IKUMONIHAN v. STATE (2018) LPELR-44362(SC) PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL APPEAL INTRODUCTION Typically, when an offence is committed by two or more persons, there is a presumption that such persons acted in concerted effort to accomplish or commit the unlawful/illegal act. This is called conspiracy and it is an offence on its own under our laws. The essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy lies in the bare agreement or arrangement to do or commit an unlawful act, or do or commit a lawful act by unlawful means. It is very common to see prosecutors charging accused persons simultaneously for conspiracy to commit an offence as well as the substantive offence. The question however is: must an accused person be charged for the offence of conspiracy before he can be charged for a substantive offence? Per AUGIE, J.S.C. while delivering the leading judgment in this Appeal gave the answer in the negative. According to him, “To start with, I cannot see where he got the idea that because the Accused Persons were not charged with conspiracy along with the murder, this is sufficient ground for this Court to set aside the lower Court’s Judgments. There is nowhere in the statute books or in any of the judicial authorities, where such a proposition of law is stated or expounded.” Advancing the position of the Apex Court in this regard, the Honourable Justice said “I have to agree with the Respondent that there is no law that mandates the Prosecution to charge the Appellant and other Accused Persons for the offence of conspiracy before charging them for the offence of murder.” FACTS IN BRIEF Maria Joseph Erhiyore left Okitipupa for Ode-Erinje on 2/6/1995 to buy palm oil.  Three days after, her body was found in a pit latrine behind the house of one Francis Omosaye. This necessitated the address of the said Francis Omosaye. Following his arrest, he roped in the Appellant and the others, and they were subsequently arrested and arraigned with him. Upon arraignment, the said Francis Omosaye was arraigned as the second accused, he pleaded guilty to the Charge and was convicted and sentenced accordingly. The Appellant on the other hand was the first Accused and he pleaded not guilty. At the trial, Prosecution called four Witnesses, including Inspector Omojeje John as PW3, through whom the Prosecution sought to tender the Appellant’s Statement to the Police in evidence but he objected thereto on the ground of involuntariness. The trial Court then conducted a trial-within-trial wherein the said PW3 testified as PW1, and the Superior Police Officer, who endorsed the Statement, testified as PW2. The Appellant also stated his case at the said trial-within-trial. At the end of the trial-within-trial, the trial Court held that the 1st Accused Person was not telling the truth and that the statements are admissible in law as they were made voluntarily. The Statement and the Form of confessional statement were therefore admitted in evidence. In the statement, the Appellant confessed that he lured the deceased to the said Francis Omosaye’s house on the pretext that he had some palm oil for sale. He sent Francis to call the others, and when they came, he and the other two took turns in raping her until she died. But in his defence as DW1, the Appellant retracted the said confession, and denied the allegation that he participated in the murder of the deceased. He put up an alibi that he was at the farm with his brother at the material time. In its Judgment delivered on 29/9/2006, the trial Court rejected his defence and found Appellant guilty as charged. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to death. Dissatisfied by the judgment of the trial Court, Appellant filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal wherein the Trial Court’s judgment was affirmed. Still dissatisfied, appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.  Among other things, the Appellant questioned why the appellant and his co-accused were not charged with the offence of conspiracy which, in his opinion, is the bedrock on which a claim that more than one person acted together to kill another may be founded. ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Court below did not misdirect itself in affirming the decision of the trial Court by finding that the Appellant voluntarily made Exhibits C – C2 and that the same were rightly admitted after trial – within- trial. 2. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal rightly relied on Exhibits C1 – C2 (which they referred to as Exhibit C-C1) in affirming the decision of the trial Court. 3. Whether the Court below was right in affirming the trial Court’s Judgment in view of the Appellant’s uninvestigated alibi. 4. Whether the Prosecution proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. HELD The Appeal was held to be lacking in merit and consequently was dismissed. The concurrent decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial Court, including the conviction and sentence to death by hanging imposed on the Appellant, was upheld. RATIO DECIDENDI ·  APPEAL – GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Effect of an abandoned ground of appeal “The Court of Appeal, to which he appealed, upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed his Appeal. He further appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing Eight Grounds of Appeal. But he notified this Court that he is abandoning Ground 8 of the Grounds of Appeal, which complained that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they found that Exhibits F-F5 [photographs and negatives taken of the deceased’s body], were properly admitted in evidence and relied upon by the trial Court, because the said Exhibits F-F5 only relate to proof of the death of the deceased and were not the only evidence relied upon by the trial Court in its finding on same. The said Ground 8, having been abandoned by Appellant, is struck out.”Per AUGIE, J.S.C. (P. 3, Paras. A-D) ·  APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Instances where an appellate Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact(s) made by Lower Courts “All the four Issues for Determination are therefore, resolved against the Appellant and I will only reiterate the well-established principle that where there is sufficient evidence to support concurrent findings of fact by the lower Courts, such findings are not disturbed unless they are shown to be perverse, or some miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of law or procedure is shown – see Ogoala V. State (1991) 2 NWLR (Pt. 175) 506 SC. In this case, I agree with the Respondent that there is more than enough evidence established by the Prosecution to support the concurrent findings of the trial Court and Court of Appeal, and this Court is therefore, not in a position to intervene in any way.”Per AUGIE, J.S.C. (Pp. 48-49, Paras. E-B) ·  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: Whether accused persons must be charged for the offence of conspiracy before they can be charged for a substantive offence “To start with, I cannot see where he got the idea that because the Accused Persons were not charged with conspiracy along with the murder, this is sufficient ground for this Court to set aside the lower Court’s Judgments. There is nowhere in the statute books or in any of the judicial authorities, where such a proposition of law is stated or expounded. Yes, conspiracy is the agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means, and it is clear in this case that the Appellant agreed with the others, including Francis Omosaye, to rape and murder the deceased. Nonetheless, the offence of conspiracy is a separate and distinct offence from the offence of murder, with which Appellant was charged and convicted. In other words, conspiracy to commit an offence is independent of the actual commission of the offence, to which the conspiracy is related – see Balogun V. A.-G., Ogun State (2002) 2 SC (reprint) (Pt. II) 89 of 96, Adamu V. State (2017) LPELR-41436(SC) and Ndozie V. State (2016) LPELR-26067(SC). So, the Accused may be found guilty of conspiracy, even where the commission of the actual or substantive offence is not proved. In the same vein, a discharge on a Count of conspiracy would not automatically translate to a discharge on the Count alleging the commission of the actual or substantive offence – see Sule V. State (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1169)33 SC and Adamu V. State (supra). In this case, I have to agree with the Respondent that there is no law that mandates the Prosecution to charge the Appellant and other Accused Persons for the offence of conspiracy before charging them for the offence of murder. The Prosecution was well within its rights when it charged the Appellant and other Accused Persons with the offence of murder without adding conspiracy.”Per AUGIE, J.S.C. (Pp. 45-47, Paras. D-A) ·  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – DEFENCE/PLEA OF ALIBI: Meaning and nature of the defence of alibi “What is the meaning of alibi? It is a defence where a suspect or an accused claims that at the time when the offence or crime with which he is charged was committed he was elsewhere. It is the law that the police must be notified of the suspect’s intention to raise it as a defence. Normally, the defence must be raised at the earliest opportunity by the suspect in answer to a charge by the police, at the investigation stage, to enable the police establish the truth or falsity of the claim. See;R. Vs. Lewis (1969) 2 Q.B1; Adio Vs The State (1986) 3 NWLR 714; (1986) 2 N.S.C.C. 815; Adedeji Vs. The State (1971) 1 All NLR 75; Danlami Ozaki & Anor Vs. The State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt.124) 92; (1990) 1 All NLR 94; (1990) LPELR 2888 (sc). In other words, alibi means, when a person charged with an offence says that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time the alleged offence was committed. That he was indeed somewhere else, as a result, he was not and could not be the one who committed the offence. See; Okosi Vs. The State (1989) 1 CLRN 29. Alibi is a defence, based on the physical impossibility of a suspect’s guilt by placing him in a location other than the scene of the crime at the particular time. It is the fact or state of having been elsewhere when an offence was committed. See; Akeem Agboola Vs. The State (2013) All FWLR (Pt.704) 139; (2013) 54 NSCQR (Pt.11) 1162; Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 84 . However, where a defence of alibi is successfully raised, the result is an acquittal of the accused relying on the defence. The defence is said to be a combined defence of lack of act and mens rea. That is, that he was not present at the scene of the crime and was therefore neither in a position to have committed the offence nor participated in its commission. See; Benson Ukwunnenyi & Anor Vs. The State (1989) NWLR (Pt.114) 131; (1989) LPELR 3353 (SC).”Per ARIWOOLA, J.S.C. (Pp. 50-52, Paras. E-C) ·  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – DEFENCE/PLEA OF ALIBI: Duty on an accused person to raise the defence of alibi timeously “I wish to add that I do not endorse the Court of Appeal’s postulation in Adisa v. State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 168) 490 that wherein the defence of alibi is raised during trial, the prosecution can ask for adjournment in order to investigate the alibi. What then happens to a holding by a Court of trial that the alibi raised during trial is an afterthought? And as happened in this case where the alibi was raised 11 years after the commission of the offence during trial? For the alibi to be considered the accused has to raise the defence timeously particularly at the time he is making his statement to the police to enable them to investigate the alibi to ascertain its veracity with a view to exculpating the accused from the crime allegedly committed. See lkemson v. State (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 110) 455 at 464: Ozaki v. State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 92.”Per AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (Pp. 53-54, Paras. D-B ·  EVIDENCE – CALLING OF WITNESS(ES): Whether a party is bound to call a particular witness He also argued that Francis Omosaye is a vital witness, who ought to have been called by the Prosecution. A vital witness is a witness, whose evidence may determine the case against an Accused Person, one way or the other, and failure to call such a vital witness is likely to be fatal to the Prosecution’s case – see Onah V. State (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt. 12) 236 SC. But the Prosecution is not bound to call all the eye-witnesses or every person present at the scene of crime to testify in order to discharge the burden placed on it to prove its case. As the Respondent rightly submitted, a single witness, who gives cogent eye-witness account of the incident, will suffice, even in a murder Charge – see Ochiba V. State (supra). The Prosecution determines the direction of its case, and has discretion to call any witness to prove its case against the Accused, and once it discharges the burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it does not matter that a particular witness was not called to give evidence. In other words, an Accused cannot dictate to the Prosecution or demand that a particular person must be called as witness to prove its case against him. In this case, the Appellant is not even in a position to contemplate such a move. Francis Omasaye may have pleaded guilty to the offence, and was convicted, but the Appellant, who pleaded not guilty, had made a Statement to the Police, wherein he confessed that he committed the offence. This was before the trial; why then would the Prosecution need to call Francis Omosaye as its witness. In such circumstances, the said Francis Omasaye cannot be considered a vital witness, whose evidence may determine the case one way or the other. Also, the Appellant is at liberty to call the said Francis Omosaye as his witness, if he feels so strongly that his evidence would assist his defence in some way- see Ochiba V. State (supra). Thus, his argument on this score lacks merit.”Per AUGIE, J.S.C. (Pp. 47-48, Paras. B-E) ·  JUDGMENT AND ORDER – ERROR/MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT: Whether every error/mistake in a judgment will result in a judgment being set aside “…At any rate, as the Respondent rightly submitted, it is not every error or mistake committed by a lower Court that would lead to a reversal of its decision. To warrant a reversal of a lower Court’s decision on appeal, the error or mistake must be so fundamental and crucial that it substantially affected the result of the decision in that it occasioned a miscarriage of justice – see Adisa V. State (2014) LPELR-24221(SC) and Kayode V. State (2016) LPELR-40028 (SC).”Per AUGIE, J.S.C. (Pp. 28-29, Paras. E-A) OTHER JUDGMENTS FROM THE COURT PETER v. STATE (2018) LPELR-44357(SC) ·  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: Meaning and nature of the offence of Conspiracy “Conspiracy, without more, is always taken to be an agreement entered by two or more persons acting in concert or in combination to accomplish or commit an unlawful/illegal act or to do or commit an act which, per se, is legal/lawful through an illegal/unlawful means. The essential ingredients of the offence of conspiracy lies in the bare agreement and association to do or commit an unlawful act, or do or commit a lawful act by unlawful/illegal means. In Omotola & Ors v. The State (2009) 8 ACLR 29 at 147, this Court reiterated the point that: “Where more than one accused persons are accused of jointly commission (sic) of a crime, it is enough to prove that they participated in the crime. What each did in furtherance of the commission of the crime is immaterial. The mere fact of the common intention manifesting in the execution of the common object is enough to render each of the accused persons in the group guilty of the offence.” Thus, it is immaterial whether the person accused had knowledge of its unlawfulness. The conspirators do not even need to be in direct communication with each other in respect of the offence. A Court can thus, infer, from the criminal acts of the parties including evidence and complicity. See: Bolaji v. The State (2010) All FWLR (Pt.534) 100. All that is required by way of proof is either by leading direct evidence in proof of the common criminal design or it can be proved by inference derived from the commission of the substantive offence…”Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (Pp. 21-22, Paras. B-D) ·  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – PARTIES TO AN OFFENCE: Who are participles criminis “This Court, stated in the case of Agwuna v. Attorney General of the Federation (1995) LPELR 258, as follows: “The law is settled that all persons who are participes criminis, whether as principals in the first degree or as accessories before or after the fact to a crime are guilty of the offence and may be charged and convicted with the actual commission of the crime. Parties, participes criminis to a crime, include inter alia every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence, person who aid, abet or assist them in the commission of the offence or who counsel or procure others to commit the offence or knowingly give succor or encouragement to the commission of the crime or who knowingly facilitate the commission of the offence. See Section 7 of the Criminal Code.”Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. (P. 28, Paras. A-E)   NOEKOER v. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR OF PLATEAU STATE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44350(SC) ·  COURT – CONTEMPT OF COURT: What amounts to contempt of court “Going by the findings of the trial Court and also the far reaching orders it made against the 1st-5th defendants [now respondents) herein, I must make bold to say, that the said defendants (now respondents) merely took right steps to comply with the orders made against them by the trial Court. By the orders of the trial Court, the stool of the District Head of Kwalla thereupon became vacant and therefore efforts must be put in gear to fill in that vacant stool which exists right from the date of the judgment of the trial Court, For the said respondents to refuse to take steps in compliance with the Court order, it will, to my mind, amount to disobedience of that Court’s order or would even be contemptious of the Court. See Lagos State Vs Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 621; Babatunde Vs Olatunji (2000) 2 SC 9.” Per SANUSI, J.S.C. (Pp. 12-13, Paras. C-A) ·  JUDGMENT AND ORDER – JUDGMENT OF COURT: Binding effect of judgment of Court “It is well settled law, that the judgment of a competent Court subsists and remains binding until it is set aside on appeal. That is not the position in this instant case since the judgment of the trial Court was never set aside. See OJO AJAO & Ors Vs OPOOLA ALAO & Ors [1986] NWLR (pt.45) 802; AMIDA & Ors Vs TAIYE OSHOBOJA (1984)768 at 76/77; ROSSEK v. ACB Ltd (1993)10 SCNJ 20 or [1993] NWLR (Pt. 312) 382; EZEOKAFOR vs EZEILO (1990) 9 NWLR (619) 513; GOMWALK Vs MILAD PLATEAU STATE (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.558) 413.” Per SANUSI, J.S.C. (Pp. 11-12, Paras. E-B) ·  JUDGMENT AND ORDER – JUDGMENT IN REM/JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM: Meaning of judgment in rem and judgment in personam “The situation has sent me to an earlier decision of this Court when faced with a similar scenario held thus in Owelle Rochas Anayo Okorocha v Peoples Democratic Party & 4 Ors (2014) 1 SCNJ 375 at 437 as follows: “Contrary to the submission and the contention held by the learned senior counsel for the 1st respondent and also the counsel representing the 3rd respondent, the successive judgments of three Courts over which the 1st respondent herein had litigated, are judgment-in-rem. The Black’s Law Dictionary, ninth edition defined judgment in-rem as a phrase which- “Denotes a judgment that affects not only interest in a thing but also all persons’ interested in the thing.” Again in the same boat is the case of Nigeria Ports Authority v Panalpina (1973) 5 SC 77 at 96 – 97 when this Court held thus: “Etymologically an action in personam is an action brought against a person, an action to compel to do or not to do a particular course of action. Actions for damages in tort or for breaches of contract are clearly directed against the person as opposed to actions which are brought for the purpose of declaring or challenging status, like proceedings under the matrimonial laws of the country or of legitimacy or an action directed against a ship or the res (as so known as an action in rem) or the like. Generally, therefore, all actions requiring him to do or not to do or take or not to take action or course of conduct mast be and are actions in personam.” Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Pp. 33-35, Paras. F-A) ·  JUDGMENT AND ORDER – JUDGMENT OF COURT: Binding effect of judgment of Court “It is necessary to point out that the judgment of the trial Court is executory and therefore remains subsisting and must be obeyed even if the person affected by it believes that it is void. The validity and it being the subsisting judgment remain until it is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction and not by wishful thinking. See Babatunde v Olafinji (2000) 2 SCNJ 26 at 33 – 34.” Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (P. 36, Paras. C-E) ·  JUDGMENT AND ORDER – EXECUTORY AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: Nature of an executory judgment “… The Court below took that slant since the judgment was executory and this Court had shed light on what an executory judgment is in the case of Oba Rasheed Ayotunde Olubumi & Anor. v Olabode Oyewinle & 2 Ors. (2013) 7 SCNJ 919 at 929 as follows: “An executory judgment or order is one that states the respective rights of the parties and goes the extra mile to order the defendant to act in a particular way or refrain from interfering with the plaintiff’s rights, e.g to pay damages or as in this case stop parading himself as the Easu of Iragbiji.” Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (P. 37, Paras. A-C)   GANA v. FRN (2018) LPELR-44344(SC) ·  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF GRATIFICATION: Statutory provision as regards the offence of using office or position for gratification “Section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act stipulates:- “19. Any person, being an officer charged with the receipt, custody, use or management of any part of the public revenue or property, knowingly furnishes any false statement or return in respect of any money or property received by him or entrusted to his care, or of any balance of money or property in his possession or under his control, is guilty of an offence, and on conviction be liable to seven (7) years imprisonment.” Per AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (P. 27, Paras. B-E) ·  EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Whether a receipt is an evidence of payment “Generally when a person produces a receipt it is evidence of payment see: Etajata v. Ologbo (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1061) 554.” Per AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (P. 21, Paras. B-C) ·  EVIDENCE – UNCHALLENGED/UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE: Effect of an unchallenged/uncontroverted evidence “It is however settled law that where evidence is given by a party and is not contradicted by the other party who has the opportunity to do so, and such evidence proffered is not inherently incredible and does not offend any rational conclusion or state of physical things the Court should accord credibility to such evidence. See: Okoebor V. Police Council (2003) 12 NWLR (pt. 834) 444: Omoregbe v. Lawani (1980) 3 – 4 SC 108 at 117 and Mainaege v. Gwamna (2004) 7 SC (pt. 11) 76 at 92.” Per AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (P. 21, Paras. C-E)   AWOSIKA v. STATE (2018) LPELR-44351(SC) ·  APPEAL – CROSS-APPEAL: Effect of failure of a respondent to file a cross appeal “…Ordinarily, this is a clear example of case in which this Court would have reversed the sentence passed on the appellant by the Court below and restore the correct sentence of death earlier passed on the appellant by trial Court. However, this Court’s hands are tied for the simple reason that there is no cross appeal against the sentence of 21 years passed by the Lower Court filed by the Respondent herein. I will therefore stop at that and say no more except to say that the appellant is just lucky to have narrowly escaped the hang-man’s noose.” Per SANUSI, J.S.C. (P. 44, Paras. B-D) ·  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY: Nature of the offence of conspiracy “On the offence of conspiracy there is no gainsaying that all the circumstances prevailing and proffered in evidence are such as the Court had easily deduce the commonality of the criminal purpose carried out by the actors in the robbery activities. Being an offence in which direct proof is a near impossibility, conspiracy is usually hatched in secrecy, the proof comes by inference from the facts and circumstances of a given case such as the present one where there is surfeit of materials from which the agreement with a common purpose can be founded. See; Kenneth Clark & Anor v. The State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt.35) 381 at 395; Musa v. The State (2005) FWLR (Pt.262) 243 at 353 – 354; Chianugo v. The State (2005) FWLR (Pt.74) 242 at 251.”Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (Pp. 61-62, Paras. D-A) ·  EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Effect of a confessional statement admitted without objection “It is clear from the record of appeal, that when the prosecution sought to tender the appellant’s confessional statement through PW4, the defence counsel did not raise any objection hence the trial Court without any hesitation admitted the appellant’s confessional statement in evidence as Exhibit A. The said statement was earlier endorsed by superior police officer in the presence of the appellant herein. Since the defence did not challenge the voluntariness of the said statement (ie Exhibit A) when tendered in evidence, the trial Court was duty bound to admit and accept it and to subsequently act on same to convict the appellant.”Per SANUSI, J.S.C. (P. 14, Paras. C-F) ·  EVIDENCE – CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE: Position of the law as regards contradictions in evidence “The law is trite, that it is not every contradiction in evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution that may warrant interfering with the decision of a trial Judge by an appellate Court. For a contradiction to be a fatal one to a case, it must not only relate to material fact but it also must lead to a miscarriage of Justice. See Queen v. Iyanda (1960) 5 FSC 14; Omisade v. Queen (1964) 1 ALL NLR 233; Asariyu v. State (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.67) 709; Golden Dibie & Ors v The State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1038) 30; Olatunji v. Adisa (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt.376) 167; Princent & Anor v. The State (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt.798) 49; Isibor v. The State (2002) 2 SCNJ 162 at 167.”Per SANUSI, J.S.C. (P. 20, Paras. A-D) ·  EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Whether a court can convict on a retracted confessional statement “The confessional statement, Exhibit A was admitted at the trial Court without objection to its voluntariness though later the appellant retracted stating he did not make the statement. Therefore what is at stake is not the admissibility of the statement but the weight the Court will attach to it which depends on several factors. These are, if the voluntary confession made by the accused/appellant is direct and positive which would be sufficient to ground a conviction. I rely on Joseph Idowu v The State (2000) 7 (Pt.11) 50  at 62.”Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. (P. 53, Paras. D-F) Culled LawPavilion]]>

"Exciting news! TheNigeriaLawyer is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest legal insights!" Click here! ....................................................................................................................... Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material and other digital content on this website, in whole or in part, without express and written permission from TheNigeriaLawyer, is strictly prohibited _________________________________________________________________ [Register Now] ILA Nigeria Branch Marks 10 Years With Infrastructure Financing As Theme For 7th Annual Conference The International Law Association - Nigeria Branch 7th annual conference on public-private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure financing, April 4-5 in Abuja. Details: https://ilanigeria.org.ng/conference _________________________________________________________________

NIALS' Compendia Series: Your One-Stop Solution For Navigating Nigerian Laws (2004-2023)

Email: info@nials.edu.ng, tugomak@yahoo.co.uk, Contact: For Inquiry and information, kindly contact, NIALS Director of Marketing: +2348074128732, +2348100363602.