The Controversy Generated by Section.5 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, Is Practice of Law Subject to Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering?

The controversy has arisen and it is still been sought out whether or not the provisions of section 5(5) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 as it relate to practice of law and legal practitioners, contravenes the principle of lawyer client confidentiality.

The practice of law is regulated by Legal Practitioners Act and Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners; one is the parent enactment while the other was given birth to by the Act, and the Grundnorm of the land which is the 1999 Constitution that gave room for confidentiality between a lawyer and his client.

The practice of law is not an act of buying and selling that should be subject to an institution such as Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering, a child birth and under the control of Minister for Trade and Commerce, there is nowhere in the Legal Practitioners Act where it was stated that law practice is an act of buying and selling which will now bring this noble profession with the single term of seller and customer relationship.

One question that begs for an answer is when has the practice of law become a trade, real estate dealers, casino operators or jewelers? If the question is answered in the negative with the support of the Legal Practitioners Act which deals more on the activities of legal practitioners and the way of admission into the profession, then I will reasonably conclude that such a profession cannot be made subject to the extent law and be regarded as Non Designate Financial Institution by the subsequent Act.

Also the Chief law officer of the country is the Attorney General of the Federation who must be a legal practitioner by the provision of the Constitution, theere was never any where were the practice of law was place under the Minister for Trade and Commerce, a body not under an umbrella, can that umbrella cover the body?

It is my position that in aligning myself with the provisions of the Constitution, Legal Practitioners Act, Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, Section 192 of the Evidence Act and the decision in Registered Trustees of NBA v AGF & CBN (unreported) suit no FHC/ABJCS/173/2013, the Money Laundering Act cannot reasonable intend to include the practice of law as Non Designated Financial Institution and subject same to Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering which in the first place is not a juristic person and the parent body which is Federal Ministry of Commerce or Trade and Investment is also not a juristic person as held by the Court of Appeal in AGBOOLA & 2 ORS V SAIBU & ANOR (1991) 2 NWLR (PT.175)566, I cannot come to any reasonable conclusion on why a noble profession such as legal practitioners enrolled as Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court should be subjected to these two above named body who themselves are non-juristic persons.

By Adesheila Adedayo Samuel