‘Criminalising Ransom Payment, is Nonsensical’

In the fast expanding and diversifying legal profession, it is becoming rare to find a thoroughbred female litigation Lawyer like Mrs Titilola Akinlawon, SAN. Onikepo Braithwaite and Jude Igbanoi tracked down the press-shy legal amazon, who was in her element as spoke about various aspects of legal practice and burning national issues, like the proposed Bill to criminalise ransom payments for kidnapping, the ban on open grazing, the JUSUN Strike, and the pervasive insecurity that has encompassed the country

You pupiled in two fine law firms, Wole Olanipekun & Co. M. I. Jegede & Co. To what extent would you say that this background helped you in your Professional Career? Would you subscribe to the idea that pupillage for new wigs be brought back? That it should be a policy that new wigs should go through a mandatory pupillage for a year or two, or should they just be allowed to set up practice immediately they qualify if they choose to, as they do presently? Kindly give us the reasons for your response.

There is no doubt that my earliest exposure to litigation in the law firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co in Ilorin, helped me a great deal in becoming a seasoned Litigator. This was during my NYSC. My place of primary assignment was at the Kwara State College of Technology, where I was a lecturer. I took HND II Building Technology Students in Principles of Law, Contract & Arbitration and Diploma Law II Students in Criminal Law & Procedure. I spent an average of eight hours a week at my duty post. It was boredom that led me to approach the then, Mr. Wole Olanipekun, who I considered a very vibrant and hardworking Lawyer, asking to spend the rest of my work hours in his Chambers.

He took me on gladly, and did I learn? There is nothing like learning at the feet of a Master. The first trial which I conducted, was at a Magistrate Court for a Minor traffic offence. It was a criminal trial. The day before the trial, the accused person came to Chambers and our Principal insisted that my colleague – Femi Lijadu – sit in and participate in the pre-trial conference on our line of defence, but I had no idea that I would be asked to take the trial.

At the trial, Mr. Olanipekun led me, but when the case was stood down till after call over, he left the courtroom. Unfortunately, when the case was called again, he still had not come back into the Court. I had no choice other than to now appear for the accused person. In a very feeble voice, I informed the Magistrate that my Principal who was to lead me, had stepped out of the court. I then prayed for a stand down. The Magistrate in a calm voice asked if I was a Lawyer, and when I answered in the affirmative, insisted I should go on with the case until such a time that my Principal returned to the court room. Of course, I was so nervous and so unsure of my ability to do a good job.

However, when I had to cross-examine the first witness for the prosecution, all the discussions with the accused person the previous day came back to me, and the notes which I had taken came in very handy. I honestly believed that from the cross-examination, it ought to have been clear to the Magistrate that the accused did no wrong. What followed was that the prosecuting Police Officer was advised to withdraw the Charge and not waste the Court’s time. Of course, the accused person was then discharged and acquitted, handing me my very first victory as a litigator, under the tutelage of a brilliant, versatile and hardworking Principal. Clearly, this was a tonic one needed to become interested in the profession and grow as a litigator.

After my NYSC, I came to Lagos and resumed work immediately in the law firm of M. I. Jegede & Co., where I had previously served as an intern during long vacations. This was a different experience. My principal there was a Professor of Law who had just retired from the post of Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos. Under his tutelage, I was trained to look at issues like an academic, before reducing them to the practical level of a litigator. I had to do a lot of research and write position papers, before going on to draft pleadings. The position paper was a critical document, which invariably became the final address in the case.

In the law office of M.I. Jegede & Co., it was our practice for Lawyers to present written final addresses at the Chambers meetings, long before the Rules of Court made this mandatory.

I worked in this firm from 1982 till I disengaged in 2001 to co-found the law firm of Akinlawon & Ajomo with Mr. Ibukun Ajomo. As a result of the training in M.I. Jegede & Co, I can litigate in any area of law. I’m fond of saying that I’m a Litigator, when asked what is my area of specialty. The truth is that, even if a Lawyer is an expert in oil and gas for example, and needs to present his case in court, if he does not understand the psychology of the court, then his knowledge may not help his Client’s case in court. The primary issues are, what facts must you plead, what documents should you tender, what documents should you be opposed to and more importantly, what questions do you ask under cross – examination? All the above do not come within the knowledge of an oil and gas Lawyer without exposure to the Court room. I believe it is because of the above that in England, there is a clear dichotomy between Solicitors and Barristers.

All that I have explained above means that pupillage is a NECESSITY for new wigs, and it must be made compulsory for a minimum of two years, even though I honestly think five years would be more ideal.

Another argument is that the poor wages some law firms pay to young Lawyers, discourages pupillage. If pupillage is made mandatory, then minimum payment depending on location should also be made mandatory. I believe this to be the position of the Welfare Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association. If we do not do this, the quality of Lawyers may continue to dwindle, to the detriment of the society.

Another issue is that the amount of money needed to set up a good Law Chambers may not be immediately available to new wigs (except of course, those with privileged backgrounds), so the period of pupillage should be used to acquire necessary facilities to start the Chambers. In totality, I do not expect a new wig to start out on his own without any experience. No amount of studying law books, can equate to the experience gained in practice.

In recent times there have been increasing reports that other professions are defiantly and unabashedly encroaching on the legal profession. For instance, Accountants, Surveyors and many others now prepare legal documents to the chagrin of Lawyers. How, in your view, can this threat be addressed?

There is no gainsaying that Estate Surveyors, particularly, are making great inroads into the legitimate duties of Lawyers, by the preparation of legal documents relating to properties like Tenancy Agreements and Land Transfer documents. When Estate Surveyors let out a property, they already have a template for Tenancy Agreements in their system, so they just adapt same to the current parties and get paid 10% of the rent charged along with the 10% agency fee, which is their legitimate fee.

To address this problem, I would suggest that if the tenancy becomes a subject of litigation, then the courts should not admit such an agreement in evidence, if it is not franked by a Lawyer with the Lawyer’s seal affixed.

I know this would require the Evidence Act to be amended, but it is worth pursing because the aggregate amount of money lost to the profession in this regard is huge.

On the issue of Land Transfer documents, I believe that no Land Registry would register any document not signed by a Lawyer and sealed by him. In an attempt to circumvent this, Firms of Estate Surveyors employ Lawyers who are placed on salaries, to prepare and frank such documents.

Regarding this practice, I think the regulation prohibiting in-house Lawyers from appearing in court for their employers, should be extended to the preparation of land documents by in-house Lawyers in any establishment. This is very prevalent in Banks and Insurance Companies. Rather than firming out the preparation of legal documents as it was some years back, the in-house Lawyers prepare the documents and the establishment would charge the customer the same fees an external Lawyer would have charged, thereby increasing their profit level at the expense of the law profession.

In accounting firms, some employ Lawyers to attend to legal tax issues of their Clients. This should be discouraged. When legal tax issues arise during the course of filing tax returns by tax practitioners or accounting firms, such issues should be referred to law firms instead of getting the in-house Lawyers to attend to them. To enforce this, the Tax Tribunals should only take matters filed by law firms and not by in-house counsel. Maybe, the Nigeria Bar Association can explore an agreement with other professional bodies like the Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICAN), Association of National Accountants of Nigeria (ANAN), Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN), Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV) to streamline the roles, their respective members can play vis-a-vis the legal profession.

Sexual harassment in work-places is on the increase globally. This was one of the main themes at the 2019 NBA Annual Conference in Lagos, where the then IBA President made a presentation. It is so common-place in Nigeria, to the extent that many young female Lawyers have had to abort their career plans to escape from their harassers. How do we address this social monster?

The situation of sexual harassment in the legal profession is such a great embarrassment, because one would expect those who are the custodians of the law to demonstrate the highest moral standards, and not indulge in such barbaric conduct. I feel so ashamed when I hear of such practises among Lawyers, who are supposed to be above such demeaning acts. Maybe one should not be too harsh on our colleagues, since we are in a society which has completely lost all moral values, and where anything goes.

To stem the tide of sexual harassment in the legal profession, I would suggest that it should be included as a professional misconduct, which can lead to the disbarment of a Lawyer involved in such act. Of course, to achieve success in this, the victim involved must speak out and be able to follow through the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee. After all, we are in the “soro soke” generation. I think the Women’s Forum of the NBA, should lend all necessary support to female complainants in this regard.

If a person so accused is suspended or disbarred, I believe prosecution for the crime should follow before a Criminal Court. The NBA must use its standing to ensure that the Attorney-General of the State where the accused person resides is involved in the prosecution, and elicits necessary evidence to secure a conviction. To proponents of the double jeopardy principle, I would quickly respond that the trend is just rearing its head in our noble profession, and its best that we use a sledge hammer to kill it now before it completely destroys our most honourable profession. When female Lawyers don’t feel comfortable and leave the profession because of sexual harassment, where does it leave the profession? After all, a bird cannot fly with one wing!!!

My other suggestion is that there must be specific laws prohibiting sexual harassment in the work-place with severe penalties, in order to stem the tide of this evil act. Also, the courts must be strict in their sentencing for this heinous act. It is regrettable that in cases of rape, courts often times, sentence convicted rapists to two years imprisonment when the maximum sentence is life imprisonment without an option of fine, as stipulated in the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act.

What is your stand on the Bill the Senate is seeking to pass prohibiting the payment of ransom in the case of kidnap, and prescribing a 15-year sentence on the one found guilty of paying the ransom?

This is a most nonsensical provision of any Bill, that I’ve come across in my life. Why would you penalise a person or criminalise his act, in trying to secure the release of loved ones?

Surely, it is the duty of the Government to secure the lives and properties of its Citizens. Where the Government fails to do this, and a person is kidnapped and is at risk of being murdered, I wonder what the relatives and friends of the kidnapped person would be expected to do? Certainly, we would not expect them to fold their arms and do nothing, since the law enforcement persons would not secure the release of the victim. Clearly, the only practical option open to them would be to negotiate and effect payment of the ransom to the kidnappers.

Instead of wasting time on this very ridiculous Bill, why would our law makers not consider how the narrative of the state of insecurity in Nigeria can be changed? Why not consider a Bill to encourage using technology to fight kidnapping? Why not see about creating State Police? Why not see about the compulsory education of children and such other laws that would stem, if not eliminate the high rate of kidnapping.

As the Executive has failed the society in failing to secure the lives and properties of citizens, it would be most disturbing and disheartening for the legislature to compound the ineptitude of the executive, by passing this very ridiculous and senseless Bill to criminalise payment of ransom, and propose to impose such a draconian term of 15 years imprisonment.

It makes me very tearful and unhappy about my Citizenship of Nigeria when I remember that the USA sent eight Marine Seals to Nigeria to rescue a single American kidnapped victim from Niger, but brought into a hideout in Nigeria. Where is the Nigerian Government in all the kidnapping that has gone on in Nigeria? Well, we rely on the well-worn saying that “every man for himself, God for us all”.

The debate is presently raging about the Asaba Declaration, particularly the issue of the Governors’ ban on open grazing. What is your view on this matter, the legality and constitutionality of it? Do you agree that it was necessary to make this move in the interest of people’s safety?

In the Asaba Declaration, there were several issues raised, but the one that has generated the most interest is the ban on open grazing. In dealing with this issue, one needs to consider why this declaration was made in the first instance. It was to meet a situation where a farmer would have cultivated his farmland, anxiously waiting for the time of harvest, only for that hope to be dashed by herdsmen getting onto the land and their cattle eating up all the plants of the farmer. This has resulted in bickering, maiming and deaths in several communities in various parts of Nigeria. Thus, I believe it is to stem this unwholesome development, that the Governors acted to ban open grazing.

Can it then be said that the Governors acted illegally or unconstitutionally, in view of the fact that the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of movement?

Section 1 of the Land Use Act, vests the land in each State in the Governors as Trustees. So, the Governors have absolute control over the land within their respective territories and are empowered to make rules and regulations relating to the land, which is vested in them.

The question then is: whether banning open grazing within their States is illegal or unconstitutional? I answer this question in an unequivocal NO!

The Land Use Act is made part of the Constitution, and the provisions are expected to have the force of the Constitution. In that regard, having acted within the law, which vests the land within each State in the Governors, then it would be out of place to state that their declaration banning open grazing in their respective States is illegal or unconstitutional.

The argument in some quarters, that it would violate the herders’ freedom of movement as enshrined in the Constitution, is unfounded and so baseless. The freedom of movement granted to every citizen is simply for them to be able to move from one place to the other, and does not mean that their herds are equally granted such freedom.

It is even more annoying to interpret freedom of movement to allow herds or persons to trespass on another person’s property, and destroy same. This can amount to Criminal trespass, that may be punishable by imprisonment. It is the situation where herders trespass on other people’s land, destroy their crops and go away without punishment, which actually led to the Asaba Declaration.

The Governors should ensure that the required law to back up this declaration is passed, and see to the strict enforcement of same to prevent further violation of the rights of legitimate land owners within their respective states.

The JUSUN strike has been ongoing for almost two months. What solutions can you proffer to end it? Are the Constitutional provisions clear enough on the responsibilities of the Federal and State Governments in terms of the funding of the Judiciary? Some are saying that it is somewhat ironical that many of the Governors are reluctant to give their State Judiciaries and Local Governments autonomy, yet they are calling for devolution of powers. Kindly, share your thoughts on this and the call for restructuring and drawing a new Constitution.

The JUSUN strike, which for almost two months has paralysed all judicial activities in Nigeria as a whole is a monumental disgrace, and huge embarrassment to our nation and it’s standing in the comity of nations.

Surely, no business person would want to site a business in Nigeria, where an efficient judicial system is not guaranteed. This alone, I think should be a motivating factor for a determined resolution of this long-drawn strike action, which is by the way, quite justifiable.

If there are three arms of Government, and one arm is put under the thumb of one of the other arms, then there is no autonomy or independence. This lack of financial autonomy is the situation the Judicial arm of Government finds itself, and it is the primary reason for the JUSUN strike. I’m always embarrassed when a Governor is shown presenting cars to Judges and Magistrates on television. Why should this be so? The Constitution provides that disbursement of funds, should be made to the Judiciary from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Why then, is this difficult for the Governors to do, if they do not wish to trample on the independence of the Judiciary. As the saying goes “He who pays the piper dictates the tune”. This is why, in some States, scepticism arises as to whether judgement can be given against the Government or any of it agencies.

I do agree that there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the provisions of Section 81(3) and 121(3) of the 1999 Constitution. The former provides for the National Judicial Council (NJC) to disburse funds to courts created by the Constitution, for the Federation and the States. This may be interpreted to mean that it is the NJC, which is to fund State Courts created by the Constitution and I guess, this is probably what some Governors are holding onto, to shy away from their own responsibilities of handing over funds for the Judiciary from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the States to the heads of Courts, as directed by Section 121(3) of the Constitution.

On the devolution of powers, it seems to me that whether the Governors fail to do right by the Judiciary and Local Government, should not preclude the country from having an equitable distribution of powers between the Centre and the Federating States.

I think it is clear to us all, that the country is on the brink of a catastrophic collapse, if nothing is done very quickly to change the current way and manner the powers are shared. All powers seem to be at the Centre, while the Federating States have to go cap in hand to beg for crumbs at the Centre. True Federation will allow States to generate their revenue, and send a share to the Centre. We practice the opposite in Nigeria, as States that do not generate any revenue feel comfortable to remain so, because whatever happens, the Federal Government will still share resources generated by other States to them. This must stop. Each State should stand or fall on its own resources, while the Federal Government should only be responsible for few issues like Defence, Territorial Integrity, Immigration and the like, that concern all.

The raging arguments, which say that the Constitution cannot be amended because it was not the peoples Constitution, is not quite tenable. We have operated this Constitution for over two decades, and until now, we have not had so much clamour for amendment or abrogation. It simply means it’s not so much a problem of the Constitution, but of the human beings operating same.

Howsoever, whether an amended Constitution or a new Constitution, the most important thing for us as Nigerians, is to have a changed attitude to governance particularly those who are to implement the provisions of the Constitution. As Counsel on the defence team in the case of the collapsed Synagogue Church Guest House Building, it is on record that you filed a No-Case Submission, despite the fact that part of the case of the Prosecution was that the Church deviated from the approved building plan, while the wrong building materials were also utilised during construction. Did the Court uphold your No-Case Submission?

I should say right away that the case is still pending in Court, so I cannot comment on the substance of the case. However, the no-case submission was rejected, by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The defence has since closed, and the case is now for adoption of final written addresses of the parties.

Our society, law enforcement inclusive, do not seem to take domestic violence seriously, and we are experiencing not just an increase in it, in recent times, we have seen cases of both male and female spouses kill the other. What can be done to raise awareness and make the people realise that domestic violence is assault/grievous bodily harm, and in some cases, results in murder, and it is not just family matter as the police are famous for referring to it?

Indeed, Domestic Violence is on the increase in our society, thanks to Covid-19 and the attendant high level of frustrations, poverty, intolerance and probably influence of hard drugs.

Domestic Violence has been criminalised now in Section 2 of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, so that it the starting point. What then remains, is the advocacy and re-orientation of the society to the unsavoury consequences of domestic violence. Another thing that can be done, is to intensify training of Police Officers with a view to changing any thinking on their part that domestic violence is a family affair, to be settled at home.

Similarly, the prosecutors who will prosecute domestic violence cases should be trained to have sympathy for the victims, and not the accused persons as seems prevalent now.

One would also expect Judicial Officers to be more sympathetic towards the Victims of domestic violence by imposing maximum punishment for convicted persons, with a view to deterring others from engaging in such barbaric conduct.

A lot more advocacy should be done, by Government and Civil Societies. I’m a member of FIDA (Federation of International Women Lawyers), and we do a lot of advocacy in this regard. In Lagos, we have gone to markets and different communities, for enlightenment campaigns. Many more of such, should be employed to continue the re-orientation of the society on the ills of domestic violence.

Maybe the Government and Civil Societies can provide Homes or Shelters for victims of Domestic Violence, so as to encourage them to escape the toxic environment of the abusers. Most victims of domestic violence continue to remain with the abusers, because they have nowhere else to live.

Finally, I think if the Government works on the economy and reduces the poverty level, the incidence of domestic violence would likely decrease.

As a Lawyer who has carved a niche in family law, would you say the Child Rights Act has done anything to stem the tide of abuse against children? Two cases readily came to mind from the events of the past few weeks – one of a young lady living with relatives who made her sleep in an abandoned freezer and practically starved her to death, and the other, the famous Nollywood Actor, Baba Ijesha, who stands accused of molesting a child. What more can be done to protect our children?

What I have found out about the Child Rights Act is that, it is obeyed more in breach. We see many children out of school hawking, who are exposed to dangers of accident, sexual harassment or kidnapping.

Honestly, instead of the Act stemming the tide of abuse, it seems abuse against children is on the increase. The cases of incest in our society, seem to be more prevalent now. Even before the Act, incest was considered an abomination. What is wrong with us, in this society? We seem to have lost our humanity, and sense of moral values. One wonders what enjoyment a father can derive in having carnal knowledge or defiling his 10-year-old daughter, or as stated in the news, that a father had carnal knowledge of his three daughters aged 1½, 3 and 8 years respectively? Too many cases of this nature are now prevalent in our Courts.

The Child Rights Act at least, imposes penalties for offences against children, but the law, like most other laws in Nigeria, is hardly enforced. We have to strive to do more, in the area of enforcement. The parents of any child found hawking, when he should be in school, should be sanctioned and if possible, such a child should be made a ward of Court and kept in a special home for such children, to ensure he or she goes to school. The poverty level in the society is a primary contributor to the menace of child abuse, which most often than not, makes children hawk items to sustain the family. A welfare system where parents are given stipends for their children, would go a long way to help keep children away from such abuse.

Another prevalent problem of child abuse is child labour, which I believe the story of the child who sleeps in a disused freezer falls under. The persons who did that to a child have lost their humanity, and should be dealt with in accordance with the law, so as to be a deterrent to others.

On the issue of child molestation, as it concerns Baba Ijesha, it is best to let the court do its duty without prejudging the matter. The Attorney-General of Lagos State issued a public statement, that the case would be charged to court as soon as possible.

The Nigerian Law School authorities insisted that Bar Part 1 students remain in the Bwari Abuja Campus to write their exams. Many expressed worries over the safety of the students in the face of recent threats of Boko Haram, who are said to now be just about an hour or two away from Abuja. What is your view on this? Going forward, with the spate of kidnappings of students in the North, do you think that the Law School should continue to insist that students must study at the Bwari Campus if they feel unsafe there, giving the fact that the school has five other campuses?

There is palpable fear in the society about the spate of kidnapping all over the nation, not only in the North, but it seems it is more prevalent in the North. There are now frequent reports about College or University students being kidnapped, without any resistance from the security forces. In this regard, I think it is quite unsafe to keep the Bar Part 1 students in the Bwari Campus of the Law School. I heard in the news some weeks back, that Veritas University, which is also in Bwari, asked their students to vacate the hostels of the University. As a parent, I would not allow my child to remain in the Bwari Campus of the Nigerian Law School at this time. It is better for the child to be alive and well within my domain and lose a year of seniority at the Bar, than to be returned to me as a corpse. I empathise with the parents of the deceased Greenfield University Students. It is the worst nightmare of any parent. It is only God that can comfort them.

Well, I know it is the policy of the Nigerian Law School that Bar Part I students must attend Abuja Campus, so if they want to retain this policy at this inauspicious time, the least that the Authorities should do is to provide very tight security for the students, particularly when it considered, that Bar Part I students studied outside Nigeria, and may not have a clear understanding of the security situation in Nigeria.

The Nigerian Law School authorities may want to send the students to the Lagos Campus, which is relatively safe. After all, the Abuja and all other campuses of the Law School emanated from Lagos.

As a seasoned Litigator engaged in family law, why do we have high rate of divorce at this time and how can we stem this tide?

The rate of divorce is indeed, very phenomenal. It is alarming and the consequences of this may include delinquent children. The effect of the high rate of divorce in the society would be felt in later years, and I hope the sociologists have started their studies in this regard.

From my experience, I think the major reason for the high rate of divorce is the fact that many Millennials have no understanding of what marriage entails, but are more focused on the wedding ceremony. It is when settling into marriage, that they realise that their expectations are not being met, then the problem starts, which most often than not, results in divorce, because of lack of tolerance and any sense of perseverance.

The society has become so materialistic, that lack of money to buy luxuries is also a major factor. Parents and in-laws, also contribute greatly to the high rate of divorce. I have heard of a wealthy father who insisted that his daughter must leave her husband, since the man was incapable of maintaining the status his daughter enjoyed before marriage. You find out that the “nouveau riche” parents, are prone to do this.

The defiant training parents, particularly mothers, give to their children goes a long way to contribute to the high rate of divorce. Mothers don’t train their boys to be responsible and take care of their siblings, while the girls are not taught contentment. The boys would grow up to be irresponsible adults, who only know how to party, without thinking of how to help their wives with house duties. The girls would grow up to become wives who must have all the latest luxuries for example, iPhone 12 even though her iPhone 11 is only 6 months old. These are the type of wives, who in an attempt to satisfy their lust for the latest luxuries, would have extra marital affairs with rich men. Of course, divorce would be the end of the matter.

In stemming the tide of the high rate of divorce, I think it should be mandatory for intending couples to attend a marriage academy, where they would be properly counselled on the journey of marriage they want to embark on. Parents should spend more time to train their children, instead of leaving them to the wiles of nannies and housemaids who may not instil proper values in them.

Lack of fulfilment as a person leads to frustration, which can trigger domestic violence. This is a major reason for divorce today, and can be addressed if such persons seek help from professionals.

We should stop stigmatising mental health issues. Many killings in marriages, are as a result of mental health issues that were not treated. Advocacy should be high on mental health issues, to stem the tide of divorce.

How would you rate the success of this administration, as far as fulfilling its three main campaign promises are concerned – fighting insecurity – and corruption and revamping the economy?

We all live in Nigeria, and can see if indeed, the administration has succeeded in fighting insecurity and corruption, and if indeed, the economy has been revamped. Is there insecurity in Nigeria? Yes, Has corruption abated in Nigeria? It is capital NO. Has the economy been revamped? Well, your answer is as good as mine, considering the fact that a Dollar is now equivalent to N493.

Thank you Learned Silk.