Going abroad to obtain justice

The people of Gbaramatu are in high spirits. On January 18, an English court upheld the N99.9billion judgment they obtained against the government at a Federal High Court in Asaba, Delta State. They took their case abroad following their inability to enforce justice at home.

Is the government lawless? Whose duty is it to ensure that the government obeys court orders? To lawyers, Attorney-General of the Federation and his counterparts in the states must ensure that all judgments are obeyed. Eric Ikhilae writes.

Last January 18, an English court upheld a N99.9 billion judgment obtained against the Presidency, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Commander of the Delta Joint Task Force, Maj-Gen Sarkin Yarkin Bello (rtd) by the people of Gbaramatu communities of Delta State.

The Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal High Court of Justice England and Wales ordered that the judgment delivered in December 2013 by Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High Court in Asaba, the Delta State capital, be registered in England solely against Maj.-Gen. Bello.

The court refused to register the judgment against the Federal Government, citing the principle of state’s sovereignty. With the verdict, the judgment-creditors – the people of Gbaramatu communities of Delta State – can apply for an order freezing Maj. Gen. Bello’s accounts wherever they could be traced globally.

In a suit filed on June 22, 2009, the communities alleged that the task force led by Bello descended on them on May 5, 2009 killing and maiming and also destroyed properties worth billions of naira.

Justice Buba (who now sits in the Lagos division of the Federal High Court) upheld the plaintiffs’ claims.

He held: “The bombardment of the plaintiffs’ communities in the Gbaramatu Kingdom of Warri South West Local Government Area of Delta by the defendants resulting in the demolition/destruction of houses, household furniture/wares, boats, canoes, domestic animals and displacement of members of the communities is in violation of Section 217 (2)(c) of the 1999 constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.

“That the sum of N49 billion is awarded in favour of the plaintiffs as special damages against the defendants jointly severally.

“That the sum of N50 billion is also awarded as aggravated and punitive damages against the defendants jointly and severally for the unlawful bombardment and sacking of the plaintiffs’ communities which resulted in wanton destruction of their houses, household furniture and other wares, their domestic animals, canoes, boats, sacred places, artefacts, etc and which resulted in total displacement of members of the communities for minimum of three months from 15th May 2009, the effect of which was that members of the communities were living in the swampy mangrove forests in subhuman conditions while others were in a concentration camp and suffered loss of income, disease, and mental torture and the education of their children of school age was disrupted.”

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Selekeowei Larry (SAN), told The Nation that his clients resorted to a foreign court because the government, during the Goodluck Jonathan era, was unwilling to obey the judgment.

“We waited for about three months for them to decide on what to do before we took this step. They neither appealed nor did they respond to our demand letters. Before applying to the Queen Bench Division High Court of Justice in London to register the judgment, we wrote twice to the then Attorney General of the Federation, Mohammed Adoke (SAN), asking the Federal Government to comply with the judgment.

“Two years after the judgment was delivered, the government neither complied with it nor challenged it on appeal. We know what to do next after we have successfully got the judgment registered in London.

“We have only decided to allow this government to settle down. You know the new AGF is just settling down. And we believe this government will not be willing to ignore court’s decisions, as we witnessed before now. So, we will wait for this government, and if it fails to act, we know what to do next,” Larry said.

Tales of disregard for court orders

This is not the first time a community would secure monetary judgment against the Federal Government but got nothing until a foreign court intervened.

There were the cases of the Odi (Bayelsa) and Zaki-Biam (Benue) who got judgment against the government for the destruction of lives and property in their communities, following troops’ invasion.

By seeking the intervention of a foreign court, the Gbaramatu communities are toeing the path trodden by their counterparts. It took foreign intervention for the President Goodluck Jonathan administration to negotiate with both communities.

According to the Chairman, Odi Destruction Case Prosecution Committee (ODCPC), Prof. Kobina Imananagha, the Federal Government used delay tactics, including litigations, to avoid payment of the N37.6billion compensation which the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, ordered it to pay the community on February 19, 2014.

Imananagha said rather than obey the court judgment, the Federal Government went to the Court of Appeal six times to overturn the initial verdict, only to fail on each occasion.

He said the saving grace was a London court, which the community approached and which issued an October 21, 2014 deadline to government to negotiate settlement and pay the agreed compensation to Odi people.

“The London court issued threats that it was going to enforce the full judgment of the court (payment of N37.6billion) if by October 21, 2014, the government fails to negotiate settlement and pay agreed compensation to Odi.

“It was this seeming threat that compelled the Federal Ministry of Justice and the leadership of the legal team, ODCPC and the king of Odi to the negotiation table on May 26, 2014 where N15billion (as the only and final payment) offer as compensation to Odi was made by the Federal Government”.

The Nigerian government has gradually assumed the image of a government that hardly respects court’s decisions. Cases abound in this regard. In October last year, some pensioners of the New Nigerian Newspapers (NNN) appealed to the Federal Government to obey a judgment given in their favour in 2013. The pensioners served the company between 1975 and 2006 when the company was still a parastatal.

About 10 years after the government’s continuous default in the payment of their pensions and gratuity, the pensioners instituted a civil action against the Federal Government and the NNN to recover the arrears of pension and gratuity.

“Judgment was given in the suit on October 28, 2013 compelling the Federal Government and the New Nigerian Newspapers to pay all the accrued and outstanding arrears of pension and gratuity. The computed judgment debt from January, 2000 to March, 2015 amount to about N8billion.

“But up till the expiration of the Jonathan administration, the defendants failed to comply with the court judgment. They also did not appeal the judgment,” Chairman and Secretary, Nigerian Union of Pensioners, NNN Branch, Kaduna, Malam Idi Sule, and Albert B. Iweka, a lawyer, said in a recent letter.

Also on January 13, 2014 Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in a judgment on the suit by the Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN), upheld the financial autonomy of the Judiciary.

Justice Ademola held, among others, that it was unconstitutional for the executive to withhold or release in piece-meal, funds standing to the credit of the judiciary in the Federation Account and Consolidated Revenue Fund.

He directed that such funds be paid directly to the National Judicial Council (NJC) for onward disbursement to heads of courts in the case of federal judiciary and heads of courts in the case of states’ judiciary as required under sections 81(3), 121(3) and 162(9) of the constitution.

The judgment has not been effectively complied with by both the Federal and state governments. JUSUN is still in court, trying to prosecute garnishee proceedings against erring governments in a bid to compel them to obey the judgment.

The practice of government’s disobedience of court decisions was rampant under the Olusegun Obasnajo-government (1999-12007), where court’s judgment were, in most instances, subjected to political interpretations.

In April, 2004, the Lagos State government, being led by the opposition Alliance for Democracy (AD), increased the number of local government councils from 20 to 57. The then Lagos government, headed by Bola Tinubu, had argued that Lagos’ population size justified the increase.

But, in retaliation, the Obasanjo-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Federal Government, on April 8, 2004 directed the Minister of Finance to stop further release of council funds from the federation account to all states, which created new local governments. While the other states, which were mainly PDP-controlled states, reversed their actions and got their allocations paid, the Lagos government insisted on its position.

Lagos challenged the Federal Government’s decision at the Supreme Court. The apex court, in its judgment on December 10, 2004 faulted the Federal Government’s decision to withhold allocation to Lagos State’s existing 20 Local Government Councils.

The Supreme Court, per Niki Tobi (JSC, retired) held: “Has the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria the legal right to stop the release of the statutory allocation to the local government councils…? I think not. If the Federal Government felt aggrieved by Lagos State creating more local governments, the best solution is to seek redress in a court of law without resorting to self-help.

“In a society where the rule of law prevails, self-help is not available to the executive or any arm of government. In view of the fact that such a conduct could breed anarchy and totalitarianism and since anarchy and totalitarianism are anti-thesis to democracy, courts operating the rule of law, the life-blood of democracy, are under a constitutional duty to stand against such action.”

The judgment was only complied with by the succeeding government of Umaru Yar’Adua, after the expiration of the Obasanjo era.

Also, it took the pressure of all – opposition parties, civil society organisations, right advocates and international communities – for the Obasanjo government to obey the Supreme Court judgment reversing the impeachment of Rashidi Ladoja as the governor of Oyo State.

Some 18 members of the Oyo State House of Assembly on January 12, 2006 sat in a hotel in Ibadan and claimed to have impeached Ladoja. The Obasanjo-led Federal Government was not concerned about the legitimacy of the action, it promptly ensured that Ladoja’s deputy, Adebayo Alao-Akala took over. But about 10 months after, the Suprme Court, in a judgment on December 7, 2006, voided the impeachment and ordered Ladoja’s reinstatement. The same Obasanjo-led Federal Government became lethargic in implementing the apex court’s decision.

Although the then Inspector-General of Police (IGP), Sunday Ehindero, restored the security details of Ladoja in compliance with the appellate court’s verdict, he, however, advised Ladoja not to resume office until the legal opinion of the then Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Bayo Ojo (SAN) was sought.

Apparently speaking the mind of the Federal Government, Ojo said the judgment could not be executed because it was declaratory, meaning that Alao-Akala remained the governor. He said the government would deal with anybody or group of people that might want to take laws into its own hands.

Lawyers’ views

Although some lawyers said though it was too early to assess the government, they stated that it has started exhibiting some traits of disrespect to the court. They cited the cases of former National Security Adviser, Col Mohammed Sambo Dasuki (rtd) and Pro-Biafran agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, who were reportedly granted bail, but were not allowed to enjoy the bail.

Femi Falana (SAN), Dr. Paul Adesina, Ahmed Mustafa (of the Centre for Accountability in Governance) and Jude Nwankwo said it takes a strong-willed attorney-general, who believes in the supremacy of the rule of law in a democracy, to ensure that the state and its agencies comply with court’s decisions.

Falana, while commenting on the cases of Dasuki and Kanu, noted that “for 16 years that the Peoples Democratic Party was in power, the federal government exhibited contempt for the Rule of Law. The Constitution and other laws were breached with impunity while court orders were disobeyed regularly.

“In the famous case of Attorney-General of Lagos State v Attorney-General of the Federation (2005) 2 WRN 1 at 150, the Supreme Court held that ‘in our democracy all the governments of this country as well as organisations and individuals must kowtow to the due process and this they can vindicate by resorting to the courts for redress in the event of any grievance.’

“One of the reasons Nigerians voted for the candidate of the All Progressive Congress, General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) during the last general election was his promise to fight corruption and end impunity in the country. Upon winning the election, President Buhari further pledged to abide by the Rule of Law.

“To that extent, he has a duty to ensure that all organs and officials of the Government operate within the ambit of the law. In particular, he should not allow overzealous security personnel to engage in any form of impunity and thereby expose the Government to unwarranted embarrassment,” Falana said.

To Adesina, “What happened under former President Obasanjo, where court’s decisions were treated with levity, could not have happened where you have AGF, who believe in the law they professed. How can you sit in office and call yourself the Minister of Justice and AGF, when the government you represent, does not believe in the rule of law.

“How can you claim to be the chief law officer when your government does not respect the laws of the land? I just hope the AGF, Abubakar Malami (SAN), a fine gentleman, will understand this and tell the government the hard truth before it becomes too late,” Adesina said.

Mustafa argued that it is wrong for any government to ignore court’s decisions. “I think very democratic government, who believe in accountability, should learn to always obey court’s decisions, no matter how unfavourable it is to those in authority,” he said.

Nwankwo said: “It is so shameful that democratic government in our country find it difficult to obey court’s decisions, when it goes against their interests. They should learn that the rule of law, the foundation of every democracy, does not exist to protect, solely the interest of those in government. Court orders/judgments must always be obeyed.

“To me, the task is with the Justice Minister, to always advise the government on the best option, which is, to always obey the court. The most you can do is to appeal a court’s decision, if you are not comfortable, but not to ignore it,” Nwankwo said.