, wisdom, knowledge, wit, bluff and bravado. Not in the open plains of desolate nihilism but in the hallowed and civilized well of the temple of justice.

In this setting, Godwin Ekwusiaga Ezeuko as advocate lived his name to the full. He was indeed, a grandmaster. When he disputed in this temple of justice, he was as far-sighted as the eagle, as swift and ferocious as the hawk and as nimble as a fox. When sarcasm was called for, he could also sting like a bee. He was indeed Eze Uko!

My Lords, I am certain in my speculation that you will all remember G.E. Ezeuko, SAN as that quintessential advocate who stood up before you, spoke up and then sat down, all at his turn. You will remember him as the gladiator in the temple of justice who conceded when he needed to, fought an issue when it was necessary and pressed on even to the point of obduracy when the demands of justice warranted.

We on our part, as his colleagues at the Bar will remember him as a colossus. An amiable colleague who played hard and worked hard. The colleague who made dispute resolution come alive by raising disputations to lofty heights with erudition, profundity and ingenuity. We shall remember the happy and harmonious experiences we shared with him. Fortunately, it will never be said of his estate, “and his place, let another take”. He had already filled the vacancy in our midst by planting three of his siblings as our colleagues, to carry on from where he left off.

Those who knew him as a student and who were his mates or contemporaries, including my uncle, P.G.E. Umeadi, SAN will remember him with nostalgia as they recall the little pranks they played together or at each other and the mischievous escapades they indulged in as young people invariably do.

His colleagues, labourers in the Lord’s Vineyard will miss him and will certainly find it hard to fill the vacuum created by his departure. May God give them the peace of mind and the strength to overcome their loss.

To his children, including our three colleagues, I extend the heartfelt condolences of myself, my Chambers as well as my current family of Ministry of Justice, Awka. To

126

madam Kate, I say, sorry, but be of good cheer. Be consoled by the lesson from the good book, which assures us, that death is not the end of life and that we shall all meet again in another realm to part no more. May God imbue you with his peace and grant you the strength to prevail over the pain of your bereavement.

Finally, I extend my heartfelt condolence to members of the Onitsha Bar and their leaders. May God grant all of us his grace now and forever more.

And now, O Father in heaven, mindful of your love, we pray that you receive the soul of our dear friend and colleague who has now returned to you with forbearance and love. Judge him kindly and grant him reprieve from his transgressions and reward him abundantly for the good he did on earth and admit him to Paradise through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen!

Chief, the Hon. U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.Attorney-General/Commissioner for Justice,Anambra State.

SPEECH DELIVERED BY CHIEF U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN, AT THE SPECIAL HIGH COURT SESSION OF THE HIGH COURT

OF ABIA STATE HOLDEN ON THE 16TH DAY OF MAY 2003 IN HONOUR OF LATE BARRISTER SAMUEL CHIEMELA AZUARA

THIS METEOR PASSED TOO FAST

We have again gathered at this solemn occasion, as is our tradition, to hold a special Court Session for a colleague who in the recent past worked in these precincts with us.

Special Court Sessions of this nature are in deed the culminating climax of the life and passage of any advocate worth his salt, respected and loved by his colleagues. Some Legal Practitioners do not get this honour either because while in this sphere they did not identify with their professional brethren as members of the Nigerian Bar Association or because for reasons best known to them during their lifetime, they considered other associations so much more vital for their wellbeing that they failed or refused or neglected to pay their dues to the Nigerian Bar Association, even though they continued to parade themselves as Solicitors and Advocates.

127

Death and the grief it occasions are in deed personal to the dependants and relations of the dead. All that friends and well-wishers including professional colleagues can do to make this personal grief less painful is to show sympathy and solidarity with the bereaved and offer them words and did of encouragement. I am certain that the wife and children as well as the relations of our dear colleague for whose obsequies we are here gathered, would draw strength and solace from what we do here. I am also certain that this special session will have some salutary effect on their morale.

On the 3rd day of May 2003, along Ubakala-Umuahia Road at about 8.30 p.m., our colleague, Samuel Chiemela Azuara was the victim of a fatal motor accident. It is unfortunate that this event had to terminate the life of our colleague at the prime age of 38. But we are advised by the good book that in the midst of life we are in death. We are never admitted to the mystery of the time or place or manner of our death. So let it be with Chiemela!

In an article titled “teach me to die” published at Chapter 9 of that invaluable book TAKE OFF FROM WITHIN, by Ervin Seale, he said inter alia “if death is a friend we ought to prepare to entertain him; if an enemy, to overcome him. Certainly, death can be formidable and fearful only when it comes as a stranger”.

The unfortunate reality however, is that it seldom comes like a friend or like an enemy or like a stranger. In deed, it seldom comes at all – it just happens! But then, perhaps that is the beauty of it, so that the dying is shielded from the fear and agony of it, for in deed, nothing is more fearful than to live a life of expectation of impending death.

It is for us the living to agonize over our imagination as to the trauma and pain attendant upon the death of our colleague occasioned by a motor accident. For him, this is insignificant and no longer relevant. He has left us behind to mourn his loss and we believe he has rejoined his Maker in Paradise.

When his followers asked him how they should bury him, Socrates replied “you cannot bury Socrates, you can bury my body but you can’t put me in a grave”.

We certainly can’t bury Samuel Chiemela Azuara. We shall certainly bury his body and put it in a grave. But he has left such gigantic footprints on the sands of time within his short life span, that we cannot bury his name.

What a long impressive and profound terrain he traversed! From Jos where he was born in 1964 through Ovuokwu – Omoba Secondary School. He was an alumnus of the Imo State University, now Abia State University and an alumnus of the University of Lagos. He didn’t just pick a First Degree in Law, he also picked a Second.

Like the first class citizen that he was, he served creditably in the National Youth Service Corp and therefrom proceeded to hold an impressive array of positions in Government and the Public Sector. He was Company Secretary/Legal Adviser, Universal Building Society Limited. He was Commissioner for Agriculture and Natural Resources for Abia

128

State. He was also an Attorney-General & Commissioner for Justice for Abia State. His last port of call of duty was as Principal Partner, Sam Azuara & Co.

In the course of his legal career as advocate, he represented some top of the line corporate clients, including Cadbury Nigeria Plc., Wema Bank Plc. National Oil and Chemical Marketing Company Plc., Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria, Midas Merchant Bank Ltd. Joint Project Development Company Ltd. and others.

He served as Chairman, State Agricultural Loans Board, Abia State as well as Chairman, Abia State Oil Palm Development Company Limited and Vice-Chairman, Abia State Agricultural Development Programs.

While serving as the Attorney-General, he set up the Abia State Law Commission to review and enact into law all pre-1900 laws and to publish for the first time a complete volume of Laws of Abia State.

Our colleague may have died too young at 38 but he has put into those 38 years the achievements of a lifetime, so we mourn but we mourn in reverence a colleague and statesman whose contribution to the development of Abia State and whose record of achievements generally will live forever.

On behalf of his friends and colleagues who practiced side by side with him, I say, dear friend, Sam Chiemela, fare thee well on your journey to eternity. May the God Almighty, the creator of all things receive you in glory. May He also grant your dear wife and your children and in deed all those who depended on you, the fortitude to bear your loss and may He also grant them succor.

My Lord, the Chief Judge, permit me to use this occasion to touch upon a related issue which I consider very important. Special Court Session to mark the transition of a member of our noble profession is very solemn and essential aspect of our being as professional brethren. In the past, it was considered mandatory for all Judges of the State High Court and all Lawyers in practice to attend such sessions and the Honourable Chief Judge always invariably presided. In deed, it is very well known that some parents insisted on their children studying law after attending such Court Sessions and after watching Legal Practitioners file past the remains of their departed colleague in dignity and solemnity.

I dare say that we are loosing steam. We are beginning to treat these sessions perfunctorily. I plead for a return to the days of yore. Let us regain the glory of these sessions by considering it imperative for every Lawyer and every Judge and Magistrate to be present and to partake of the ceremonies, whether the departed is a practicing lawyer, a Judge, a Magistrate or in deed a retired colleague. For this to happen however, those who organize this event must ensure that due and early publicity precede the event, so that it would be convenient for all stakeholders to take part.

129

In the days of yore, relations of the deceased made sure that information got to the Bench and Bar in good time to enable members of the Bench and Bar to adjust their programs, so as to attend such sessions in great numbers. The notice of this session got to me only yesterday the 15th day of May 2003. Earlier on the 14th day of May 2003, I had received a different notice inviting me to attend the Special Court Session to mark the departure of another illustrious Lawyer, O. K. Olugu on the 15 th day of May 2003 at Ohafia High Court. I was unable, for obvious reasons to attend that Session.

I plead that in future, the officials of the various branches of the Nigerian Bar Association should endevour to inform the sister branches in good time, to enable the general Bar know of the event in sufficient time.

We cannot afford to trifle with occasions such as this because this is in deed the last professional duty that we owe to any one of us who drops out at any time. To the best of my knowledge, ours is the only profession that observes this ceremony. It is therefore unique to us and has come to define us as a professional group, a fact for which we are deservedly envied by members of the other professions.

God bless the noble profession of lawyers. God bless and protect the members of the Nigerian Bar Association. God bless and protect our Judges and grant all of us long and eventful lives. May the soul of Sam Chiemela Azuara and the souls of our dear departed colleagues rest in the bosom of the Lord.

Chief U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.

ONE TO BE REMEMBERED

BEING A SPEECH DELIVERED BY CHIEF U. N. UDECHUKWU, SAN,AT THE VALEDICTION HIGH COURT SESSION HOLDEN ON

FRIDAY THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2002 FOR LATE BARRISTER DENNIS ADIMCHINOBI AYOZIE

The Leader of the Bar, I. N. Umezuruike, SAN, has most thoughtfully delegated to me the function to speak in his stead on this occasion. I appreciate this gesture because, for the rather brief period when it pleased the Almighty God to permit Barrister Dennis Adimchinobi Ayozie to practice the noble and honourable profession of the law, as Principal Counsel of Ebenezar Chambers, I had a close, cordial and mutually beneficial professional interaction with him.

It was therefore quite painful for me when the fact of his transition was muted to me on Tuesday, the 29th day of January 2002. I was immediately reminded of the

130

futility of our anxieties, our struggles and our worries in this life. For life is indeed inscrutable. In Ecclesiastics 8:16-17, the Preacher summed it up thus:

“When I applied my mind to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done on earth, how neither day nor night one’s eyes see sleep, then I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However, much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out, even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out”.

The Psalmist had therefore wisely resigned his fate and committed it to God, and I recommend this day that we do likewise. God indeed gives life and he takes it away also. In Psalms 9:2-6, it is written:

“Before the mountains were brought forth or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Thou turnest man back to the dust and sayest: “Turn back, O children of men!” For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. Thou dost sweep men away, they are like a dream, like grass which is renewed in the morning: In the morning it flourishes and is renewed, in the evening it fades and withers”.

And so, to each of us, there is a morning and an evening. For Dennis Adimchinobi Ayozie the morning began on the 11th day of April 1957, when he was born. The evening came early on the 28th day of January 2002 when he died peacefully in his sleep.

To him therefore was allocated the human time frame of barely 45 years within which to act out his parts in this worldly stage. Unlike the Rules of this Honourable Court, Dennis did not have the option to pray for enlargement of time or if he did, it would seem that the prayer was refused.

I say as a matter of strong conviction that within the allotted time, Dennis played his parts well. I will add that he also played many parts.

His mother, who we understand is still alive, will remember the joys of bearing him and raising him. She will be consoled in the knowledge that he matured to full responsibility. She will rejoice that she lived long enough to see the children of his son. She will witness this ceremony or watch it as a video or hear of it. She will rest in the satisfaction that his son was indeed a worthy and beloved member of the honourable Association of his professional brethren.

His brothers, sisters and relations will remember him for the warmth of his love and care and for all the good and bad times they all shared in solidarity.

131

His wife and children, though saddened by his loss must remember him for his fatherly care and support. They will witness this ceremony and draw inspiration from this rich evidence and proof of Dad’s relevance and high standing among his peers and professional brethren.

His peers, teachers and friends from the Community Primary School Ehime Obowu will remember him as a dynamic and promising star who eventually made it.

His alumni of St. Paul’s Secondary School now called Community Secondary School Ikenanzize Obowu will remember him as a bright star who made the top grade (Grade 1) and did not stop. They will remember him for his various extra curricula activities. The scripture Union members will remember him as their past President.

His fellow workers at Fougerolle Nigeria Limited will remember him as that bird of passage who, while minding his duty post, applied himself to his studies and eventually made the G.C.E. advanced Level and gained a direct entry into the University.

His peers at University of Lagos will remember him as a great Akokite and a cherished ambassador of their alma mater. Those of them who were at the Faculty of Law with him will remember him as that budding advocate whose later success at the Bar did not come by happenstance. His colleagues who survived the stifling conditions of the Law School with him and were enrolled in 1986 as Legal Practitioners of the Supreme Court of Nigeria will remember the excitement they all felt as young men and women setting out to take their first steps as professionals.

His Youth Service Corp group at Kaduna will remember Dennis for all the pleasant times they shared together, and all the challenges they faced and surmounted together. They will remember his company and his ever-smiling face. The men among them will recall their frolics, escapades and the other things that young men do, which they did together.

The members of Ehime Town Union will surely remember him for his savoir- faire. As Secretary-General, he nurtured their union at a time of crises and galvanized it into stability and strength.

His Political associates will remember him for his political dynamism, loyalty and savey. It is a pity that they will now have to shop for another front-runner to carry

132

their banner at the coming Chairmanship Election Contest at Obowu Local Government.

Those of us who had the privilege to have argued in these Courts with or against him will remember his charity in victory and his gallantry in defeat.

We will remember him as that formidable opponent who always played by the rules and never cut corners.

Personally, I will remember him because whenever judgement was read in these Courts, whether he was Counsel involved or not, you could always tell from his countenance when justice has been done or perverted. That look of concern which I found on his face was always a sign for me to take a harder look at the judgement and explore the option for an appeal. And if I saw that benign smile and the twinkle in his eyes, I considered the matter settled, if not according to law, definitely according to justice.

Having never been a judge myself, I cannot speak for the Judges. I imagine however that they will remember Dennis as that quintessential advocate who stood up, spoke up and sat down. That advocate who neither irritated them with frivolous arguments nor bored them with circumlocutions.

As for his numerous clients, I know they will remember him as an honourable man worthy of their trust. He kept faith with them and I suggest that this is the time for them to keep faith with him. They should not be in a hurry to retrieve their case-files from Ebenezar Chambers. Surely the foundation laid by Dennis in the establishment of that office is strong and will survive him. There are other Lawyers in that Law Office. Give them a chance and you will find that that office is not called Ebenezar Chambers for nothing.

Let us all remember our departed colleague and friend, Dennis Adimchinobi Ayozie. For him let us not accept that:

“Time like an overflowing streamBears all its sons awayThey fly, forgotten as a dreamDies at the opening day”

Let us keep cherished memories of Dennis and collectively pray the Almighty God to grant his gentle soul eternal rest. Let us also pray the Almighty God to grant his mother, his widow, his children and all his relations the fortitude to bear this loss.

133

Let us as colleagues and friends pledge to the widow and the children of Dennis a key so that as they grapple with the loss of their illustrious breadwinner, they can depend upon our collective assurance that the mention of the name of their father would open for them all doors of opportunity within our individual disposal.

Above all, as we file past this casket bearing his mortal remains, let us meditate over these words inscribed on a tomb’s stone somewhere:

Remember me as you pass byFor as you are, so once was I But as I am, you too will beSo be content to follow me.

Dennis Adimchinobi Ayozie led a good Christian life. We who share his faith and the creed believe that we shall rejoin him on resurrection morn. Until we meet to part no more, we will remember him and may his calm and gentle spirit rest in peace.

Chief U. N. Udechukwu, SAN.

134