Africa’s foremost real estate giants, Sim Properties and Homes Limited, owners of Masters Golden Estate, Ofada, Ogun State secured a landmark legal victory after the Court dismissed a matter filed against the real estate giants.

The matter was filed by Mr Olumide Adeyinka and Barr Esther Adeyinka against SPH Facilities Management and Service Company Ltd and 2 Ors with suit number MOO/47M/2021. However, the Court held that the matter lacked merit. Therefore the Court proceeded to dismiss the matter on grounds of incompetence, lack of merit and abrupt waste of the Court’s time as prayed by Sim Properties’ Lawyer.

Case Synopsis

The Applicants filed the matter in 2021 claiming that their rights as tenants of the Masters Golden Estate were severally breached by the security outfit employed in the Estate. The matter was filed under Section 55 of the Magistrate Court Law of Ogun State. The Applicants prayed the Court for an order directing the Respondents to show cause why they should not be ordered to enter recognizance to keep the peace, be of good behavior and abstain from harassing or intimidating the lives of the Applicants and their family members.

The real estate giants’ defense team led by Bassey Etim Edet Jr. Esq. filed a preliminary objection contending that the facts before the Court were misleading, the matter lacked credit, evidence and more so was brought under the wrong provisions of the law. The defense team exposed the fact that the averment in the affidavit were radically opposed to the contemplation of Section 55 of the Magistrate Court Law of Ogun State. The said Section is clearly directed at Criminal infractions whereas the facts affidavit contemplated the enforcement of a sublease agreement.

In delivering its ruling, the Court on the 11th of April 2022, dismissed the Applicant’s claims and further cautioned the Applicants to be more diligent when prosecution future matters.

Responses

The Managing Director of the Estate; Mrs Rebecca Ahonsi, while expressing her joy, resolve and belief in the Court system stated that at all times the Estate backed with the Court’s decision would not relent in its efforts in providing excellent services to is numerous subscribers.

Africa’s foremost real estate giants, Sim Properties and Homes Limited, owners of Masters Golden Estate, Ofada, Ogun State secured a landmark legal victory after the Court dismissed a matter filed against the real estate giants. The matter was filed by Mr Olumide Adeyinka and Barr Esther Adeyinka against SPH Facilities Management and Service Company Ltd and 2 Ors with suit

In the season premiere of this post, I could not get into dealing with all the areas I mentioned. So, here we go for a season two of the post. Hopefully, the entire series of what law movies don’t teach law students will end with this season.

Oh, pardon me, did I mention that the purpose of this post is not to kill your movie cravings? Far from it, an enjoyable law movie is always worth it. So, add the movie – A time to kill to your list.

This post is really aimed at telling the truth as it is and encouraging law students along the way. In essence, after watching the movies, one always has to remember that the journey to mirroring the great lawyers we see ‘on screen’ is actually undertaken ‘off screen’. Therefore, it would take more than just cramming Harvey Specter’s lines to be like Harvey Specter. And the journey to being the lawyer of our dreams is definitely not a sprint, it’s a marathon. A number of us are still undertaking that journey in fact.

So here we go again, my second expose on what law movies don’t teach intending attorneys or law students –

H.E. Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, President of the Court, on 6 June 2018 (delivery of the Judgment of the Court) S. Exc. M. Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, président de la Cour, le 6 juin 2018 (lecture de l’arrêt de la Cour)

What a judgment is really like

In the movies I have seen, the cases are usually decided by a jury. The Judge simply calls Madam foreperson to announce the verdict. And she stands and says something to the effect of – “in the matter of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania versus Walt Miller, on the count of murder in the first degree, we the Jury find the Defendant, not guilty”. And bam, the case is closed, finished or if you will, affaire classée.

Ready for a bubble bust?

We don’t operate a jury system in Nigeria. So, the judge is both the trier of fact and law. Second bubble bust? Judgments are often not that short. In fact, they are rarely short unless it is a concurring judgment delivered by an appellate Court Justice. Some are so short that all the Justice says is – I Concur. Yes, “I Concur” is the whole judgment. But that’s just the concurring Judgment of course. The lead judgment is usually detailed and it is expected to be so. This is because the reason for any decision of the Court should not be left to conjecture or speculation – see GABBY STORES (NIG) LTD v. MAGAJI & ANOR (2015) LPELR-40381(CA).  To borrow some words from Karibi-Whyte, JSC on this point “…If judgments were to be delivered without supporting reasons, it will be an invitation to arbitrariness, a rule of merely tossing the coin and the likelihood to result in judicial anarchy”. This principle especially applies to the judgments of trial Courts (High Courts, magistrate Courts etc) since there exists the likelihood of an appeal.

In fact, when delivering judgment, a Court is expected to properly and holistically evaluate the evidence presented by both parties in the suit. The Court is even expected to mention and give reasons why it believes one witness over the other. This is why in judgments we have the ratio decidendi and the obiter dictum. The ratio is the reason for the decision while the obiter are comments made in passing by the Court.

So, it is really not as short as the movies may make it out to be. I have not convinced you beyond all reasonable doubt? Good. Visit any law report and eliminate your doubts. I should add a caveat which is – you could get bored into a snore at your first reading. It’s not strange. The first time I sat through the reading of a judgment, I recall hearing just two lines of what the Court said. The remaining time I honestly struggled to keep my eye lids from embracing one another.

Annalise Keating in How to get away with Murder

What Cross Examination really looks like in the real world 

Law movies most times don’t reflect how cross examination happens in the real world. In most episodes, the witness breaks down crying in the witness box while admitting to be the real murderer or even a liar. Permit me to ask – like seriously? Who does that? The movie script writer does anyway. In real life, the one I and you are in right now, those things rarely ever happen. Instead, you have witnesses that lie through their teeth as though they are professors in whatever institute teaches lying.

There are others who are honest. And strangely, many of the honest ones don’t swear on the bible when about to commence giving their testimony. They swear on iron and indeed due to the fear of their ancestors releasing thunder, they end up telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But sometimes, the truth could seem very improbable given a particular set of facts. Other times, the truth could actually implicate the Defendant. This is where the cross examiner usually tries to show that even if the truth is as the witness as stated, he is or could have been honestly mistaken due to one reason or the other. The witness could also have a lot juggled in his memory that his recollection of the facts is not trustworthy. For example, a color-blind witness would honestly be mistaken as to whether the traffic light was green or red when the Defendant sped past it. Similarly, a witness who suffers from dementia could actually have seen the Defendant at the crime scene but how sure are we that her memory loss hasn’t set in again and the Defendant wasn’t only passing by the crime scene without more. After all being at the scene of crime doesn’t mean you committed the crime.

This is why I sincerely doubt that the movies can fully teach anyone to be an effective cross examiner. That is just my personal opinion. Rather a host of resources could help one out. If I were to list a few resources (just as I may have done elsewhere already), they would be the following;

  1. The art of cross examination by Francis Wellman
  2. Cross examination; the trial Lawyer’s most potent weapon by Yemi Osinbajo and Fola Arthur-Worrey
  3. Hints on Legal Practice by Hon. Anthony Ekundayo
  4. The Devil’s Advocate by Ian Morley
  5. Advocacy Hints and Tactics
  6. 10 commandments of cross examination Lecture by Prof. Irving Younger (YouTube video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBP2if0l-a8&t=627s )

The list above is not exhaustive by any stretch of imagination. A lot of Senior lawyers could suggest more resources. I’ll suggest you ask for their list when and if you have the opportunity to do so.

Lastly, lest I forget. If I may add, the strategy you see in the movies where the lawyer argues with the witness under cross examination is not very advisable. I don’t think you should try it even in a moot competition. The aim of cross examination is really to control the witness’ responses. As a cross examiner, you want answers that support your case theory or narration of the facts. And arguing with the witness does not achieve this. In fact, in the average Nigerian Court, it is difficult to imagine that the Judge would be able to write down the quickly spoken words from your angry or argumentative exchange with the witness. Mbanu, the Court is not a typewriter. Besides evidence is to emanate from the witness and not the Lawyers – so your argument with the witness no matter how persuasive, does not eliminate or override whatever the witness has said in evidence. So please calm down on attempting to go all Annalise Keating on a witness in Court. Hope you got my point.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

The difference between knowing law and knowing the business of Law

Law movies don’t teach the business of law. Law School doesn’t teach it as well. I’d explain. While in school, law students are taught the various principles of law. Yet little to nothing is said about how business works throughout the 6 years of learning. In the end, skillful lawyers are trained. Expectedly, they graduate with sufficient knowledge of the law. But it is hoped that they would proceed to set up and run efficient law practices. Yet they were never equipped with basic business skills. This leads to one result; we currently have Lawyers who don’t make the best business managers. I could be genuinely wrong but this is my current observation and I surmise that it is a simple result of the lack of business skills or training.

That said, it is noteworthy to mention that nearly every skill has a business side or part to it. A trained hairdresser needs to know how to attract clientele and grow revenue for her hairdressing shop. Else she could sit hungry with very skillful fingers that could wow even Mrs. Aisha Buhari’s scalp. A funny individual who wants to go into the comedy business must know his onions and that business sphere as well. Same thing applies to the rave of high-income skills we hear about on the internet these days. And in the same way, this applies to law as well. The skillful lawyer would only be able to derive maximum commercial value if he can employ his business skills. This means he should have some measure of business skills in addition to his legal expertise.

You may contend that the law is really a vocation or calling and business skills have no place here. I will invite you to view the reality which is that law practice has largely evolved into being a business like any other business. I agree that there is the vocational part to legal practice; where the law is a calling and the lawyer is the conscience of society and voice to the voiceless. This part remains unhurt and is entirely fundamental. I even believe that effectively managed and profitable law practices can better fund Law based initiatives aimed at societal improvement.

To take a cue from other climes, the world’s largest law firms are efficiently managed businesses. In fact, in the United Kingdom, law firms are listed on the stock exchange and members of the public can own shares in them. This is possible due to the UK’s Legal Services Act of 2007. I might not currently argue that we need the large-scale changes introduced by the UK Act in Nigeria.  

But my point is this; imagine that a law firm of that magnitude exists in Nigeria and dedicates just a fraction of its profit towards running a pro-bono program aimed at decongesting our prisons, we may achieve much more. So, better and bigger law businesses could mean more funds for driving public interest initiatives. A clear example is Hogan Lovells.  In the 2021 financial year, the law firm grew its global revenue by 12.9% to $2.6bn largely due to its transactional practice.  But more importantly, the law firm runs a dedicated pro bono department that has been operational for 50 years and the department still continues. Talk about law business and impact.

So that I don’t veer off the point. Let me state it again, Law movies don’t really teach students the business skills relevant for running a profitable law practice. Law books may not teach them either.

Photo by Tony Tran on Unsplash

Self-Development is unavoidable

Lawyers tend to be workaholics. Even the movies show this in some bits. You know the signs – they range from keeping late nights to courting dark coffee and the obvious sleep bags under tired eyes by morning. We know the drill. From the University Faculties to law school as well. The truth remains that the reward for hard work is more work and there lies the temptation. The slippery one that I think has capacity to approach any lawyer and overcome him.

It is the temptation to just keep churning out work without considering the quality of work being churned out. I have posited in a previous piece that there are always two things to learn at every point – how to get things done and how not to get things done. When a lawyer has gotten grips on some fundamental parts of the lawyering job – he could stay at that plateau; just churning out work and more work without a deliberate attempt at reviewing and improving the quality of work delivered. This is what the movies don’t teach. Our favorite character in the movies never talks about going back to school for a master’s degree or undertaking a certificate course. But self-development and improvement are a must. In our profession one has to keep learning or get phased out. Our fav tv lawyer doesn’t stand that risk. But lawyers in actual practice do.

In sum and like I said earlier, law movies are great. I enjoy them. We all should enjoy them but, in the end, remember that the journey to mirroring the great lawyer you have seen ‘on screen’ is actually undertaken ‘off screen’.

For now, please get out another box of popcorn and binge on another blockbuster law series. T for tenks and sure, don’t mention.

If you considered this long season helpful, please share. And don’t forget to sign up for our web updates.

Written by Nkobowo Frederick Nkobowo LLB

In the season premiere of this post, I could not get into dealing with all the areas I mentioned. So, here we go for a season two of the post. Hopefully, the entire series of what law movies don’t teach law students will end with this season. Oh, pardon me, did I mention that the purpose of this post is

You are quick to curse the darkness in this contraption Lugard put together and had his wife call – Nigeria. I mean the physical darkness and the metaphorical one. Yes, the Nigerian condition is a current mess. An annoying one in fact.

It is therefore almost natural that you will and do share blames very easily. I mean what really ever works in this country. No wonder we have an administration that spent 4 precious years doing the exact same thing – blaming previous administrations for the problems it was elected to fix.

But what if you have been pointing fingers in the wrong direction all along? After all, there is the proverbial saying to the effect that where one points a finger, 4 others point back at him. So, in reality the blame sharing champion subtly says more about himself that he might admit.

So, let me suggest a reworking of your blame equation. And my proposition is that however you look at it, you have a ‘vested interest’ in this country. And you must protect that interest.

Our Public schools must work efficiently because your children might go there. God forbid? Okay but the children that will interact with your children will go there. Our Public hospitals must seize being covens of death because you might go there when you are sick. If you choose the private alternatives, you still want the best of treatment – so the whole health care system must work.

The potholes on highways must be fixed because, you will pass there and kidnappers could be waiting for your bus to come along. And if you avoid the road, our refineries must be fixed because the continuing importation of petroleum affects the price of aviation fuel and your flight ticket cost. Maybe the cost of the flight is not a problem, how about the delays? Same issue, your time should not be wasted.

Corruption should be avoided because it is why the road to your village is untarred, floods easily and has nails on it to puncture your car tyres. Our streets should be clean because you can get sick from its filth. You should elect able leaders in 2023 because they control the policies, you will live under for the next 4 years. It is your life they’d make senseless policies over. It is not for them you should therefore protect your vote. Do it for you.

You have a vested interest in this country. This means if she works then she works for you and us all. Not for a select few. But for the majority of us – for the orphan in a rural community and for the fervent youth in a vibrant city.

Nigeria is yours and you can treat her as that. You may not love her enough but you should be selfish enough. You should be selfish enough to ensure that what you have and survive with as a person is not snatched from you anymore and in its place, stones placed in between your teeth.  

Nigeria is all the majority of us have. At least for now. Therefore, we should be individually selfish enough to salvage what is remaining of her.

Don’t do anything for Nigeria because you are selfless. You may not be. I generally don’t think I am. But do the most you can in Nigeria because of you. Even if you leave, our collective bad reputation could follow you like a stubborn fart. To end this; you have a vested interest in this country and you should be selfish enough to protect that interest. Don’t be patriotic in Nigeria. Be selfish.

PS: This post is not directed at Politicians and Corrupt government officials. They are already selfish. We really mean the selfishness of the suffering masses.

You are quick to curse the darkness in this contraption Lugard put together and had his wife call – Nigeria. I mean the physical darkness and the metaphorical one. Yes, the Nigerian condition is a current mess. An annoying one in fact. It is therefore almost natural that you will and do share blames very easily. I mean what really

Now let’s be clear, suing is one thing and getting a favorable judgment is an entirely different thing. Technically speaking, both are even arrived at by different means. The first (i.e. suing) just requires the filing of the official documents required by the rules of Court or procedure. So, all a person needs to sue is file either a complaint, writ, petition, originating summons, or originating motion. When that has been done, the suit is in motion or better put, the suit has been instituted. In other words, the first step to reaching the light at the end of the tunnel has begun. Clearly the tunnel has to be our judicial process and the light at its end has to be the anticipated favorable judgment or outcome.

Somewhere along this journey to getting a favorable judgment is where the gist of this opinion piece lies.  

This journey is what makes the Dispute resolution/Litigation Lawyer’s work tasking but in fact interesting as well. On this journey to judgment, evidence must be the travel guide, the knowledge of law would save the day or its absence will occasion doom, timely reactions or responses can restrain stormy clouds too.  

While on this journey, the lawyer would have a travel companion. Not the mythical, mental or legal ones noted already but physical Companions. I mean he has commandeered the ship substantially. And he will have to still do so. The pleadings are his output – his drafting skills are shown there, the presentation of his client’s case is also his burden – his skill would show there as well. But at some point, witnesses would be vital companions to reaching that desired destination called favourable judgment. This is where things can get almost tricky – that is at the point were the witnesses step into the witness box, take the oath and have to give their testimony.

Thankfully, with the current procedure in High Courts around Nigeria, the witness’ tale is contained in his or her witness deposition. So, the possibility or likelihood of the witness narrating an oral portion of his autobiography is nipped in the bud. However, diligence in drafting the witness deposition is required to ensure that; evidence is given on all crucial points in the pleadings and documents are not dumped on the Court.   

But that witness would be cross examined and there lies the ticking bomb that we’ve actually been trying to get at.

Let’s not forget that any skillful cross examiner often aims to conduct a fatal destruction of his opponent’s case and the only person that would have to overcome this attempt is the witness.  

And drums rolllllll….most times, witnesses while in the witness box and when brought under the heat of cross examination, goof in flying colors.  

Valedictory Court Session at the Supreme Court

Goofing in this instance usually includes everything stated in this list (with sprinkles of more or maybe slight variations);  

  1. The witness enters the box 
  1. Swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
  1. Adopts his witness statement 
  1. Proceeds to answer questions under cross examination 
  1. Then begins to go off tangent and starts saying things you wish you could choke him from saying.  
  1. Expresses confusion, looks at you (his lawyer) for some saving tips after ignoring the ones you had given before he got in there. 
  1. You try salvaging the situation by skillfully injecting but the witness’ loud mouth digs further, better and deeper pits for your case.  When you need him to keep his lips sealed, guess what? He doesn’t! He opens his wide mouth while your eyes react in despair by widening in shock to the words visiting your ears.
  1. You hold your wig, fighting the pressure to gently rise, take a bow at the Judge and immediately remove your wig for a vibrant toss at the witness’ digressing mouth.  
  1. Then maybe the witness turns and gives you that nervous smile – the annoying one. You can picture his face now. maybe the case and Court room even comes back to your memory. 

We surely may not have been there and definitely do not know his name, so permit us to call him – the goofing witness of Madagascar. But is there a way out? A way to help both this witness from Madagascar and your suit which is being tried in Nigeria. After a new experiences, we think the suggestions hereunder may help;

  1. Expect the damage – its supposed to happen.   

2. Prevent the damage – pre-trial preparation  

3. Control the damage – during cross examination

4. Contain/Mitigate the damage – final address 

5. If Not Possible? Emotionally detach and continue acting professionally  

Expect the DAMAGE;

This to our minds is the first rule.

And we think, it has to be in the rule book for litigation gladiators.  Litigation has been described as regulated contest; we agree that it is to an extent.

Damaging their opponent’s case is what trial lawyers do.  

We dare say; it is an important step in our unwritten litigation ‘fight’ book. We crave causing damage to our opponent’s case. We dream for it. We live for it and in fact walk around with loads of techniques up our gowns for achieving it.  

That is why we have the art, science and technology of that emotional endeavour called cross examination. 

Remember that a one sided story sounds all true until the questioning starts – then you see the many cracks in a once perfect story.  So there you have it – Cracks! Unveiling or in fact drilling cracks into the opponent’s case is why we have Section Section 214 of the Evidence Act 2011.

As Lawyers, hope that by revealing these cracks we get at the truth or at least know those witnesses that are lying through unperforated teeth. 

Do we ever achieve the first aim of knowing or getting at the truth? Maybe we do sometimes.  

But generally we settle for what can be proved or what most probably actually happened from all that has been said and proved in Court.  

But either ways, ‘the damage‘ is expected. It is a crucial part of the whole affair. It should be done unless of course,  there is nothing to damage (the opponent’s case is so weak that zero cross examination actually sustains the already existing damage – can one damage an already damaged leg? Maybe no.)  

  • Prevent the DAMAGE

Expecting the damage puts one in a better position to properly prepare for and respond to it. After all, it is a common saying that proper preparation prevents poor performance. This is why pre-trial meetings with the witness are very important.

In our view, it is a prudent step not to totally believe the witness’ confidence outside the witness box especially that cocky confidence some of them exude before the hearing. It may be genuine but many times it proves very insufficient when placed under the heat of cross examination. 

The pre-trial meeting should ideally cover some essentials one of which is the likely questions the witness should expect under cross examination. The breadth and length of what should be covered is really a matter of discretion.

  • Control the damage

It can be observed that most times during cross examination hints fly around. We both know from who – especially when the witness is saying what he shouldn’t. Most times the hints are not overt. An objection is used to pass it across. While explaining the reason for the objection – the hint is wittily thrown at the drowning witness with hopes that he quickly notices the hint and takes it. This arguably nears some border of unethical conduct. But the truth is – it happens often. And we both know who does it. Most clients (especially professional litigants) seem to applaud such interjections and benefit from them but expectedly the bench frowns at them.  After all, the case is the parties’ and the witness should know his case through and through. If he doesn’t, why should he be worthy of believe or entitled to judgment in his favor.

But most times, most witnesses are genuinely confused, startled and could use some lawyerly succor while in the witness box. So, in trying to answer questions – they say more than they should. Hence the goofing syndrome. This is why an honest or moderate ‘expectation of goofing’ should be kindly accorded to each witness.

  • Mitigate the damage

In most cases, the damage could be mitigated at the point of final address. Some fundamental flaws could knock off the base from the adverse party’s case. This definitely leads to a ‘UAC V Macfoy’ situation where the damage becomes the ‘something that can’t be put on nothing’. And the nothing in this context would be the suit. Some of the major flaws are jurisdictional.

Where a jurisdictional flaw doesn’t save the day, contesting the admissibility of a crucial document and getting it expunged from evidence could. This is a slim rope to walk on; especially at the point of final addresses. The rule in Salau Okulade v Abolade Alade is to blame.

Other mitigating options could be tacit admissions arising from failure to cross examine on a crucial point, dumping documents on the court etc.

Sadly, but truthfully, another situation that tends to contain or even eliminate the damage is – a de-novo trial. A fresh bite at the cherry I would call it or old things passing away no matter how advantageous it may have been to one party. Most times, one party is happy when de-novo trials happen. That’s arguable – but it would be honest to expect it to be a common happening.

In containing the damage, there is a temptation to avoid. It’s a very attractive temptation and falling into it is almost seamless. It is the temptation to convert the written address into a medium for giving evidence – a.k.a attempting to say what the goofing witness should really have said. As honest an attempt as this may seem, it is yet to get judicial pass. So, no matter how flowery, enticingly smooth and suspense studded the lawyer’s written address is, it cannot enter the witness box. We mean, it cannot take the place of evidence.

If Not Possible?

Most times, it could almost be impossible to prevent the damage. Some cases are really bad cases. They happen. Although bad cases can switch mid-stream in few instances, it might be wise to explore the chances otherwise available for getting the Client’s interest protected.

Written by Frederick Nkobowo LLB. BL 

Now let’s be clear, suing is one thing and getting a favorable judgment is an entirely different thing. Technically speaking, both are even arrived at by different means. The first (i.e. suing) just requires the filing of the official documents required by the rules of Court or procedure. So, all a person needs to sue is file either a complaint,

The subject of Nigeria evokes many responses. Some are neutral or indifferent. Some are highly pessimistic almost to the point of exchanging fisticuffs. But yet the truth is Nigeria is here and for now we are with her. This nation of ours with roots traceable to 1960 has been vilified, prayed for and even cursed. Sometimes we think she deserves it.

But is Nigeria not just the individual expressions of the collection of persons currently residing within a geographical territory? Nigeria is what or who we make her. Nigeria is us. She has been vilified because of us, prayed for because of us and cursed because of us. Nigeria is really the collective actions of us all. We created various absurdities like Nigerian time, Nigerian factor and the likes. These absurdities have hurt and continue to hurt us. We see them everyday and even expect them.

From our politics to our businesses. You expect the man contesting to give you loads of cash to really convince you he is fit for office. His campaign promises are rehearsed lies after all. The government official expects his cut from the contract. He put in the favorable word for you after all. Where these absurdities are ignored – we use our register of banter; stingy, oversabi etc. But have we not had enough? Have we not robbed ourselves and our children enough? Have we not depleted our God given resources enough? Have enough lives not been lost to our ailing hospitals and failed roads?

The answer lies in our hands. Or so I think. No one is coming to save us. Nigeria will be saved by Nigerians. I even dare say that God is dealing with more important matters upstairs. We must deal with what he gave us down here. And it is Nigeria.

On a personal note, I currently don’t have faith in our political structures. Would the slave master desire the cry and sound of freedom? I think not. I think that our freedom from the tyranny of where we are and our journey in the hope of where we can be lies in private institutions. Do I think these institutions are father Christmases – that share bounty without consequence? Far from it.

I think these institutions with their profit-oriented drives can bring more efficiency our polity. They already do. Nigerian companies now span the globe. We know and can list them – from flutter wave to GT Holdings. But the Nigerian tag has not followed them all. Why? Because when it gets down to business, we can really be serious. So, Nigeria can actually work. The private sector has shown this. But can we harness the otherwise selfish interests of capitalism to fix the rot of our politicians? Can businesses drive the change we need in Nigeria? I think they can. I don’t think they would do it all alone but I think they can. Innovative business models can fix our health system, improve our access to electricity and employ our rapidly multiplying youths. If the Political class have failed us, we ourselves a duty not to fail ourselves.

Will the private sector solve all our problems? I think not. I hope I have even not said so. But I do believe we can start from there.

The subject of Nigeria evokes many responses. Some are neutral or indifferent. Some are highly pessimistic almost to the point of exchanging fisticuffs. But yet the truth is Nigeria is here and for now we are with her. This nation of ours with roots traceable to 1960 has been vilified, prayed for and even cursed. Sometimes we think she deserves

The central duty of the Nigerian Police Force is to solve crime as well as maintain law and order. In the course of fulfilling this duty, the Police necessarily have to interview and even arrest suspects.

This leads us to the question under consideration in this article which is – what if the police come to arrest my father and cannot find him, do they have legal powers to arrest me; his son? Simply put – can the police arrest you in place of a suspect?

Our question bothers on arrest by proxy (also called arrest in lieu). Let’s simplify that. Arrest by proxy is a situation where the Police or any other law enforcement agency arrests one person for the offence of another person. A common example is where the relative or loved of a suspect is arrested instead of the suspect himself (or herself). This usually happens where the suspect cannot be found easily.

The justification often used for doing this is that the suspect would come out from his or her hiding once he gets to know that his loved one has been arrested by the Police. Situations like this are common around the country but let us give you an urgent example;

As reported by thecable.ng, on August 26, 2020, Johnson Kokumo, the then Edo state commissioner of police, paraded six suspects in connection with the rape and murder of Vera Omozuwa, a 100-level student of the University of Benin.

During the media interview session after Kokumo’s speech, one of the suspects, said she was arrested in the village after the police were unable to find her son.

“They (referring to police officers) said madam, “where is your child?” I told them I did not know his whereabouts. I was in the village and my son was in Benin. That is how I ended up in the cell,” the woman said.

Her testimony attracted public attention, especially on social media, as it appeared that she was arrested in place of her son who was the actual suspect.

Do the Police Have legal Powers to Arrest by Proxy in Nigeria?

So, what does the law say? Or like we asked before does the Police have legal powers to do this?

The simple answer is a sincere NO. To put that in a moderately long sentence – It is illegal for police or any security agency to arrest any person for an offence committed or suspected to have been committed by another person. No matter the offence. Criminal liabilities cannot be assumed, transferred, inherited or sexually transmitted.

Various provisions of the Law clearly make arrest by proxy illegal. They include –Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and Section 36 of the Police Act 2020.

The Courts have ruled severally to uphold the law that the Police do not have the powers to arrest by proxy.  

Pardon that we have to type it again; It is illegal for the Police to arrest you for an offence you did not commit in place of another person (the real suspect).

Nkobowo Frederick Nkobowo LLB

The central duty of the Nigerian Police Force is to solve crime as well as maintain law and order. In the course of fulfilling this duty, the Police necessarily have to interview and even arrest suspects. This leads us to the question under consideration in this article which is – what if the police come to arrest my father and

I remember the class and the lecturer. But the day of the week I cannot recall at this moment. The class was the Law of Evidence and the Lecturer was an Elderly male Lawyer with a fair skin (Name withheld). It was the last class on evidence for the semester. So the Lecturer began a review of the course work done during the semester till that point. Exams were fast approaching so everyone needed some shaping before Ds and Es would ‘jam’ people’s children.

I know I heard his first words and then this heavy evil spirit of untimely sleep came upon my eyelids, causing my head to nod like that of an impregnated agama lizard. I fought to keep my eye balls open and facing the dear Lecturer. Oh how I wanted to just stare at him at least. But the more I tried; the more I nearly fell off my seat.  

However, once he said something to the effect of ‘that is the end of our course work for this semester’, the dose of sleep threatening to send my head rolling, immediately left me and my eyes started shining like those recently rinsed in local gin. No sleep, no nodding. All just seized.

Fast forward to some years later; I was tasked to conduct a hearing – the cross examination precisely. The law of Evidence I had dosed in front of; now stared me in the face literally and I dared not dose this time.

But I hold the respectful view and dare say before the point of cross examination, a case can be won or lost from the pleadings and evidence in chief. Why do I say so?  

As Lawyers, we believe in Justice. And many times; we believe the task of the Court is to find the truth of what actually happened in any given case so that justice can be achieved. I believe in justice but I share the view that in many cases than none; judicial business is not an inquiry into the truth, but an inquiry into facts that can be proved by credible and admissible evidence.

So, however we see it, justice does not walk around unclad. Rather she is very piously dressed in long flowing gowns of evidence and due process. This is where i believe the lawyer’s job comes in.

The client is the master of the facts. As lawyers it is not our job to manufacture facts but once we have the facts, we are to handle them professionally. The first port of professionally handling the facts is really the pleadings. The rules of pleadings when not obeyed, could mar the chances of a party obtaining judgment in his favour. Sometimes it is needful to pull apart the pleadings by asking very simple and salient questions such as;

  1. What exactly is the adverse party saying?
  2. What exactly has he NOT said?
  3. What evidence does he intend to rely on as proof of his assertions?
  4. Are these pieces of evidence admissible in law or do they suffer some other defect that could weigh negatively on their credibility?

The questions above are surely questions for the attack. We could add more to them to ensure we have surveyed the suit from as many angles as possible and then have settled our preferred mode of contesting it (with the facts at our disposal). But on our own part, we have work to do as well.

The Client has given us facts as well. Our job has also started. We are to satisfy the conditions that will transform the hard facts into admissible evidence, evaluate the weight of the evidence we intend to rely on and review our case strategy from time to time. We also must look closely so that we can tell apart mere speculation from hard evidence as well as second-information or embellished hearsay from hard evidence. If the adverse party’s lawyer does not sniff out the loops in our case out, the Judge may and if the Judge does not, the three wise Men may so do. And when they do not the infallible panel of 7 or 5 Law Lords may do so to our own peril.


Litigation Notes are a series of short courtroom and practice lessons gleaned from the personal practice journal that chronicles the green wig years of Frederick Nkobowo Esq. They represent his considered and respectful opinion which could change as his age at the bar inevitably progresses. It is respectfully hoped that these notes would proffer some aid to other practitioners even as the writer looks to gathering more learning. He practices in Delta State and can be reached via fredericknkobowo@gmail.com

I remember the class and the lecturer. But the day of the week I cannot recall at this moment. The class was the Law of Evidence and the Lecturer was an Elderly male Lawyer with a fair skin (Name withheld). It was the last class on evidence for the semester. So the Lecturer began a review of the course work

The year was a couple years ago. I had just returned from Court and My Senior in chambers asked a rather surprising question – “who is the judge in that Court?” I let out a few hums and then reclined my head to my fallen chest since I could not remember a name or fabricate anyone that I could get away with. Then came a foremost lesson – Know the Judex or Judge.

I have seen this same lesson replicated in other books on legal practice ever since. But more importantly, I see it play out again and again in litigation/court practice.

The Judge is the umpire with a tweeny weeny ‘but’. That ‘but’ is this: He or She is Human. I concede that the Judge is a representative of some divine ecclesiastical order. But I hold the respectful view, he is still flesh and blood and must rely on his sense of judgment, equity and fairness to decide cases before him. His years on the job give him some intuitive ability as well as some nuances. It is only wise to know more of the later and a number of the former.

And even with that knowledge, the part of mastery for the Lawyer is key.  Four masteries keep standing out to my mind – mastery of delivery, mastery of the law, mastery of the facts and mastery of emotions.

Master emotions because some days in court turn out to be worse than nagging wives or evil mother in laws.

Master Laws because they tend to change like babies in diapers. Our legislators and Judges are not dead you know? Interpretations of laws change, laws get thrown into the judicial thrash can and our law makers often get light bulbs that make them repeal and enact or amend, amend, amend.

Master delivery – master words and their use. They are the lawyer’s tool of trade. Master what to say, how to say it, when to say it and responding to the unlikely incidences that happen after you have said your bit or the other side has.

Again. On knowing the Judex, today while on my litigious sojourn to a Court whose Judge is known to waste no time on judicial razmataz, a little exchange happened. Here it is, you be the observer;

Lawyer: My Lord, the witness is in Abuja. He said he could not make it.

Judge: You are for the Claimant right? And this witness is aware of this date?

Lawyer: He is aware but the MD of their company died so he travelled…blah, blah

(Blah because the Judge had started writing while the lawyer was still reeling out his poorly rehearsed explanation, then the Court looks up)

Court: But your Client sued people to Court and this matter has been on for over 5 years. Is that not unfair? So when will be convenient for him to come from Abuja

(Lawyer honestly looks at his dairy and flips through to get a date)

Court: He is looking at his diary truly

Lawyer: a date in March would be convenient Sir

Court: Case is struck out. When he is through in Abuja, he can come back.

And so another lawyer left that Court room today, with some pruning from the Judex.

Need I Say or type more?

Written by Frederick Nkobowo BL

The year was a couple years ago. I had just returned from Court and My Senior in chambers asked a rather surprising question – “who is the judge in that Court?” I let out a few hums and then reclined my head to my fallen chest since I could not remember a name or fabricate anyone that I could get

In this article, we will be discussing the various provisions of the law that revolve around; being an accomplice, aiding and abetting as well as the offence of conspiracy. To place our discussion in clear perspective, let’s begin by emphasizing the core questions we will be answering in this piece.

The questions are – what if you did not directly pull the trigger, stab the victim or partake in the direct commission of any other crime. What if like in the Money Heist movie series, you only played the role of the Professor? In other words, you gave the strategies, outlay and particularly assisted in the planning of the ‘hit’ but never even went to the scene of the crime. In fact you were only the engine room or brain box but you left the execution of the crime to another person or set of persons. Could you still be considered guilty of the crime committed in these circumstances?

As usual with the ‘what if’ series of writings in this site, we concede to what we expect to be your instinctive response – ’God forbid’ and so we will write this entire piece using ourselves as the point of reference.

So back to the question- what if I only assisted in the planning and carrying out the crime, Am I guilty?

First off, it is important to state that by offering advice for the execution of a crime, I become more than an accomplice. By definition, an accomplice is a person who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. The Law looks beyond my mere advisory role and considers me to be a principal offender. The principal offender is in lay terms, the main perpetrator of the offence.

Therefore, my providing of advice and maybe strategy too, by Law places me in two precarious situations namely;

Photo Credit Photo by Max Kleinen on Unsplash

1.By Law, I am A Principal Offender:

I could be charged as a principal offender for the crime committed. Remember that we mentioned earlier that a Principal Offender is the main perpetrator of the offence. Put differently,  in law I am deemed to have taken total part in committing the offense and may be charged with actually committing it. This is the effect of the following provisions of the Law – Section 7 of the Criminal Code (which applies in Southern State of Nigeria), Section 16 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State and Section 85 of the Penal Code, Section 8(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud related offences Act, 2004. This situation is commonly referred to with the twin words – aiding and abetting.

It would be ideal to reproduce Section 16 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State hereunder to make the point clearer –

When an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it:

  • every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence;
  • every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling another person to commit the offence;
  • every person who aids another person in committing the offence; or
  • any person who advises, counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

From the Section above, it is not only the person who directly and immediately causes the actus reus (physical expression/execution) of a crime that is solely criminally liable for it. It is more likely that a number of persons may have taken ancillary steps to ensure the successfully commission of the crime. Just like our topic envisions. This situation the law has well envisaged. Consequently, as an accomplice, I might actually not be present when the crime itself is committed but since I have knowledge of the crime before, enabled or aided its execution through advice, actions or financial support, the law considers me properly guilty.

At the risk of over-emphasizing the issue. Take for instance,

Johnson drew out the blueprint of a factory, pointing out where the golden items and accessories which are to be stolen are stored. Okeke and Suleiman carried out the robbery following the details given in the blueprint plan. For a successful operation, Crowther got some cars ready outside the factory to convey the robbers (Okeke and Suleiman) and the stolen items to their hideouts. Here both Johnson and Crowther can be charged as Principal offenders even though they were not at the scene of the robbery.

It is also noteworthy to mention that where I advise a person to carry out a crime, the law (in Lagos State) is now to the effect that it does not matter that the crime later carried out is different from the one I advised. The law deems that I advised the person/suspect to carry out the crime later carried out, which may be different from my initial advice – Section 17 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

Photo by HIZIR KAYA on Unsplash

2. By Law, I am a Co-conspirator in relation to the offence

I could be charged for conspiring to commit the offence concerned. This is commonly called the offence of Conspiracy. It is provided for by the Criminal Code Laws of the various states. By Section 516 of the Criminal Code it is an offence to conspire to commit a felony while by Section 517, it is an offence to conspire to commit a misdemeanor ; see also Sections 96 and 97 of the Penal Code. The effect of this offence is that the intention of a group of persons to do something unlawful, amounts to an offence. So, the plot by a group of persons to carry out a crime, is in itself a crime.

In the circumstance of our current discuss, by taking part in planning out the crime, by Law I could be found guilty of the crime of conspiracy.

In summary, anyone who assists, abets, conspires with, counsels or aids another person in planning or in carrying out a crime is guilty of committing the offence and can be prosecuted in a court of law. Put differently, once it is shown that a person counselled, aided or advised on the carrying out of a crime, it is immaterial that he is not present at the execution or committing of the offence. He is guilty.

Thank you for reading.

Written By Oluboyo Olamide Taiwo LL.B (in view) and Nkobowo Nkobowo BL

Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication at the time it was written. It is not intended to provide legal advice, solicit for briefs or suggest a guaranteed outcome as individual situations will differ and the law may change from time to time. Readers considering legal action should consult with a lawyer to get proper advice affecting a specific circumstance. For further information on contents of our site and related topics, please send us an email via contact@ls-ng.com.

Does Planning a crime carry the same punishment and legal effect as actually committing the crime? Read this piece to find out…