Any alternatives to gas generated power?

As we struggle towards the vision of 6000 megawatts of power for 140 million people by the end of 2009, (South Africa produces more than 43,000 megawatts of electricity for a third of our population), a few weeks ago we lost over 700 megawatts of power due to disruption in gas supplies.

The importance of gas to the implementation of our power strategy is not in debate and neither is the recent news about the progress being made with our Gas Master Plan even though it focused only briefly on plans to make Nigeria the world’s second largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) producer after Qatar by 2011. Most of the article in question, published in Business Day online on March 24 2009, focused on the benefits to our power plans and all the power stations expected to spring up along the route of the gas transmission lines.

However, what should be in debate is how long we intend to ignore the possibility of using other sources of energy. Our gas problems are not going to be solved in the near future, especially with the oil producers’ reluctance to stop flaring and the extremely lucrative export market for gas. If our gas problems are not solved, then most likely our power problems will not be solved either. So what should we be doing?
We should be seriously considering alternative energy sources to address climate change and working on updating the 2003 National Energy Policy (NEP).We should also be figuring out how to make money from renewable energy or energy conservation either through carbon credits or other devices. This is what is happening everywhere else in the world and just like we thought we were immune to the global economic recession, we probably think we are immune to climate change and declining world oil reserves.

As usual policy and regulation are in abundance; apart from the 2003 NEP we also have a Renewable Energy Master Plan (2005), a Renewable Energy Action Plan (2006) and the Renewable Energy Policy (2006). We have several energy and environmental agencies that should be concerned with driving policy and plans on renewable energy, one because it is a cleaner source of energy and will do less harm to our environment and two because we should not be entirely dependent on fossil fuel for energy. However we have little to show for it.

Germany, a country not known for its sunshine, is in the forefront of solar energy generation, mainly through the use of legislation. A few years ago the German government passed the Renewable Energy Act to boost the switch to renewable energy sources. The renewable energy sector was aided especially by the provison that required businesses to buy energy generated from renewable sources first before buying energy from non-renewable sources. People who produce energy in their own homes have a guarantee by the government that they can sell their 'product' at fixed prices for a period of 20 years. As if that was not enough, last year, the German town of Marburg made history by becoming the first city in Germany to require solar power for newly built or renovated buildings. The aim is to encourage the use of solar thermal systems to displace the use of non-renewable energy sources for heating.

According to research, Nigeria has an annual average daily sunshine of 6.25 hours, and a feasibility study carried out in 2004 found out that on solar energy is the most efficient and economical way to electrify villages in this region. Indeed, solar photovoltaic technologies are allegedly currently being used for small-scale power supply in some rural electrification programs of some States of the federation. So my question is: must our power generation plans be solely hinged on hydrocarbons? Can the Ministry of Power say ‘I am going to diversify our power generation so that we are not 100% dependent on gas’, or does this have to be part of the nation’s energy policy?

To start, the NEP definitely acknowledges that we should work on generating more electricity through renewable sources of energy ‘in order to conserve our fossil fuels’. However it does not say what agency or organisation should be responsible for driving this development of alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, the eighty nine paged policy document does not set out clearly what agency or agencies are responsible for driving or implementing the policy. The mandate of the Energy Commission of Nigeria (ECN), established in 1988, is for the strategic planning and co-ordination of national policies in the field of Energy and does not include generating and distributing energy, so we find a convenient vacuum which allows everyone to abdicate responsibility.

A major problem, the curse of oil, is that it is just easier to rely on oil and gas for energy and we prefer not to plan for the future or think of alternatives to the way we live. Britain is talking about profound changes to the way they build - with ‘new homes built of mud or straw’ as one vision of the future to futher the Government's declared quest for zero carbon homes by 2016. Even America, notorious for energy inefficiencies and constantly derided for their fuel guzzling cars, recently passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) with Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Provisions to provide tax incentives and over $16B to support renewable energy programs.

If the mandate of our Ministry of Power is to simply ‘generate electricity’ as opposed to ‘generate electricity through the use of hydrocarbons’, then we need a power plan that takes into consideration alternatives which do not require gas. There are also simple energy policy changes to be introduced such as banning 60 to 100watt bulbs in favour of 20 to 40 watt bulbs to save energy and providing incentives to new buildings which are built to conserve energy. It is not ‘backwardness’ that resulted in the mud huts and beautiful works of mud based architecture all around West Africa – these structures are built for our hot climate to ensure insulation against the heat. Now, on the altar of sophistication and progress we build with expensive cement and concrete and all our houses, offices, hotels, schools have to be powered with air conditioners and fans. Ironically, in a country where energy is so sorely lacking, we are inefficient and wasteful with the little we have and no one but the cement and generator companies are benefitting from this.

Read more...

A Tribute to Readers: For and Against

Personally, there is no better accolade for me as a writer than readers who not only spend their time reading what I write but who also take time to respond and share their views. So many people from within and outside Nigeria have written about one Pedestrian Lawyer article or another and after six months of writing this column, I have no better way of saying thanks to the readers who make it worth while than giving up the page to some of their thoughts, albeit with a little editing.

RE: CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED DISCRIMINATION (for)

“It is quite true and an undisputable fact that our legislators at state and national level have displayed all kinds of reluctance towards legislative proposals that have to do with discrimination against women and women empowerment. Unfortunately, the judiciary and the law enforcement agents have not displayed enough commitment to the existing sketchy laws for protection of women. We hear cases of rape, child prostitution, and young girls forced into marriage and most times the culprits of these inhuman crimes are found freely walking our streets with the clear zeal to commit more of such offences.

It is very painful, the way and manner most men, and some women, due to their cultural beliefs, react to write-ups on protection of the rights of women such as yours. You hear things like: ‘These women have started again’, ‘these women should better go back to the kitchen where they belong’, ‘these women think they can be equal to men’, ‘they better stay where God placed them’. Misconceptions such as these are made by even people who are supposed to know better. Imagine in a family where the parents were faced with financial challenges and had to decide to withdraw some of the children from school. The first thing the head of the family (father) said was that all the girls would remain at home while the boys, as the future bread-winners of the family, would continue. This is despite the fact that the girls are doing better in their academics than their brothers. I think our legislators and people in government think this way too.

Finally, I want to assure you that all the campaign, protest and write-ups on the protection of the right of women such as yours will not go down the drain. It will impact on the way we think. Several people and families have witnessed one type of disaster or the other due to the failure to uphold the rights of their womenfolk; and some have changed for good.”
Umar Abubakar


“A friend and I read your article "Constitutionally Guaranteed Discrimination" last Tuesday in This Day. I am an American male and she is a Nigerian female. We both found the content of the article disturbing although viewing it from different perspectives. The callousness and smug hypocrisy of bureaucrats in Nigeria is scary. For a Nigerian male in power to dismiss the problem because they say it doesn't exist indicates that the issue of discrimination and abuse will not be solved easily or soon. We both applaud your exposure of these officials and beg you to continue to publicize the issue until it is brought under control.”
Ag & Ti

Thanks Umar, Ag & Ti for sharing your thoughts, please do everything in your personal lives to address whatever wrongs you can against women, children and all the disempowered.

RE: CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED DISCRIMINATION (against)
“Dear Ayisha,I read your article in today’s Thisday newspaper about section 26 of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria. You said it is discriminatory against women. I totally disagree with you.
Sometimes these laws are made for specific reasons and there is nothing inequitable about it.For example, in the UK, If an unmarried British woman gives birth to a child and the Father is Not British the Child born has British citizenship but if an unmarried British Man has a child from a woman who is not British the child does not have British citizenship.
Also, a British man cannot simply apply for a British passport without the consent of the British Mother, the passport officials will want to verify the documents of the British mother before issuing the passport.
Should the British men start writing that the laws are biased?” Abraham Zika

Dear Abraham, I think you’ve answered your own question. Isn’t it possible that this particular protection for women has been granted to address a situation where women are historically disadvantaged?

RE: ARE OUR LEGISLATOR’S SERIOUS? (for)
“Good day Ayisha,
I find your editorial as to whether our Legislature are serious very interesting, although I must confess I have always overlooked your column until two weeks ago and I regretted that because against my erroneous presumption I find them very concise. “Them” because a review of your past write-up reveals consistency. Please keep this up. I will like to ask you if there is something within the sphere of law that an ordinary citizen like myself can do to challenge the irresponsible decision of our Legislature. It is one thing for you to write about it and it is another for us to read it but it is altogether a different thing to take it up with them, I believe it is our duty as citizens to demand good governance from our leaders and the lack of it is due to our individual selfish desires, in some countries there would have been a peaceful protest against such a sabotage on our future, union leaders and workers from different field would have marched to the street - the recent AIG bonus decision in the US is a good example- to challenge them. But while selfish ambitions pervade the society those of us not yet infected and still sober can pursue the mission of injecting some sanity into our society, but how do we go about it without violating the law?

Personally I am getting tired of just reading about the atrocities of our leaders and doing nothing and I wish the likes of Gani Fawehinmi still have health on their side-although the old man has paid his dues and whether we like it or not we owe him and his ilk a lot – he would at least know how to go about it within the confines of the law, since any unlawful approach to correcting the Legislature would only exacerbate the situation. That I am a graduate and a working class citizen of this country with few months to three decade of existence and I know nothing about our basic law tells you a lot about our woes in this country. But for how long shall we continue to lament our woes? I think it is time for us to raise our voice and cry out against bad governance until every one gets caught in the frenzy of demand for good governance otherwise these avarice-ridden politician turn Legislature will not only destroy our future but when they have finished they will start selling us into slavery once again, but come to think of it Ayisha are we not indirectly their slaves already? We toil till we become worn out, pay our tax all along and what do we get in return? Please Ayisha let me know if there is anything that can be done.
John Onibiyo

Thanks John. Apart from being happy with your response, you made me feel a bit sad that all I am doing is ‘writing’…but that is my method for trying to precipitate change, to share and try to precipitate outrage or action. Please act.
PS not surprisingly, there were no contributions ‘against’ the article ‘Are our legislators’ serious?’

Published April 14 2009

Read more...

Electoral Reforms: are the problems legal or social?

As usual the more we hear the less we understand. Apart from the ongoing intrigue in the power sector, nowhere is this statement more apt than with the proposed electoral reforms. In the last couple of weeks the media has been rife with news about the Uwais Report. As the story unfolded, we learnt that in addition to the Uwais Electoral Reform Committee (ERC) set up in 2007 to propose ways for credible elections, there was a nine-member Shettima Mustapha Committee appointed to draft the Government’s White Paper* on the report. And then, the White Paper was reviewed by the three-man Michael Aondoakaa Review Committee. I remember thinking there were one too many cooks with ladles in the broth and that all these reports on reports and reviews on reports is one of the reasons it has taken so long to hear the recommendations on electoral reform and will be the same reason why most of the substance will be lost in translation. Unsurprisingly, the general consensus (apart from those in PDP-land where independent thinking is frowned upon) is that most of the recommendations which would bring about the critical positive change to the electoral system have been dropped in favour of other recommendations.

The one jettisoned recommendation which has precipitated the harshest criticism is the recommendation that the Chairman of INEC be appointed by the Nigerian Judicial Council (NJC). At the first briefing on the issue, the reason for the rejection of this recommendation was “to avoid a situation where the President loses ‘control’ over the electoral commission”. Isn’t that conflicting? Why should the President who might himself be up for re-election want to be able to control the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Committee?

In another briefing, the Minister of Information provided another reason for the reluctance to give up control of the appointment of the executives of INEC: to avoid undermining the principle of the separation of powers by asking the judiciary (NJC) to perform a function of the executive (making executive appointments). Technically, the Chairman of INEC’s role is an executive role and it makes sense that the reporting lines are to the chief executive of the country but the sensitivity of the role and Nigeria’s track record where election fraud is concerned, demands some independence from this same executive. Besides, the separation of powers excuse is weak because there are few if any political structures which adhere to a strict separation of powers, not even in the United States where their Constitution is largely influenced by the writings of Montesquieu one of the foremost supporters of the doctrine. Britain, our birth mother, prides itself in its unwritten Constitution where there is actually little separation between the arms of government and their elections have not seemed to suffer for this.

According to Iwu in a lecture delivered at NIPPS, Kuru a few weeks ago, reforms on the electoral process in Nigeria have been ongoing such as the establishment of the Independent National Electoral Commission Fund under Sections 3 & 4 of the 2006 Electoral Act and the establishment of the Electoral Institute to facilitate capacity building and professionalism in the Commission. I’ll let you be the judge of the impact of these reforms.

Iwu goes on to say that there are only four outstanding areas of electoral reform requiring constitutional amendment: the mode of appointment of Chairman and members of the Commission; funding of the Commission; adjudication of post-election disputes before the sweating-in of declared winners and the introduction of a system of proportional representation. From the details which we now know, the Uwais Report made recommendation on the first and the third and both recommendations were dropped. Campaign financing and the funding of INEC are both critical issues and it says something about how serious we are about tackling election reform because regardless of who appoints the Chairman and Commissioners of INEC – he who pays the piper calls the tune. But these are all technicalities on what should or should not be in the Electoral Act as the enabling law for INEC.

Which brings me to the next question: is the problem with our election process and system because of the gaps in the legal framework or because of our psyche? As much as I hate to admit it, underlying Iwu’s self serving position on this issue, there is some truth. He says ‘the greatest corrosive damage to the electoral process in the land is wrought more by the self-serving and contemptuous conduct of few members of the political elite - the deep pockets - than any other factor. ” The expectations we have that electoral reforms will miraculously and dramatically change our elections for the better are not realistic; law is not magic. Instead we need people with the right psyche executing the law and accepting the law. Not what we have now, where laws are only for law students or the masses who do not have the money or the arrogance to circumvent the law.


If for arguments sake the Federal Executive Council had accepted the recommendation of the Uwais Report that the NJC appoint the Chairman and Commissioners of INEC, what would this do on its own as a part of legislation? Not much really because there is no assurance that the NJC or even the appointees of the NJC are incorruptible, so we end up back where we started.

In the United States, the country we seem most aligned to in terms of political structure, the President appoints the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Maybe in addition to the consultations with the general public on expectations for electoral reform, the Uwais ERC should have looked at the FEC and how it maintains its independence from the same President which appoints its executives. My guess is that the answer lies somewhere within law and society: campaign and election financing and simply, the type of men (or women) who go into service for their country.

*white paper is the term for documents issued by government which lay out policy or proposed action, on a topic of current concern

Published March 24 2009

Read more...

Constitutionally Guaranteed Discrimination

That the fairer sex, weaker sex, whatever you want to call the female sex has struggled (and is still struggling) for centuries, for equality and/or parity with men is not news. Over time this struggle has broken many barriers across different societies in different countries, some more than others and some not at all. What was news to me last week was finding out that Section 26 of the 1999 Constitution institutionalizes gender discrimination against women. Paradoxical for a country which makes a lot of noise about the promotion of women and totally contradictory to the right to freedom from discrimination in Section 42 of the Constitution which says, in totally inelegant and confusing text, that no Nigerian should benefit or be disadvantaged solely because of their ethnic origin, their sex, their religion or their opinion.

The effect of the provision on naturalization and citizenship in Section 26 of the 1999 Constitution is discriminatory against women because it means that when Nigerian women marry foreigners, their husbands cannot become naturalized Nigerians but when Nigerian men marry foreigners, they can transfer their nationality to their wives. Why is this different treatment necessary?

Unfortunately, when it comes to the enforcing the general fundamental human rights of women - whether it is their right to liberty, freedom of expression, or even ownership rights, the Nigerian woman is already sometimes disadvantaged by social, cultural and religious norms and laws. Yet our law makers and executive seem blind to this as they blithely sign up to different conventions which they have no intention of adhering to and attending forums where they cannot report any meaningful progress in making the lives of women better.

For example, Nigeria is a party to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Convention) yet as of July 2008, the international CEDAW Committee expressed ‘deep concern at the persistent failure by Nigeria to enact a law to ensure that CEDAW is enforceable’. In 2005 our National Assembly refused to adopt the provisions of the CEDAW Convention when they rejected a draft bill. In a country where we all know laws are not really adhered to, for our predominantly male National Assembly to refuse to even ‘capture’ these protections and rights on paper is a clear indication of the real position on improving the lives of Nigerian women.

Most recently at the 9th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, the Nigerian delegation was positively laughed at for saying our domestic violence laws were adequate – this in a country where, according to a 2003 demographic and health survey, 64.5 per cent of Nigerian women consider it normal to be beaten by their husbands and where only one Nigerian state has a law in place to address violence against women.

What do we get instead? We get a smokescreen of activity with an entire ministry dedicated to women ‘affairs’ as well as a national centre for women development (NCWD)…what exactly are their mandates? In Section 2 of the National Commission for Women Decree 1992 (which was later upgraded into a full fledged Federal Ministry for Women’s Affairs and Social Development), there are ten objectives for the Commission for Women and the first one pretty much says it all: ‘to promote the welfare of women in general’.

What did ‘promoting the welfare of women’ mean when the Commission was first set up and what does it mean now, seventeen years later? It is safe to wager that it still means the same thing; meaning[A1] the welfare of the Nigerian woman has not improved despite all the talk and all the show. We are still struggling to get a handle on the discrimination of the female child when it comes to education, the bad treatment of widows, the selling of young girls into prostitution, sex with under aged girls leading to VVF and employment discrimination; the list is endless.
What is scary is that while a multitude of nongovernmental organizations is focused on quietly redressing these issues without the support of a legal framework, our Federal and State legislators and executives, are slowly eroding even the little rights women have with laws addressed at controlling how women clothe themselves. If our Constitution itself discriminates against women, how many laws are out there with provisions which are unfair and which continue to subtly reinforce in our minds, and the minds of our children, that women are second class citizens?

How many private and public organizations are, like the Central Bank of Nigeria happily enforcing adverse discriminatory rules against women such as that women are not entitled to certain benefits which their male colleagues enjoy because they are, as women, not deemed ‘head’s of their household’. What if their husbands are dead? What if their husbands are terminally ill and have not worked for years? What if their husbands are just ner’ do wells who have abandoned the family or just do not provide enough for their families? In such situations must a female executive in such a place air her private issues in order to get benefits which should be her right?

Theoretically, Nigeria is serious about improving the welfare of women – along with the Ministry and NCWD, every Federal and State first lady has a pet project aimed at improving the welfare of women and/or children. We even have a National Committee on the Reform of Discriminatory Laws Against Women…so what are they all really doing? Blame it on poor or erratic internet service but all efforts to find meaningful news on the past achievements of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs failed. I did find a story about a children’s party hosted by the Ministry at the start of this year as well as details of the Minister of Women’s Affairs visit to the women’s development centre to assess its facilities. Is it possible for the Minister and the new Director General of the NCWD to give us a list of the things they intend to achieve at the end of each year? We are stakeholders and just as we expect companies in which we hold shares to meet the targets set and publicized in annual general meetings or offer prospectuses, we should expect government and its agencies to be accountable to us.

We all have a responsibility, to ourselves and to future generations to ensure that for a start, we have the legal framework to improve the welfare of women. The members of the legal profession, including the Ministry of Justice and the Law Reform Commission have all been incredibly lax about challenging laws which erode the fundamental human rights of women. Where lawyers come across provisions of law which are contrary to such rights, they need to flag it and publicise it. Where lawyers are advising clients on employment contracts or drafting regulations – they need to be vigilant and ensure women are being treated fairly and the Ministry of Justice which gets to see most bills have the perfect opportunity to act as a check to ensure nothing contrary or discriminatory passes through – it has to be a joint effort.
But first, Section 26 of the 1999 Constitution needs to be amended immediately, either as part of the constitutional review process or as something driven by the Federal Ministry of Women’s Affairs, the National Commission on Human Rights or the Law Reform Commission because what this section does apart from magnifying the serious legal issues within our Constitution, is it makes a mockery of every halfhearted Nigerian initiative to make the lives of women better.

Published March 31 2009

Read more...

Are Our Legislators Serious?

Lately the papers have been filled with stories about our federal legislators – the dead in the water/lame duck committee report on FCT a.k.a. the probe on El-Rufai; or the power probe with which this set of legislators started off their four year tenure with a loud bang only for the report to sit languishing without it so much as being circulated for review. That is on top of the 2.3billion Naira car scandal, the plans to impeach Dimeji Bankole and the disgraceful infighting between the House of Representatives and the Senate over superiority in the National Assembly.

Last year the President assented to only five laws. Yes, not too long ago in another article about the Legislators I said the number of laws did not matter but the quality, and I still stand by those words; if these five laws were real laws which would make some meaningful lasting contribution to Nigeria and Nigerians, then we could all over look the number. But when these five include amendments to existing acts and other insignificant laws such as the ‘Certain Political, Public and Judicial Office Holders (Salaries and Allowances e.t.c., (Amendment) Bill 2008’, then we have to hold that number up in shame.
Now not only are the legislature complicit in ‘missing budget-gate’ but apparently they have made unfavourable changes to the budget proposal submitted by the executive arm.

A little background.

Considering that the 2008 budget was finalised in November 2008, just in time to expire with the year, plans for the 2009 budget started relatively well with the President submitting the budget proposal to the National Assembly on December 2 2008. By 18 December 2009, one of the papers reported: ‘Senate Passes N3.049 Trillion 2009 Budget’. It seemed we were learning from the past and striving to improve, great.
January, February…silence. Then we hear the budget is missing and this starts to raise some interesting questions such as ‘what exactly is the process for passing budgets’? We know the President submits the proposal and this is considered by the legislature as an Appropriation Bill. However, once passed by the legislature, does it proceed like all other bills to the President for his assent or is there a different process for the nation’s budget? Maybe this is where the gap lies because this is where the trail for the 2009 budget went cold.
It is now March and thankfully, the budget has been found but to put it mildly, the executive are concerned about the changes made by the legislature. To quote a member of the executive council “what the National Assembly did to the 2009 budget was not far from sabotage".

Apparently not only did they slash the budget for crucial sectors such as power and gas, in direct conflict with the President’s seven point agenda, but they increased their own budget by 57% and allocated funds to non existent organizations including N250 million to an anonymous council.

Is there any citizen of Nigeria who thinks it makes sense for the National Assembly to spend 111.3 Billion Naira while the allocation for power transmission is a paltry N800 million? Each of our 109 Senators gets 28 million naira a year while the 360 Representatives get 22 million respectively. Yet they only work three days a week i.e., Tuesday to Thursday and even then only from about 10am until 2pm. Mondays and Fridays are supposedly for them to ‘visit’ their constituents and for this they even get an allowance. The Standard Papers – the Constitution of the Senate and the House – provide for five working days from 9am to 5pm, just like the civil service but these rules have since been relaxed... like everything else when it comes to accountability and responsibility.

Section 59 of the 1999 Constitution says that where within thirty days after the presentation of the Appropriation Bill, the President fails to signify his assent OR withholds his assent, then the Appropriation Bill can be presented to the National Assembly sitting at a joint meeting and passed into law by a two thirds majority. Now the key is: if there was no record of the bill being sent to the President for his assent, how would we know when the thirty days was up? This means during that period where those who should know, but did not know where the 2009 Appropriation Bill was, had the legislature wished to, it could arguably have approved the Appropriation Bill without giving the President the chance to do so.

In the United States, which we model our constitution and government on, there is a traditional ceremony surrounding the annual approval of the United States budget. The majority leaders along with minority leaders march from Capitol Hill to the White House to formally present the budget for the signature of the President. This ceremony is important not because it enables us to avoid situations where no one remembers the budget being sent or received, but more for the people to see their government at work and provide transparency to the democratic process. The Chief of Staff of the President also receives a copy and while this ceremony does not mean there are no issues or compromises to be made between the legislature and the executive, it serves as a milestone in what is sometimes a three to six month process and a marker for the checks and balances against possible abuse.

Unfortunately, because of the years of military rule, the legislature in Nigeria is the least developed arm of government – always the first to be disbanded after a coup, while the judiciary and executive soldier on. This no doubt has impacted on the development of our own traditions, but since we borrow so much already, why not borrow a similar tradition to support the budgetary process? It would be most heartening for Nigerians to know that the legislature is working for and not against us…otherwise we can always start to exercise Section 69 of the Constitution and recall our legislators, with this track record it should not be hard to justify.

Published March 17 2009

Read more...

CV Writing Tips for Lawyers

When it comes to job hunting, the list of instructions, tips, and advice for writing the perfect resume or curriculum vitae, a.k.a, CV is endless and often times, conflicting. More is better, less is better. Get in all your experiences; leave out experiences which are not applicable for the role. Never mention ‘references available upon request’ because this is assumed; however, your references might speak volumes for you. Although it seems like the secret to successfully job hunting is that there is no secret, there is no formula and it is all so random and maybe even unfair, there are some things which are expected from seekers in the legal job market.

When your CV first hits the desk or email inbox of a prospective employer – this becomes a mirror through which the reader begins to see the outlines and details of your face. As a faceless new or old esquire your CV represents you and everything interesting and good about it is directly reflected on you and everything that is dull and sloppy (mistakes and grammatical errors) becomes your face. A strong face will result in the prospective employer setting up an interview while a weak face will ensure that you unfortunately, remain literally, faceless.

Capturing Attention – Write a Strong CV

Emphasize your best features first

To get from being a mere name on a page to an interview several things act as a magnet, especially for lawyers. For law graduates fresh out of school, the majority of law firm partners said the key things which get their interest are the school and the grade. The more prestigious the school and the higher the distinction of the law degree, the more likely you will be interviewed. However when you can barely remember the names of your tutors at law school, your academic pedigree takes backstage to the ranking of the organizations you have worked for.

If you cannot claim royalty by virtue of either academic or work experience, what blend of skills, knowledge and achievements gives you a unique advantage over other law graduates? Find a way of starting with something interesting to make you stand out from the other 2,000 applicants. Whatever you do though, please do not start with a mission or objective statement; the predominant view is that this is unnecessary and somehow, gauche.

2. Be precise

Now brevity is not something commonly associated with members of the learned profession but this is one time, along with at least twenty other times I can think of where being verbose does not pay. If it is true that humans can only focus for about eight seconds without any lapse in attention – you might want to remember this when the temptation to describe the key learning points from every transaction becomes overwhelmingly strong.

3. Pay attention to detail

In other words, make sure the CV looks professional. While a pleasing presentation can earn you additional points, even high academic credentials will not help if your CV looks and reads like you could not be bothered. Ensure there are absolutely no typographical errors since your CV is the initial contact and you know what they say about first impressions. Yes, they also say don’t judge a book by its cover but be sure that if there was a spelling mistake on the cover of a book, few people would be able to restrain themselves from judging. Every last detail from the font style and size to the alignment of the document is important.

However a great CV is not the goal. It has secured an interview with someone who thinks you would make a good addition to their organisation. What next: how do you deliver on the promise your CV has garnered?

A Winning Interview

Prepare, prepare, prepare – even for the unknown. Along with all the generally acknowledged best practices of interviewing such as being on time, taking care with your appearance, being on time, researching the firm or organization and being on time, there are a few specific things lawyers should do to prepare for an interview.

Get ready to share the reasons why you studied law and what you would consider your areas of preference or expertise. And if you have an LLM or PHD in law and you are not interviewing with an academic institution, be prepared to explain why instead of academia you are interested in practice.
be up-to-date with legal news – in other words, keep your finger on the pulse with Thisday’s Lawyer. However it is not enough to know about the proposed revisions to the Land Use Act or that the Uwais Report recommends amending the Nigerian Electoral Act – be ready to share your opinion on the legal implications.
Experienced lawyers will often be expected to share examples of how they have successfully exhibited the core skills of a lawyer: drafting, negotiating, reviewing, questioning, analysing and advising. The best way to do this is with professional and personal anecdotes which illustrate these strengths - story telling is a useful form of sharing information.

Watch your body language, it is extremely important. The arms crossed at the elbows in front of the body denotes defensiveness and while confidence is great, the fully relaxed, almost lying down with hands linked behind the head and legs stretched out in front is apparently arrogant. Just relax, and if you are sitting behind a desk, keep your arms lightly on your laps or on the table in front of you. Where there is no table, to hide behind, again keep hands on the arm rests if available and feet firmly plated on the floor or crossed at the ankles to the side of the chair.

A few weeks ago, at the inauguration of the planning committee of the proposed national employment summit, it was reported that the World Bank has put Nigeria’s unemployed at 40 million. It is anyone’s guess how many of the unemployed are lawyers. No pressure.

Published March 3 2009

Read more...

Much Ado About Power

Anyone ever notice that the synonyms for ‘development’ include ‘crumbling’, ‘aging’ and ‘declining’? Ironic, because that is exactly what Nigeria is doing – forever ‘developing’ and going nowhere. As if anyone was in doubt, the country director of the World Bank in Nigeria, Mr Ono Ruhl recently confirmed that Nigeria would not achieve Vision 2020 (i.e., the mirage of being one of the twenty biggest economies in the world by 2020) unless we diversified in favour of the productive sector.

However, to be productive we need power and in the last couple of years, months, weeks the power sector has been embroiled in all manners of intrigues, probes and confusion…needless to say, no actual work is going on in the Nigerian power sector. Recently the new Minister of Power was reported as saying 6000mw of power was achievable by 2009. In the same publication, the MD of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) said we would not be able to achieve that much power by 2010. Now the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) is embroiled with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission allegedly for fraud. Never a dull moment in our power sector; except in our houses powered by candles.

So what is the issue with power? In addition to freeloaders, intrigue, politics and corruption, an article in Thisday on February 16 2009 says gas shortage and financing are key issues. PHCN supposedly needs at least 1,617mmcf of gas per day from the Nigerian Gas Company (NGC), but only gets 490mmcf. If we want to increase our power production we will need even more gas. NGC blames the shortfall in supply on the oil producing companies and the lack of infrastructure. Apparently, apart from decaying and vandalised pipelines, NGC has not been able to persuade communities to act as hosts to additional pipelines – hard to believe in a country where people where bulldozed out of their homes and property in order to maintain a master plan.
Gas supplies are low for a number of reasons. First, more than 50% of the gas (associated gas because it is released as a result of the production of crude oil) that could be produced for use in Nigeria is flared. This is despite the fact that we enacted an Associated Gas Re-Injection Act as early as 1979 to prohibit flaring and ensure that oil companies either tap this gas for use or re-inject it into the earth because flaring is extremely bad for the environment. Section 3 of the Act set the deadline for flaring as January 1 1984; the latest deadline is now December 2009. Second: cash. NGC, as a subsidiary of NNPC, gets gas at a discounted price, which is not competitive especially when the oil producers can get more money in real time from the open market. When crude oil prices rise, gas prices rise too; think of the margins the oil producers would have lost if they supplied the gas to NGC. Third, the costs of implementing the Re-Injection Act are high. Shell alone, estimates that it would cost her $1.85 billion to completely stop flaring; therefore even with the fines imposed for flaring, it is still cheaper for her to keep flaring. Four: NNPC financing. We conveniently forget that NNPC is a partner to the oil producers, so if the costs associated with not flaring are high, NNPC shares in this cost as well.

Last year NNPC was allegedly only allocated a quarter of what it required for its projects – tragic considering other ministries supposedly had to return their unspent budgets. Five is security in the oil producing regions: as long as the crude oil production of Nigeria remains almost halved due to threats and attacks, gas, flared or tapped will also remain halved.
So what has all this got to do with law? Everything. We have a thirty year old law which we have not been able to implement; raising issues about the un-enforceability of laws and the role of law.

What do you do when there is a law which no one is obeying and why does the rule of law seem inapplicable here? What is the role of the law in this particular regard? Jurisprudential theory (and common sense) says you cannot force people to do things by law or by merely prohibiting. Looking at all the facts and the interrelationships between all the issues is it possible that the right incentives backed by law can halt gas flaring and produce more gas for our power turbines? Along with unattractively low electricity tariffs, another reason not to invest in power in Nigeria is the unavailability or high cost of gas. As opposed to simply and ineffectively prohibiting, the role of the law should be to set out the rules regarding gas production as well as the relationship between all the parties. Unfortunately our laws merely prescribe without going into details and our agreements are not binding, even for ourselves.

Right on cue, Thisday, February 17 2009 reported that the Federal Government has taken urgent steps in collaboration with the oil producers to provide adequate gas for power i.e., 1.2 billion cubic feet of gas (bcft) to the domestic market by the end of 2009. According to the article, ‘the President is concerned with the apparent disregard of the Domestic Gas Supply obligations approved by the government’ in April 2008 – this from the same President who casually and without backing by law extended the deadline for the gas flaring from January 2009 to December 2009.

The MD of PHCN is purportedly not entitled to a generator in his official residence, but the catch is PHCN ensures he always has light (ask those who live on his street). How can he begin to understand the abject misery in which most Nigerians live daily if he always has power? There should be a law making it illegal for the Minster of Power, the MD of PHCN and the Chairman of NERC to have power and/or a generator when the rest of the country suffers. How enforceable would that law be?

Published February 24 2009

Read more...

Compulsory CSR, Whatever Next?

There is a bill in the Senate that is stealthily making its way through the legislative process which should interest all business owners – A Bill for an Act to Provide for the Establishment of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Commission.
The bill, if passed into law, will create a CSR Commission which will cost Nigerians N362, 039,072.48 per annum (I know…don’t ask) and make it compulsory for businesses to give no less than 3.5% of their profit before tax to meet their CSR obligations.

According to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Chukwumerijie, the bill will address ‘the low sense of CSR of business companies…largely caused by (i) lack of adequate laws to regulate their behaviour and compel positive responsible response to the community and (ii) lack of a supervisory authority to enforce the laws’. In a country where businesses have to generate their own power and provide their own security and other amenities, this is laughable.
Unfortunately the overall effect of the Bill, if passed into law, is not as funny. Apart from the conflict mandatory CSR has with one basic principle of CSR i.e., corporate responsibility being driven by market forces and competitive strategy not, law, there is the issue of multiple taxation. Nigerian companies pay between 20-30% of their profit as tax (85% for oil producing companies), as well as withholding tax (10%) capital gains tax (5%), Education tax (2%) and VAT (5%). As if this is not enough, the House of Representatives currently has a Bill calling for the imposition of an additional 2% Energy Tax to be paid by companies and we have not factored in personal income tax and State and Local Govt taxes which come disguised as parking space permits (in front of the building you own or rent), radio license, computer license, noise tax (from the generating set businesses have to run because government cannot live up to its responsibilities) etc.

Under the provisions of the CSR Bill, the Commission – which will, I am ready to bet, be run in true Nigerian fashion with civil servants more interested in eating, sleeping, selling and politicking – will be charged with duplicating the responsibilities of existing agencies. For instance, if the CSR Commission is charged with ‘implementing social and environmental regulation consistent with convention’ then why do we need the Environmental Protection Agency and National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency? And if the Consumer Protection Council has spent years working in collaboration with the private and public sector to create an acceptable ISO standard for the voluntary practice of CSR, why do we need the Commission to ‘create a standard for social responsibility of corporate organizations that is consistent with international standards’?
All these issues and much more were raised by the private sector last week at a public hearing hosted by the Senate’s Establishment and Public Service Committee which has been tasked with reviewing the CSR Bill.

Everyone should endeavour to attend a public hearing (although they are ‘public’ you will be asked for your invitation – but never mind that, try and attend) at least once in their lives…it is quite an experience. I was filled with pride and sorrow, rage and glee. Pride and glee came from the submissions of the private sector which were thorough, analytical and well delivered: multiple taxes are crippling our businesses and will drive away foreign direct investment because of the extremely unattractive high cost of conducting business in Nigeria; many companies are already voluntarily managing their social responsibilities; the lopsidedness of the Bill in favour of the ‘donor ’ part of CSR neglecting the internal codes of good corporate conduct and governance, the fact that with a global recession countries such as the UK are reducing taxes…the list was endless and the opposition to the bill was overwhelming.
Sorrow and rage came from the responses of some of the Committee members to the issue of multiple taxation. According to one, paying corporate taxes did not absolve companies from ‘providing’ for the communities within which they operate. This Senator expressed disgust with the fact that the ‘creeks’ had NOTHING and yet there were ‘very healthy companies doing business in those communities’. Almost as one, the audience asked ‘what about the State Governments?’ i.e., what are their responsibilities? And then the penny dropped; this was not really about CSR, it was about the Niger Delta.

This undoubtedly complicates issues – not only because no one can deny the underdevelopment and environmental degradation under which the citizens of the Niger Delta live but because none of the submissions made during the hearing specifically addressed the Niger Delta issue.
In my opinion, the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), the newly created Ministry of the Niger Delta as well as the Governors of the Niger Delta states should be the ones explaining where their budgets have gone or are going. It is public knowledge that Rivers, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa and Delta States got the largest portion of state revenue allocation in 2008 with N250 Billion, N167 Billion, II6 Billion and 115 Billion respectively. If the legislature is genuinely concerned with the ‘creeks’ – it may be in their powers to ask for an account on how this money was spent. The NNDC has been in existence for a couple of years – has it published a report explaining the progress made in ‘developing’ the Niger Delta? Why should corporate and individual Nigerians be made to pay for the profligacy and waste of our government? While elected and public officials on all levels and most painfully, the Niger Delta States, have fleets of official cars, houses in every city in every country, they want hard working Nigerians who have paid their taxes, the same taxes which support our wasteful government to ‘develop’ and ‘support’ the communities in which they operate…are the Senators really incapable of understanding that the businesses are the communities and vice versa?

It is unclear if this bill will pass into law, but one thing is for sure; it will not solve the Niger Delta issue.

Published February 10 2009

Read more...

The 123 of CAC

They say things always happen in 3s i.e., if something unexpected happens, then you can be sure 2 more ‘unexpected things’ are going to happen. So it is with the path that has led me to this particular article. I have often been asked, ‘how does the Pedestrian Lawyer decide what to write on’? The answer is - there is no particular method to arriving at a topic or issue. Sometimes a newspaper article triggers a thought, I find an angle and I am hooked; other times it might be a discussion or conversation overheard, occasionally readers make a request and sometimes the topic/story chooses you. This topic chose me. Just before the holidays, I was in a gathering of lawyers and inevitably the ‘issues’ with conducting business in Nigeria came up and someone turned to me and said, can you write about CAC (the Corporate Affairs Commission)?

Depending on how you look at it, CAC is one of the most powerful organisations in Nigeria because absolutely no one can register a company, business name or charitable organisation without CAC approval. All operating companies have to keep their records with CAC up-to-date by, amongst other things, filing annual reports on their finances and submitting new forms every time the composition of the board changes. In addition, whenever the objectives of a company are going to be changed e.g., where like NOKIA the objective of the company changed from paper, rubber, and cable manufacturing to mobile phone manufacturers, then CAC must be notified.

CAC is responsible for ensuring that for all things corporate, the correct procedure has been adhered to – the shareholders and directors are aware, have approved and the public too is aware of these changes. Think about it. If you have invested in one of the banks and the directors decide to change the objectives i.e., the core business of the company so that it becomes a publishing company, then you would like to know because for one, your projections for dividends and value for your shares might have to change. Important fact – a company can have more than one objective and most objectives, contained in the company memorandum of association, are deliberately wide and general to capture as many business opportunities as possible. However for particular types of companies, CAC expects a certain level of specificity and will look out for some key phrases.]

Back to the story. ‘What about CAC,’ I asked? ‘Well, their requirements are getting down right ridiculous. They are insisting on certificates of proficiency during incorporation especially when the objectives refer to specialties like consulting and engineering.’
‘What’s the problem with that? I reply. CAC would like to ensure that companies who represent that they provide certain services have the capacity to do so.’
‘Well, said the well schooled lawyer, a company can be created to provide certain services and may employ people capable of providing such services without the directors possessing certificates that prove their proficiency. Additionally, proficiency may be garnered from many years of experience, which may not be evidenced by any certificate. All this requirement does is increase Nigerians propensity to ‘manage’ things. A good promoter (the name in the Companies and Allied Matters Act for the person who initially sets up a company) will merely find a person with the CAC required proficiency and use them as directors for the incorporation with the agreement that the director will be ‘removed’ after the initial incorporation.’ Hmm…point. I had no argument for this so I promised to look into it.
With this on my mind, I was not surprised when a few weeks later Guardian published an interview with the Registrar General of the CAC. He shared the plans to make CAC more efficient, the challenges and how much value the CAC was already delivering to the Nigerian economy. According to him, CAC which recently obtained ISO Certification for Quality Management had gotten confirmation from experts such as the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development that CAC was performing at and meeting international standards. To quote: ‘today experts – local and international – have declared CAC as the best public organisation in service delivery in Nigeria.’
Curious. Now I had ‘heard’ two stories and I waited for a third CAC occurrence. When nothing happened and the issue continued to prey on my mind, I forced the third encounter by calling up a lawyer who specialises in incorporation matters and asked for her opinion on the ongoing changes at CAC.

For her the issues were mixed; while she was happy with some of the initiatives to reduce paper work such as a standardised 4 paged memorandum and articles of association for all companies, she felt other initiatives were negating these gains. For example, the requirement for a proficiency certificate for directors translates into more paper. The biggest issue though was one also echoed by many – that CAC filing requirements changed often with no prior notice. This was unfortunately tied to another problem – that rules seemed to be flexible so that identical documents could get different treatments – one accepted and the other rejected.
From all indications there have been some improvements to CAC: gradual computerisation of the process, electronic certificates to discourage fraud and better working conditions for employees and visitors. However, there are obviously issues regarding the incorporation of new entities and I got a clue on a contributory factor from the Registrar General’s interview and the CAC website: there is no involvement with stakeholders. Not once in the interview was there a mention of partnering with lawyers responsible for filing to partner in the review of the application process or get input on plans to improve and nothing on the web site provides opportunity for users to give feedback.

In these days where the phrase ‘public private partnership’ is bandied around more often than ‘rule of law’ this is a major deficiency for the CAC which they should look into immediately. There is no need for a large committee to sit and deliberate at an expensive retreat (the JCCR shows clearly the inefficiencies of too many cooks) - just ask stakeholders for their input in writing, call a general meeting for the few with interest and rework the processes so that the word ‘CAC’ does not conjure violently polar views.

Published February 3 2009

Read more...

Can we legislate more efficiently?

If anyone has ever wondered, ‘why is it so hard for things to progress in Nigeria?’ or why it takes so long for development to materialise and is looking for answers, try the legislative process. I admit that although I have been a lawyer for close to 11 years I am still baffled by the process by which ideas and policy actually evolve into law. It can be a long and convoluted process and in a youngish democracy like ours, different factors contribute to making it an arduous journey.

The reason why it is important to review the law making process is because apart from the fact that it is expensive for taxpayers to support a federal legislature and thirty six state legislatures, the strategy and direction of the country is reinforced with the laws which are passed. For instance, President Yar’adua’s desire to restructure the oil and gas sector finally resulted in the submission of a Petroleum Industry Bill to the National Assembly just in time for him to make a ‘check’ mark on his 2008 to do list and go a step further with his objective to use the law to drive his reforms. The first time we heard about these plans was in August 2007 when we also learnt that this was an attempt to implement the recommendations of the Oil and Gas Reform Committee which was set up in 2000. Timelines starting to get a little scary? Ninety six or sixteen months later, depending on when you started looking forward to or dreading the oil and gas sector reform; the policy has evolved into a draft bill. Now depending on how much support the bill has, the timeline for the bill to be passed into law is anyone’s guess; it could be swift the way the ‘3rd term’ issue was resolved or it could be slow...like I can bet the bill ‘for an act to establish auctioneers registration council’ will be.

There is a drafting process where the policy is quartered and drawn into parts, sections and sub sections – in other words – law. Where the bill originates from the Executive, it must go to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for review to ensure compliance and harmony with the Constitution and other existing laws. However where the bill originates with the Legislative arm, the MoJ review takes place just before the Presidential Assent and after the bill has been duly passed by the National Assembly.

Only then is the draft ready to receive a series of approvals as it moves towards the National Assembly. Typically, bills undergo three readings in each house before they become law. For the first reading, the bill is not actually read, just listed as presented in the Order Papers, the agenda for the House. Then a date is fixed for the second reading, which is often considered the most difficult stage for any bill. This is where the debate on the key issues happens – with general policy and impact on society considered. Sometimes the debate results in the bill being sent on to a committee of the house for more detailed review. Each level of the National Assembly has several standard committees e.g., on health, justice, appropriations etc and the relevant committee or committees are tasked with reviewing the bill in detail – in line with their expertise. Where none of the standard committees are germane to the bill, an ad hoc committee is set up specifically to look into the bill. The review at this stage covers every single clause as well as recommendations for changes. It is at this stage that public hearings are usually called – especially on controversial issues.

The 3rd and final reading is where the bill is passed – i.e., as far as that house is concerned, the bill has been approved for law and can be passed on either to the Senate (where the bill originates in the House of Representatives) or on to the President for his assent. If the bill is going on to the Senate it has to go through the entire process of except the 2nd reading and often amendments by the Senate on a bill passed by the House of Representatives will result in the bill being sent back to the House of Representatives for their approval.

Back to why it is critical to look at the legislative process: unsubstantiated information (because if the details are on the National Assembly website, they have been very well hidden behind the freedom of information bill) from the MoJ is that fifteen bills were assented into law in Nigeria in 2007, compared to thirty one laws passed in 2007 by the United Kingdom parliament. Undoubtedly how many laws we pass in comparison to other countries is not important but it is interesting that very few of the laws passed have any bearing on supporting President Yara’adua’s 7 point agenda on (1) Power & Energy (2) Food Security and Agriculture (3) Wealth Creation and Employment (4) Mass Transportation (5) Land Reform (6) Security and (7) Education. If the laws passed in a country are indicative of focus, we could be doing a lot better – an indecent dressing bill doesn’t quite measure up when you consider the issues we have and the expensive and time consuming process of law making.

It would be useful if organisations such as the Nigerian Bar Association or Nigerian Legal institute could track and publish information on the laws being passed, the average length of time each bill spends in the National Assembly and the impact these laws have on society. Apart from the value this information would bring to those planning to introduce bills, it would also be much easier for us to rate our legislators at the end of their tenure – and if they are found wanting – tell them their ‘bill’ is up.

Published January 27 2009

Read more...

Fighting Words

Prince Harry has recently been flagellated in the media for using a racist term: he called a colleague a ‘paki’ a supposedly derogatory term of reference for people from Pakistan. At first, I thought ‘what’s the big deal’, after all ‘paki’ is merely short for ‘Pakistani’, besides I also felt sorry for the young Prince who always seems to put his foot in it and has barely been forgiven for wearing a swastika armband to a party in 2005. “What about his freedom of expression?” I wondered especially since in the video he obviously used the term without malice and in the statement released by the Palace, ‘paki’ was the nickname for this particular highly popular member of his platoon.

But on further thought, I realised two things. One: the word ‘nigger’ is generally accepted to be derogatory even though it is a derivative of ‘Negroe’ and two: when it comes to freedom of speech or expression, public figures such as politicians, royalty, public officers, celebrities, et al are held to higher standards of responsibility.

However in Nigeria that is rarely the case. Although ‘freedom of expression’ is guaranteed in Section 38 of the 1999 constitution and has been a feature of all our constitutions, the truth is there has not been enough jurisprudential and social development of this particular right.

There are two aspects of freedom of expression which we do not scrutinise enough. The first is the actual protection of this right of expression which has been trampled upon for a long time, most recently and publicly in September 2008 when the operating license for Channels Television was suspended for the allegedly false report that President Yar’adua might resign from office.

There was a lot of media attention – but only because the rights of a member of the Nigerian media had been trampled upon. However when bloggers of sites like Elendu Reports and huhu online were detained by the SSS upon their entry into the country in late last year, allegedly for sedition and not for what they say about the President or his administration on their blogs, there was hardly a murmur. Similarly, when in response to a question the Chairman and Managing Director of Chevron Nigeria alluded to the slow pace of the current administration - an issue which is widely referred to by local and international media and serves as easy fodder for cartoonist, he was flayed by the oil and gas sector unions for being disrespectful about the President of Nigeria and made to apologise.

The second aspect of freedom of expression which needs more attention is the category under which Prince Harry seems to be doing badly – the responsibility of public figures in influencing public perception or behaviour with their speech. If he can get into trouble for playfully calling his colleague a paki, then when public figures, leaders and the media say things which are likely to inflame or distort – then they too should be held accountable. The Rwandan Genocide rode on the use of words to raise suspicion, cause hatred, divide and eventually incite violence – what I call ‘fighting words’.

On our own shores, the war of words currently being played out in the media between two former governors of Oyo, a state which seems to be troubled by political issues can only serve to incite violence. Likewise as we, a people plagued with religious violence and intolerance, watch the federal versus state power tussle arising from the recent tragedy Jos, a statement by the President of the Northern Christian Elders Forum that the Federal Government’s officials and members of the probe committee have ‘clearly exposed its bias against Christians’ could rightly be seen as inflammatory. Yet the media merely reports these facts without castigation or analysis and unlike in Prince Harry’s case where the public is generally outraged, we just calmly go about our business, oblivious of the power of words to erupt into chaos.

Our jurisprudence and public discourse on the rights and obligations which come with the freedom of expression could be a lot more robust and only more debate and challenge can aid this development. I saw a fridge magnet sold in a store in the United States which had a picture of George W. Bush and the words ‘daddy’s little war criminal’ underneath. Can you imagine anything similar being sold in Nigeria? In thriving democracies, TV shows such as Spitting Image, Saturday Night Live, and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are heavy with content taking on politicians and public figures – using the freedom of expression banner to criticise and make fun of them, helping them to see a more realistic picture of themselves than their public relations officers allow. In Nigeria, there is very little in the media apart from the occasional cartoon which gives politicians and public figures a true idea of how the public sees them or perceives their actions and utterances. Maybe when Nigerian politicians stop taking themselves so seriously and stop arresting bloggers for highlighting the foibles of family members, we can start to really express ourselves and begin the debate required for balanced and responsible freedom of expression.

Published January 20 2009

Read more...

Can I change my state of origin?

Dear Pedestrian Lawyer I've lived in Lagos for over 30 years though my father is from Kano. Can I claim to be from Lagos in forms which ask about my 'state of origin'? Can I run for state positions? I pay hefty taxes to Lagos - at what point will I be officially recognised as a Lagosian? And my children - what happens to them?

This is a dilemma which must apply to millions of Nigerians who have set up home all over the country; unfortunately, it is a question for which there is no simple answer, a problem for which there is no clear solution. The instinctive answer of most of the lawyers polled on this issue was ‘no, you cannot claim to be from Lagos State’; but there were no clear explanations why.

For sticky legal issues with no clear applicable law such as ‘state of origin act’ in this case, sometimes the best place to start is the foundation of our laws – the Nigerian Constitution. However as I unsuccessfully combed through the Constitution for direction, it occurred to me that it might help if the crux of the issue was identified: why is ‘state of origin’ in Nigeria important? Part of the answer is embedded in the reader’s question.

I had always half heartedly wondered why official forms in Nigeria always asked about the state of origin and assumed it was for statistical data i.e., for the National Planning Commission to be able to say ‘x number of females from this state are lawyers and as such we should have x number of law schools in this area…’or something along those lines. Now I realize that it is important because it determines my platform for elections into public office, it can affect my political appointment (suddenly the intrigues over Mrs. Okonjo Iweala’s state of origin around the time of her appointment as Minister of Finance become clearer) and it can even affect my rights to acquire state or federal government assets. This last one needs a little explaining.
The general belief amongst Nigerian policy and decision makers is that, Nigerians are still so ‘un-evolved’ that when the President of Nigeria is from a certain ethnic group, only that ethnic group has access and opportunities to, amongst other things, buy government property. To counter this measure, the sale of privatized public property is usually conditional on public acquisition being shared across the states. For example in the sale of NITEL, Government might retain 40% of the shares and eventually invite members of the general public to buy 20% - this 20% would be allotted based on federal character.

It starts becoming a little clearer why state of origin is important and why some people might want to be from one state or the other. It also becomes clear why the mayhem in Plateau State started and why the problem there could be the problem in many other states. Simply, for example, if the Awasuah have lived as a community within a state for decades they have a right to self representation and a native of that state should not be arbitrarily imposed on them.
As usual our laws are conveniently silent on the issue. Nowhere in the Nigerian Constitution can you find any express or implied law on ‘state citizenship’, not even when it provides for the election of Governors, Senators or state house of assembly members. In Section 65 of the Constitution the requirements for election into the Senate are: the person must be a citizen of Nigeria (clearly defined in Sections 25 through 26); must be 35 years old; must have graduated from Secondary School and must be a sponsored member of a political party. In the United States Constitution, Article 1 Section 3 states that the eligibility requirements for a Senator are that the person must be at least 30 years old, must have been a US citizen for at least 9 years and must be at the time of the election, an ‘inhabitant’ of the state they seek to represent. Bingo – the US Constitution (which is not obsessed with federal character by the way) recognizes that the State you seek to represent is important. However in a country where every cabinet, every federal agency, every committee is carefully scrutinized for ethnic representation because we do not trust each other, our Constitution is silent on the role and definition of the state you originate from or reside in.

The current PDP party constitution does not resolve this issue but it casts a sliver of illumination onto the issue by allowing members to register either at their wards of ‘origin’ or where they reside. While there is still no definition on ward or state of origin, we can use the definition of residence which works for tax purposes i.e. residence is established by staying a total of 183 days (or 6 months) in a year in any place. Unfortunately, what this mean is that you can be deemed resident in two states if you spend half the year in one place and the rest in another – so we still come back to the question ‘what defines your state of origin’?

Without guidance from the Constitution, the current situation regarding state of origin is that there is no law and the application of any form of regulation is fluid and discretionary with different rules for different states and different edicts for different situations. In Lagos State, according to a senior advisor to the Governor on legal issues, the practice is to regard as indigenes those whose parents were Lagosians and this includes those who are historically of Lagos origin as well as early migrants. Apparently, today those who are born in Lagos or one of whose parents was born in Lagos can get a letter from the local Oba or local government council declaring them Lagosians.

A word of advice: if you currently live in a State other than where your parents are from, start making friends with your local oba, emir, chief or local government council chairman…you just might need their support in determining your state of origin.

Published January 13 2009

Read more...

Explaining Our Elections to Children

When the news of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s decision upholding the election of President Yar’adua filtered out, there was wild jubilation across Nigeria. The common man applauded the decision as vindication that the elections were, if not free and fair, at least legal and in accordance with the rule of law. As people took to the streets in jubilation, balloons released into the air, fireworks crackling and relaying across the sky from coast to coast, a group of young boys, no older than seven years old, wondered aloud what the celebration was about. After several attempts to explain the electoral issues and the problems with Sections 45(2), 145 and the really ridiculous Section 146 of the Electoral Act or even Section 83 of the Evidence Act this is how someone finally satisfactorily explained it to them.

‘If you want to understand the reasons for the jubilation and Nigerian elections, let’s hold pretend elections’, Explainer said. ‘Who is the best, baddest Power Ranger ever?’ After a little debate, it was almost unanimously agreed that the Red Ranger was the best. ‘Excellent, now to pick the person who gets to be the Red Ranger you have to ask your friends to pick the person who will make the best Red Ranger – this is called voting.’

‘First to make sure people only vote once we’ll count the number of people who are going to vote and give them a special card with their name and picture. Although there are only 10 people we will say there are 15 and...’ ‘Why’, the children ask? ‘Do not worry about that, this is how it is done in Nigeria. Then you pick out those who want to be the Red Ranger – how many of you want to be the Red Ranger?’ A loud chorus of voices shout ‘me’ with a few boys muttering hesitantly under their breath about how the Yellow or Green Ranger is really the best. ‘Great. You, you and you, will be the ones who get the chance to be the Red Ranger - this means you are contesting for the role of Red Ranger,’ says the Explainer as he arbitrarily picks out the candidates. Again the children cannot understand why and a few cry and run off while others shout ‘ojoro’. ‘I am only trying to show you how the election process works – don’t take it so seriously’, Explainer cajoles, I know what I am doing’.

‘The next step is to prepare the ballot papers for the vote. We need lots of paper and pictures of each contestant which we will paste besides their names along side a small box so voters can make a mark next to the person they choose. Each paper must be given a special number in serial which means they should follow each other. If the first paper is A100, then the next one will be A101. We need to do this to track the papers and eliminate fakes which will obviously not have the special numbers we have given each paper.’ The contestants and voters all get busy helping out with preparing ballot papers while Explainer serialises them.

Finally, it is time for the voting process but just before the children start forming a line, another child runs up from nowhere and says he wants to join. There is a load chorus of ‘no, you can’t, it’s too late’, but the child’s father who follows the child more slowly calls Explainer to the side and starts whispering in his ear. Dad is a big, strong looking man with mean eyes and a huge stomach. Explainer says okay to the annoyance of all the other children and calmly takes the stalk of carefully prepared ballot papers on the table and throws them in the trash. Then he brings out plain sheets with no serial numbers and hastily prepares new ballot papers, omitting in some cases some of the contestants from the ballot. At last, the voters come forward to see if their names are on the list of voters; only when their names are on the list can they vote. The children are all muttering and wondering about the changes and the complications, especially those who could not find their names on the list. Meanwhile some other children who were not in on the start of the election process muscle in with a lot of pushing and jostling around the table where the voting is taking place.

Just before the children start loosing interest, Explainer says the voting has to end and he will count the votes for each contestant. No surprises, Last Minute Kid wins and the original contestants who were there from the beginning began to cry and complain while Last Minute Kid puts on the red cape and dashes around in circles calling himself the Red Ranger.
‘No problem, says Explainer, let’s talk. What is the problem? Wait, before you start, let me get a few other people to hear what you have to say, and then they can decide if there was any fraud or ojoro as you call it.’ The contestants complain about the last minute changes, the new ballot papers with no serial numbers, the pushing and fighting and the fact that some of their friends did not get to vote. The Listeners ask a few questions from the contestants and some of the other children and say, based on what they have heard, the voting process was definitely not fair but it was legal and Last Minute Kid is the Red Ranger.

While this was going on Last Minute Kid had run off with his Dad, leaving the red cape on the ground. The children who had wondered about the celebrations and the election slowly walked home. ‘Do you understand why people are happy with the elections?’ asks one as he bends to pick the dirty muddied cape. ‘No, replies another, but I know one thing for sure: adults are crazy’.

Published December 23 2008

Read more...

PHCN! Offload You Freeloaders

It is that time of the year again – raging insecurity, increase in the cost of goods and services and almost 100% absence of power. A few months ago I had a hard time convincing friends that the power we were enjoying, since power is not a Nigerian’s right, was not due to the Obasanjo administration’s $16 billion investment in the power sector or to President Yar’adua’s phantom declaration of a state of emergency. It was simply due to a rise in water levels in the hydro dams due to the rains and this has been a recurring event over the last few of years – between July and September, power supply improves and towards Christmas, power supply worsens. Sadly I have been proved partially right. Once we entered November, power worsened but PHCN is not blaming the seasons. According to news reports of November 25, PHCN reported that we had lost 1000megawatts of power due to a shortage in gas which was caused by the vandalisation of the pipeline facilities. Fair enough…but I still wondered why the vandalisation did not take place between July and September, or were the vandals otherwise occupied in matters which required electricity?

The transformation of NEPA into PHCN and the unbundling of PHCN into distribution and generating companies was supposed to make the power situation better. It has not. Part of the problem is the Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005 (the ‘Act’), the 1999 constitution and the National Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC).

The fact that the 1999 Constitution gives both federal and state governments the right to legislate on electricity in Nigeria should be a good thing. However, the Act along with its regulator, NERC, has failed to consider this in regulatory requirements. Section 13 of the Concurrent List which gives the Federal Government its rights over power generation says that; ‘the National Assembly may make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to (a) electricity and the establishment of electric power stations; and (b) the generation and transmission of electricity in or to any part of the Federation and from one State to another State’. The States get their coexisting rights in Section 14 which provides that State Houses of Assembly may make laws for: (a) electricity and the establishment of State electric power stations; and the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to areas not covered by a national grid system within that State.

This simply means while both Federal and State governments have rights to generate electricity, States can only generate power which does not have to go through the national grid system. To put things in perspective; less than 33% of the population of Delta State is covered by the national grid. Which means Delta State should be able to provide electricity for 67% of its inhabitants without any interference from the Federal Government or any of its agencies. However, Section 63 (1) of the Act clearly states that ‘no person shall construct, own or operate an undertaking, or engage in the business of electricity generation, transmission, system operation, distribution, or trading in electricity, without a license issued pursuant to the Act or deemed to have been issued under the Act’. The only exception is for the generation of electricity which does not exceed one megawatt in one site or the distribution of electricity which does not exceed 100 kilowatts in one site. This exception does not recognise a State’s right to generate and distribute electricity outside the national grid and is so narrow that it means no one can generate commercial electricity - one megawatt is just enough electricity to carry ten 60watt light bulbs and two televisions.

Now if we know anything about Nigerian federal agencies it is that the rules and regulations are somehow designed to promote the most strangulating form of bureaucracy and corruption. Endless, meaningless forms which have to be filled out in triplicate, one year application processes, fees which have to be paid in foreign exchange and several layers of approvals from the Central Bank, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Federal Inland Revenue Service and sometimes just for fun, the NDLEA.
Unfortunately, troublesome licensing requirements are not the only reason why generating more electricity is difficult. According to power sector experts who spoke off the record, the power sector is simply not commercially viable. No one is willing to invest in more power generating plants in Nigeria because under the current tariff (the cost of electrical power) and distribution system, investors would not be able to break even. In modern systems, e.g., in the United Kingdom, it costs approximately $1 million to generate 1 megawatt of power. So to run a plant similar in size to the Egbin power station, which at 1000 megawatts supplies a quarter of Nigeria’s power, an investor would need $1 billion. This would arguably require a loan with interest requiring any investor to secure a guarantee from PHCN that the tariffs would be high enough and the revenue would be collected efficiently enough for the investor to manage the plant, make interest payments and make a little profit.

We have three major problems. One, eighteen cents is the recommended tariff but we pay six cents with government sometimes subsidizing. Two, most of the power generated and used in Nigeria is not paid for. Apart from dodgy consumers who bribe equally dodgy PHCN officials to take less, ex presidents, government agencies etc. all get electricity for free. And three, corruption within the system which ensures that funds meant to build generation plants and develop transmission grids get diverted into private accounts and party coffers.

In a nut shell solving the power sector problem is simple.
(1) Build generation plants (and thereby increase supply).
(2) Develop transmission grid (current network can only carry 4000 Mw).
(3) Improve distribution and collection system (i.e. get consumers to pay).

If it is so simple, why are we in such a mess?
(1) Generation – bureaucracy, regulation, corruption, fund mismanagement and unattractive tariffs
(2) Transmission – corruption and fund mismanagement
(3) Distribution – poor collection process, too many free loaders - including government

So, let us be thankful that we get any electricity at all.

Published December 16 2008

Read more...

It’s all in the ‘law’ - Constitutional Review Palaver

Interminable debates and consultations about constitutional reform have marked the Nigerian journey towards democracy, typified by the never ending calls and attempts to review the current constitution, the 1999 Constitution. From inception, the legitimacy of this Constitution has been in question first because the military unilaterally promulgated it just before the civilian administration took over in May 1999 and second because Nigerians were not consulted on it.

Since then, according to the Constitutional Reform Dialogue Mechanism ‘civil society organisations, professional groups, religious bodies, organised labour, private sector and all segments of the Nigerian society have engaged with the constitutional review process. They have organised meetings, workshops, seminars, conferences and produced position papers, model constitutions and memoranda at different times.’ None of which have been adopted.

A few weeks ago, for the umpteenth time, the National Assembly inaugurated an 88-member Joint Committee on Constitution Review (JCCR) under the chairmanship of the Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremad. Immediately the clamour of special interest groups, which had been building up slowly, exploded. As usual the attention seems to be focused on the same issues, to mention a few: the creation of states (people want even more states to aid underdevelopment and enrich a few), derivation formula & revenue allocation (because the Niger Delta is benefiting so well from what they have been allocated so far) and election reform (though why we need this is hard to understand, especially since Maurice Iwu advised the United States to learn from our electoral process).

However, it looks like we are beginning to learn from the past. The members of the new JCCR have been inundated with advice to ensure they do not repeat the mistakes of the past. To avoid the pitfalls of past review committees the JCCR should have a project plan to govern the process; include the public in consultations; prioritise the issues - not have a long list of amendments such as the last report which had 120 amendments; and stay away from contentious issues such as the immunity clause and ‘third term’ which scuttled the last attempt to amend the Constitution.

But from all indications it might be impossible to stay away from the contentious issues. All of the major recurrent issues which come up when constitutional review is discussed are contentious: state police? Some want theirs – with good reason if the condition of security and the antics of the police are anything to go by. But would this not give Governors the right to their own private army with which to intimidate and plunder? State creation? Every ethnic minority (read hamlet) wants to be its own state and while we get worked up about oppression of ethnic minorities if we have 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria are we headed for 250 states?

Some of the more interesting suggestions for the JCCR to focus on include campaign finance, a review of the exclusive and concurrent legislative lists and federalism in general.

The Exclusive List in the 1999 constitution provides the governance issues which only the National Assembly can make laws for e.g., national security and the military. The Concurrent List is made up of things which both the National Assembly and the State Legislature can make law on and sometimes this causes confusion. For instance, in Item 22 of the Exclusive List the Federal Government through the National Assembly can make laws for the “election to the offices of President and Vice-President or Governor and Deputy Governor and any other office to which a person may be elected under this Constitution, excluding election to a local government council or any office in such council. However Item 11 of the Concurrent List provides that ‘the National Assembly may make laws for the Federation with respect to the registration of voters and the procedure regulating elections to a local government council. What is the position and more importantly why would the National Assembly want to make laws for local governments when it is more practical for States which know the idiosyncrasies of their local governments? Maybe this interference is the reason why we have violent local government elections.

As for Federal Character – this is not only enshrined in the Constitution, but Section 147 on ministers specifically instructs that we must have at least one minister from each state. This must be the reason why although we only have twenty eight ministries, we have forty two ministers complete with all the costs which come with that. This must be why it took the President nearly six months to change his cabinet. Is ‘state representation’ really more important than the collective progress of Nigeria? What will happen to this untenable and expensive provision if people have their way and we have 250 states in Nigeria?

Let’s forget about extra States for a change and focus on election and campaign finance and set limits to the contributions individuals or corporations can make to political parties. Let’s find out who the 88 members to the JCCR are and share our views on what the issues are with them – let’s pretend we voted for them and that we can make them listen to us.



1999 Constitution Review Milestones

- Presidential Committee established Oct 19 1999
- Presidential Committee submits report Feb 2001
- National Assembly Review Committee inaugurated May 2000
- National Assembly Review Committee’s term expires May 2003
- National Assembly Review Committee reconstituted Oct 30 2003
- Senate rejects recommendations of Committee May 16 2006
(including ‘3rd term’)
- JCCR inaugurated Nov 20 2008


Published December 9 2008

Read more...

Navigating Driving Pitfalls

It is truly ironic that in a nation of un-navigable roads and interminable unexplainable traffic caused by bad driving and even worse roads, we have no less than four agencies (five if you live in the Centre of Excellence) concerned with enforcing traffic laws and ensuring safety on the Nigerian roads. Traffic and road safety law enforcement in Nigeria is a multi-agency responsibility covered by the Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC), the Police, the Vehicle Inspection Office (VIO), the Federal Road Maintenance Agency (FERMA) and, in Lagos, the Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA). Yes, unfortunately LASTMA is legally constituted under Lagos State Law CAPL91.

As families and holiday revellers prepare to storm the highways and inner city roads in a few weeks it is essential to be armed with the right information about motoring and traffic regulations. It is equally important to know the scope of authority of the various agencies – can they ask you for the receipt for the laptop in your car or even your vehicle particulars or is their authority limited only to checking the validity of a driver’s license? Unfortunately, there is a lot of overlap in the duties of these agencies and in a different world it would probably be comical to watch how they fall over themselves to execute their responsibilities.

As the custodians of the Highway Code, the FRSC is predominantly concerned with the safety aspects of driving: going over the speed limit (100km for cars by the way), traffic violations and checking the validity of drivers and motor vehicle licenses. So this group will routinely ask to see these ‘particulars’ and can stop you for speeding.

While the Police is arguably concerned with crime, that is fighting it not committing it, they can exercise stop and search powers on reasonable suspicion of a past, current or future crime. In addition, as law enforcement agents, the Police have a traffic section deployed in each State under which they can: control traffic (& arrest traffic law violators), inspect vehicle documents and, most surprisingly, issue vehicle particulars. At a checkpoint, the Police usually want to see proof of three things: (i) vehicle license and registration, (ii) proof of ownership and (iii) up-to-date insurance. In addition it is advisable for all cars to have the police issued document from the Central Motor Registry (CMR). This supposedly costs N1500 and provides evidence of registration with the Police and will do a lot to ease sessions with them at those inevitable road blocks.

The VIO’s powers were originally limited to inspecting cars for roadworthiness and issuing MOT Certificates. However, they are now involved in issuing vehicle license plates and drivers’ licenses along with the FRSC – another overlap.

As for the FERMA, they have absolutely no authority to enforce traffic or license laws and are strictly to maintain our roads, which probably means they are liable to being arrested under the prerogative of citizen’s arrest.

LASTMA, the agency that Lagosians love to hate, have wide powers and functions covering everything from traffic management to ‘safe guarding highways from encroachment activities of markets, road-side trading, street hawking and alms begging’. They can arrest, impound, remove & detain, tow away and declare offenders wanted in connection with a long list of fifty one offences provided in the Second Schedule of the LASTMA Law.

Surely the time has come for us to review traffic law enforcement in Nigeria. The death traps we call roads; the avoidable accidents caused by LASTMA officials diligently in the pursuit of offenders; the surprise checkpoints always around a dangerous bend of our busy, abominable highways and the complaints of many Nigerians are good enough reasons to review the responsibilities of the different agencies.

Using the 1999 Constitution as a guide; since motor vehicle administration is not explicitly listed under the Exclusive and Concurrent legislative lists, vehicle administration is a residual matter and the Police, as a federal agency should not be routinely concerned with this. This would free up the Police to fight the ever rising rate of crime and remove from their shoulders the burden of vehicle license and registration issues – especially when no less than three other agencies are already doing so.

Since the FRSC is a federal agency and legislating ‘traffic on federal trunk roads’ is the exclusive right of the Federal Government, the FRSC should limit itself to federal trunk roads and stay outside State boundaries. The VIO powers could be limited to within towns – since they have overlap responsibilities with the FRSC for motor vehicle and drivers licences. Finally, in Lagos, maybe LASTMA’s long list of responsibilities could be revised to expunge motor and drivers license management to prevent overlap with the VIO within the city.

In the interim, while we await sanity on our roads, we can ensure we are in full compliance with legal and traffic requirements and start gently pushing back when we get asked by the VIO officer for the receipt to our three year old mobile phone. Tell them you know it is not their responsibility to make such a request. Better still, since we don’t wear gloves in Nigeria, put the glove compartment to use and have copies of the enabling laws handy to wave in their faces.

Published December 2 2008

Read more...

Love thy neighbour?

A few months ago a twenty one year old was stabbed to death outside her apartment building in Queens, NY in plain view of neighbours while she screamed for help. A few weeks later, in Philadelphia, another man was brutally attacked with a hammer while riding in the subway with his young son and other passengers. In both cases no one did anything.

This condition of inertia known as ‘bystander apathy’ or the Genovese Syndrome is an established phenomenon in human psychology and refers to situations where different people see something wrong taking place but no one does anything about it. The common explanation is that each person diffuses responsibility by assuming someone else will intervene and so they each individually do nothing and feel less responsible.

I can almost hear people say ‘ that’s because the western world is so cold, so impersonal, not like in Nigeria where we get involved, where when a child is being beaten by his mother people rush to the rescue, to beg the mom and ‘scold’ the child.’ But that is not true. What struck me most when I watched the video of the assault on Uzoma Okere was what I am sure must have occurred to others: why didn’t anyone do anything? A young lady was being assaulted in middle of the afternoon by a group of armed men in uniform and no one tried to intervene or to ask them to stop.

Ironically in Nigeria we suffer from the two kinds of dysfunctional ‘group’ behaviour – we are quick to join mob action when action is for something ‘bad’ like setting an alleged thief on fire or destroying property. However when we can act collectively for ‘good’ then we are frozen, incapable of acting, the ‘siddon look syndrome’ in Naija speak.

Bystander apathy is not unique to Nigeria and vast amounts of research have gone into researching the role and psychology of bystanders during war, domestic abuse, child abuse ad infinitum. What is interesting is that while there are discussions in other jurisdictions about how to make ‘citizens care more’ e.g., with Good Samaritan laws, Nigerian statutes are silent on the issue, we can’t even get our sworn protectors to care about us. Today almost every state in the United States has a version of the Good Samaritan law but this was not always the case. Traditionally common law held a person liable if that person tried to help someone and the person being rescued or helped got injured in the process.

This was enough of a deterrent to keep citizens from helping people in need or from providing useful information to the police in the investigation of crimes and it was to deal with this growing apathy that, in 1959, the Good Samaritan laws were passed. The law is based on a principle of tort law that provides that a person who sees another individual in imminent and serious danger or peril cannot be charged with negligence if that first person attempts to aid or rescue the injured party, provided the attempt is not made recklessly. Prudently, Samaritan laws seem skewed towards ‘rescue’ from harm e.g., stopping at the scene of an accident or helping someone who is ill as opposed to intervening in or preventing the commission of a crime.

Clearly this law does not deal with what might have been the reason for bystander apathy in the case of Ms Okere – fear. Unfortunately there is no way to legislate against fear, especially the fear for life however, there must be a way to legislate to ensure that when bystanders get involved and they get hurt, the punishment of the perpetrator is much more severe and the compensation required is more. If this were the case, maybe Ms Okere’s assault could have gone another way. As a passive observer, the bystander does not realise that as an ‘audience’ he is part of the spectacle he is watching. He does not realise that although he is not actively participating in what is unfolding, he serves as encouragement for the perpetrator who sometimes feels driven to ‘perform’ for the audience. It is possible that if an equal number of people or more had approached the naval ratings to intervene, there would have been a break in the assault which would have provided the perpetrators with the opportunity to rethink their actions and back down. We will never know now but this is the ideal time to ensure something real and sustainable comes from this episode: laws which change the way bystanders and people who act out of moral decency and kindness are treated or protected. For instance in Massachusetts the law requires passers-by to report a crime in progress.
While the subject matter is relatively new with different applications and variations, many countries have adaptations of Good Samaritan and duty to rescue (applies to employers, parents etc.) laws and Nigeria should be considering something similar. Eight states in the United States (Florida, Vermont, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Ohio, Wisconsin and Washington) have laws which require a person to help a stranger in peril.

Undoubtedly, the fear of deliberately placing oneself in jeopardy is not something that can easily be overcome and the legal right or obligation to intervene might be of little comfort but the law coupled with ‘mob action’ for good might just do the trick.

Read more...