After I was called to the bar in August 1985 on top of my class and at the end of my NYSC in 1986, I was faced with many rosy career opportunities including Commonwealth scholarship to study at the prestigious Cambridge University but the circumstances of my birth, a first son in a family of 22 children quickly narrowed my options to that of finding a job to help educate my siblings, as my father had retired as a police officer in 1985. My travelling out of the country at that time, will have been selfish and will have killed the joy of my younger ones and perhaps may have adversely affected their future. I resolved to stay behind and work and got into a partnership to practice as a private legal practitioner but as they now say “Nigeria showed me” the partnership was short-lived and I had to go for a paid employment and I eventually ended up in the banking industry where I worked for 21 years and rose to become Executive Director in Zenith bank and later Oceanic bank until the 2009 banking crisis.

For those who were very close to me, I had already indicated to them that I was retiring from the banking industry in 2010 when I become 50, to work for myself, so HRM Lamido Sanusi, (Rtd) simply retired me one year earlier and with benefit of hindsight, I am very grateful to him for this early retirement.

So I quickly started my private law practice in 2009 with a team of four lawyers explaining to them the nature of the law practise we are to create. A commercial law firm that will promote economic and social justice. We agreed that 15% of our resources and services will committed to pro bono services to our brothers and sisters in prison/correctional centres who can never afford our professional services. It quickly became our tradition that every lawyer in the law firm must engage in at least two pro bono litigation services each year.

To this end, some matters we have successfully handled include:

1. CA/B/2C/2009 – NKEM OKOLIE V THE STATE
2. CA/LAG/CV/336/2019– AZEEZ IBRAHIM V COMMISSIONER

OF POLICE & 2 ORS

3. LD/5620MFHR/2017 – ADEBAYOR RAZAQ V COMMISSIONER

OF POLICE & 2 ORS

4. LD/5624MFHR/2017 – IDRIS MUSA V COMMISIONER OF POLICE

5. LD/9287MFHR/2019 – SODIQ LATEEF V COMMISSIONER OFPOLICE & 2 ORS

6. FHC/L/CS/2319/2019- NOAH OSHODI V COMMISSIONER OF

POLICE & 2 ORS

7. LD/9368MFHR/2019- AKINTOYE GBAMILA V COMMISSIONER

OF POLICE & 2 ORS

8. FHC/L/CS/2327/2019-

MUSTAPHA OWOLABI

V

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & 2 ORS

And we have several others that are ongoing at all levels of our Court systems up to the Supreme Court. Injustice to any Nigerian anywhere is injustice to all Nigerians became our battle cry and we soon started to encounter every serious challenges from the Attorney General‟s offices across the Country and sometimes from our Courts. We found that the courts are constitutionally compelled by laws made by the politicians for the benefit of the politicians to pay

more and special attention to election petitions and political justice and had little or no time for social justice for the poor masses,in spite of Fundamental Right Enforcement Procedure Rules made by the CJN pursuant to section 46(3) of the Constitution (as amended).

From our experience the earliest we got fundamental rights matters through, the High Court was 18 months, sometime we stayed for 3 years and through the Court of Appeal was 2 years.

There is no doubt about it that the courts have a constitutional obligation to hear and determine election matters within the time prescribed by S285(6) and (7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

This is nothing short of discrimination against the poor who are in the majority in every society, in favour of the political class. In FHC/L/CS/2327/2019- MUSTAPHA OWOLABI V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & 2 ORS, the victim, our client had stayed for over 8 years in prison without trial for offence of unlawful possession of firearms, which if he was tried and convicted he will have been imprisoned for a maximum of 3 years!!!. What injustice? how can you repay him for 8 years of his life that has been taken away from him?

As I always opened my address in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, I tell the noble justices, that the only reason my client, was forgotten in prison without trial was because, he is not the son of the President, of a Governor, a Senator, or a House of Representative member, Ministers, Commissioners and Hon. Justices. They usually responded in protest and order me to add “(lawyer) or “Senior Advocates” and I always humbly obliged.

Constitutional law in Nigeria through the Judgement of the Supreme Court as authored by my humble self has just been published by the

Law Report Network, Lagos.

It is a discourse on the topical issues on the Constitutional law of Nigeria including, the rule of law, locus standi, election petitions, jurisdiction of courts, human and fundamental rights and their development through the judgements of the Apex Court of the land.

The importance of the judiciary, as the 3rd arm of the Government of Nigeria is illustrated by the very important roles that the judiciary plays in the adjudication of disputes, between the Government and the Governed, between various Governments in Nigeria, and between different organs of the Federal and/or the State Governments and between Citizens and/or other individual entities in the country.

Unfortunately, undue emphasis has been placed on political justice epitomised by pre and post-election disputes and petitions by express constitutional provisions over, social, and economic justice. Section 285 (6) & (7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Don‟t get me wrong, political justice – the determination of who our leaders are, at Federal, States and Local Government levels is very important. After all, they make our laws and determine how our limited economic and human resources are allocated and channeled with huge effects on social and economic justice. But the priority given election petition matters over all the other court suits, criminal, human rights applications, economic and business disputes has left a huge segment of our population denied of justice, including the poor, the weak and the needy in our society, who the law ought to give better protection.

Too many of our citizens are in jail awaiting trial for so many years, without any chance of seeing a court room, other than an appearance before a magistrate who has no jurisdiction over the matter for which they are charged on “holding charge” Most of these awaiting trial inmates, have no persons to speak or fight for them. They are not children or relations of politicians, Governors, Senators, Legislators or judges or justices or senior Advocates of Nigeria or even lawyers, or the big time journalists. But they are Nigerians.

Worst still, these are Nigerians whom our system, the Nigerian system has cheated in many respects. The system has denied them economic and social justice. Our and their common wealth has been embezzled by the political class. Their economic rights and their future have been

taken away by the conspiracy of our business and industry leaders and the so called multinational companies in connivance, with SEC and

other regulators.

Even the crimes they have been accused of have not been investigated at all or properly because either the police and other law enforcement agencies have not been properly funded or their funds have been embezzled. These in mates are hungry and sick because either the prisons or corrective centres have not been funded or their funding has been embezzled.

Any yet, a few of them who are lucky enough to have lawyers on pro bono basis file applications for enforcement of their fundamental rights, have their applications not given the urgency it deserves.

Some of these applications stay up to 3 to 4 years before being heard in the High Court and the few that go to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court suffer the same long delays. This is in spite of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules 2009 made by the CJN pursuant to his constitutional powers which expressly provides that fundamental rights application should be given the urgency it deserves.

As a Senior Legal Practitioner, I can attest that this is honoured more in breach. Furthermore, when these applications are heard, and indeed the Courts find that these fundamental rights have indeed been breached sometimes with incarcerations of over 5 to 10 years, our judges punish the violators with kid cloves- damages of N1million and most times with refusal to compel the violators to apologise to their victims and the nation, contrary to the Supreme Court Judgement in Jim-Jaja v COP (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 225, upholding section 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)

This is not good enough. Social justice is as important as political justice. Economic justice is as important as political justice.

What is more, even when the courts award these pittance as damages, some state governments appeal this judgement without paying the penalty, with a view only to simply abandon their appeals.

My noble lords, the CJN, honourable Justices of the Apex Court and the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of State high Courts here present there is need to focus on social justice and change our attitude to awaiting trial detainees. For every minute, every hour, every day they are in detention without trial, their rights are being violate by the state and the Government has to be made pay a high price for these violations. Lawyers who take on the task to file these applications are doing great service to our country. Courts and Attorney generals should not be looking at them as trouble makers. My humble submission to this highly revered audience is that social justice is as important as political justice and the honourable CJN and all the Heads of Courts should as a matter of urgency re-emphasise to their honourable justices that they need to give more time and urgency to the little man‟s case for fundamental rights and freedom.

That brings me to the menacing effect of “confession” in our courts and some trial judge‟s refusal to comply with the Administration of Criminal

Justice Act or law as the case may be. It is common knowledge that the Police and other law enforcement agencies hardly investigate matters diligently and to full conclusion before arrest. So they just arrest and detain and start their investigation by beating the hell out of their victims and procuring “confessions” and invariably in our law courts, the admissibility of a “confession” takes central stage and very long precious and scarce time of the courts. And our legislature

stepped in following the voices of our honourable justices at the Appellate Courts condemning convictions based on the so called “confessions” and suggesting safeguards. The legislature passed the Administration of Criminal Justice Act/Law as domesticated in the states. These statutes make provisions to guarantee that “confessions” are voluntary and to cure the disposition of the law enforcement agents of beating “confessions” out of their victims. See Section 15(4) of the Administration of Criminal justice Act, 2015 and Section 9(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice (Repeal and Re-enactment) Law of Lagos State, 2015 provide:

SECTION 15(4) ACJA-

“Where a suspect who is arrested with or without warrant  volunteers to make a confessional statement, the police officer shall ensure that the making and taking of the statement shall be in writing and may be recorded electronically on retrievable video compact disc or such

other audio visual means.”

SECTION 9(3) ACJL,LAGOS-

“where any person who is arrested, with or without a warrant, volunteers to make a confessional statement, the Police shall ensure that the making and taking of such statement is recorded on video and the said recording and copies thereof may be produced at the trial provided that in the absence of video facility the said statement shall be in writing in the presence of a legal practitioner of his choice”

Surprisingly, inspite of clear judgments of the Court of Appeal in ZHIYA V PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2016) LPELR 40562 (CA), AGBANIMU V FRN (2018) LPELR-43924(CA) and OLUWATOYIN V THE STATE (2018) LPELR 44441(CA) interpreting these sections

and holding that any “confession” not procured in compliance with these statutory provisions are inadmissible and no conviction should be based on them, we find it unacceptable that the High Court have continued to hold “trial within trial” to determine whether confessions are admissible under the judge's Rules and have largely ignored these statutory provisions. Even when these provisions are brought to their attention. This is a very unnecessary waste of scarce judicial time and has continued to encourage law enforcement agents to continue their old behaviour.

We submit that every “confession” must be subjected to the terms provided by Statutes- Was it done in the presence of a Legal Practitioner of the accused? If no. Was it recorded by video? Once it is not, then the confession is inadmissible and the poor victim must be set free. This will compel our law enforcement agencies to change course, and to start to do proper investigations and will protect these less privileged Nigerians.

ECONOMIC JUSTICE

From my experience in my long stay in the banking industry, it became very clear to me that most multinational companies in Nigeria are doing very well, a lot better in Nigeria than in their home countries and other countries they are operating and my little analysis revealed that the main reason they are doing so well in Nigeria is because they break all our laws and operate with impunity with the connivance of our regulations and of course our weak institutions, so I resolved early in my practice to fight for economic justice in our country through my law practise.

These companies become greatly financially successful violating our laws, compromising our institutions and regulatory officials and they employ lawyers, senior lawyers who encourage and protect them to even violate the integrity and sanctity of our courts and turn around to publicly on television to humiliate our judges, and denigrate the integrity of our courts, comparing them to courts in United Kingdom and elsewhere by unwarranted, vinolent criticism of our judiciary on judgements they did not read at all.

These destructive criticism of the judiciary must stop. It is more painful and condemnable when done by Senior Advocates of Nigeria who have not read the judgements they come to the television to criticise. Take for example the Senator Hope Uzodima & Anor v Rt.

Hon. Emeka Ihedioha & 2ors (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1718) pg. 529 judgement of the Supreme Court. They refer to it is a Page 9 of 14judgement whereby the Apex court made a candidate who was 4th , as declared my INEC the winner and call him the Supreme Court made Governor.

Lets purse for a moment, who is not a Supreme Court made Governor, Senator or Legislator? Did most of them not go through the courts in various election petitions proceedings to emerge as Governors, Senators or even President?

In this book, that judgment was analysed in Chapter 10 dealing with disserting judgements and I humbly submitted that Hope Uzodima won the Imo State Governorship election based on the facts presented to the tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on the results released by INEC at the polling Units and in accordance with our laws of evidence and civil procedure and our Electoral Act. At the Court of Appeal, there were two judgments, a majority judgement of 4 Hon. Justices and a minority judgement of Hon. Justice Frederick Oho before the Supreme Court. This minority judgement is completely forgotten by the popularity seeking critics of the Apex Court who had not read

the judgements of the Court of Appeal, and have not read the judgement of the Supreme Court. Any minority judgement at an intermediate court, is always very important for the final court in any jurisdiction including Nigeria, UK, USA and Canada. Afterall, the greatest reformist Judge that has ever lived Lord Denning himself said that when he found that he was less able to persuade his colleagues (most times 4 Lord Justices) at the House of Lords, he asked to be

taken back to the Court of Appeal. His reason was that it enabled him in the Court of Appeal to persuade just one Hon. Justice to form a majority judgement and that if he failed to persuade any of the other two Hon. Justices, he will write a minority judgement which he hopes will be before the House of Lords

Justices in the consideration of the appeal and may be and just maybe, he will be able to persuade 3 of the 5 justices to get a majority judgement of 3 to 2 and his reformist agenda becomes law of the land.

Coming back to the Hope Uzodima‟s appeal before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court preferred the minority judgement of the Court of Appeal to the majority judgement and on the basis of the law of “pleadings 101”, the Apex Court Hon. Justices resolved the actual dispute presented to it by the parties and the lead judgement by my noble Lord Kekere Ekun JSC in several portions of the judgement magisterically endorsed the reasoning of the judgment of the

dissenting Justice at the Court of Appeal.

It is therefore my humble submission that there are places for constructive criticism of the judgements of courts of every level, and that a dissenting judgement is the most potent criticism of the majority judgement which becomes the law of the land. A dissenting judgement gives the law faculties, the ivory towers a great source to ventilate the intellectual minds of our law professors and teachers.

They teach their students with these judgements and produce good lawyers and judges. We lawyers criticise the judgements of courts when we exercise that very important right of Appeal. Skye Bank Plc

1. Iwu (2017) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1590) 24; We can even humbly „yab‟ my lords, just prefex your criticism, with, “with profound humility and due respect” to the trial judge or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be and as Fela will say, we yab them. Yes, our appellant brief is a great opportunity for a reformist lawyer to criticise our lord justices. Writing articles and even books give us opportunities to constructively criticise our judges – definitely not on social media or on television, particularly by lawyers who have not read the judgments.

Finally on this point, it is my humbly submission that our judiciary has done well considering the constraints under which they operate. At least, they have done better than the executive and the legislatures – the other two arms of Government. And as President Biden of the United States is reputed to have said on the campaign grounds, DON‟TCOMPARE ME WITH GOD. COMPARE ME WITH MY OPPONENTS!!

Perhaps the greatest judgement of the Supreme Court on social and economic justice, in the last decade, for which they have not received commensurate commendations is the judgement of the Court in Attorney General of Kaduna State & ors v. Attorney General of the Federation & ors.

The apex court under the leadership of our incorruptible, courageous and fearless Chief Justice of Nigeria, Honourable Justice Olukayode Ariwoola GCON spoke truth to power and emphasised that this country is a democracy, and a Federation and that no body, not even the President is above the law and that the rule of law must prevail etc and saved the masses of this country from the well orchestrated determination of the Government goaded by an inept Central Bank to

punish everybody by simple change of currency policy that was never thought through. Permit me to quote - “The Supreme Court in the case of A.G. OF KADUNA STATE & ORS. V A.G. OF THE  FEDERATION & ORS (2023) LPELR-59936 (SC) Per Honourable Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim J.S.C delivered on the 3rd of

March 2023 held that:

“Inherent in their status as constituents of the Federation under a democratic constitution, is their right to be

consulted by the president before the exercise of any executive power of such magnitude as can have far reaching effect on the governance, economic and social order of each constituent of the Federation. Such right is inherent in the idea of a federation in a democracy.

Without it, the federation losses its sovereignty and the president become the sovereign and the Government of

Nigeria a dictatorship…” “…the duty is implicit in the provisions of S.5(1) of the 1999 constitution that makes the president an agent of

the federation. As held herein, it is inherent in their status as constituents of the Federation under a democratic constitution, is their right to be consulted by the President before the exercise of any executive power of such magnitude as can have far reaching effect on the governance, economic and social order of each constituent state of the Federation. Such right is inherent in the idea of a Federation in a democracy. Without it, the Federation losses its sovereignty and the President becomes the sovereign and the Government of Nigeria a dictatorship…”

“let me consider the issue of the President’s disobedience of the 8-2-2023 interim order that the new and old versions of naira notes continue to circulate as legal tender until the determination of the pending application for interlocutory injunction. It is not in dispute that the 1st defendant refused to obey the said order. The President’s 16-2-2023 national broadcast reproduced here in pages 27-31 demonstrates this disobedience. In disobedience of the order, he directed that only the old

200-naira notes be recirculated.”

“..the rule of law upon which our democratic governance is founded becomes illusory if the President of the country or any authority or person refuses to obey the orders of courts. The disobedience of orders of courts by the President in a constitutional democracy as ours is a sign of the failure of the constitution and that democratic governance has become a mere pretension and is now replaced by autocracy or dictatorship.”

Thank you very much for listening as I rededicate my life to the fight for social & economic justice in Nigeria.

DR. CHARLES .D. MEKWUNYE (SAN)

LL.B (Hons) Ife, LL.M (Unilag) MBA, DBA. FCI.Arb.