Category: Blog

Rakesh Puri, former global head of legal and compliance practice at Elara Capital (India) Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of London-based investment bank Elara Capital Plc, is joining Mumbai-based law firm MDP & Partners to head its banking and capital market practice.

Puri’s move is in tune with the anticipation of a rush in legal projects for law firms on the back of a spur in initial public offerings (IPOs) and restructuring and lending activity in corporate India.

“We see a good opportunity in corporate finance as well as capital market and a veteran like Rakesh will bring huge value to the firm’s growth,” said Nishit Dhruva, managing partner of MDP & Partners. “On one hand, more companies are raising capital through IPOs or through term loans and on the other, banks are struggling with their non-performing assets, which provides us a good opportunity to expand in the segment,” he added.

A veteran of over two decades, Puri has headed the legal function of many private companies in the past that include Crompton Greaves Ltd, EMCO Ltd, Pittie Cement & Industries Ltd and the Indian subsidiary of CA Technologies (formerly known as Computer Associates International Inc). Before joining Elara Capital in January 2007, marathon-runner Puri was company secretary and head of legal & compliance at CLSA India Ltd. In 2012, he had also launched his own firm Exact Advisory & Consulting. “Collaborative work is the need of the hour and that’s why I have taken this decision,” said Puri, confirming the move. “I will look after firm’s (MDP & Partners’) banking, capital market and securities law advisory practices,” he added.

Many law firms, currently, are looking to recruit corporate law and finance experts from industry as as these professionals are well-versed with the culture, unique requirements as well as legal intricacies.

In June 2016, Shagoofa Rashid Khan, who was heading legal practice at IDFC Alternatives, joined law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas as partner to advise its clients on infra and project finance. IDFC Alternatives is the private equity arm of IDFC Bank.

According to Elara Capital’s web site, at the firm, Rakesh was involved in transactions of over $3 billion comprising IPOs, qualified institutional placements, private equity, and open offers of companies such as TCS, NTPC, Suzlon, Kiri Dyes and Parabolic Drugs and also worked on numerous cross-border transactions. “He has been responsible for setting up Elara in India and also for starting new offices in Singapore, Mauritius and New York,” says the site.

Like this report? Sign up for our daily newsletter to get our top reports.

Go to Source

(TNS) – Law firms in New Orleans and Baton Rouge are using hard-won experience from Hurricane Katrina and other disasters to help the victims, both businesses and individuals, of the record August floods.

Jones Walker, McGlinchey Stafford and Kean Miller have all launched flood- or disaster-related law blogs.

“One of the biggest legal issues for businesses is did they have flood coverage? And what kind of covered losses do they have for flood?” said Cove Geary, a partner in Jones Walker’s New Orleans office. “Sadly, as is the case for so many people, many businesses simply did not have that coverage.”

So businesses are looking for other forms of relief, such as loans from the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Geary said when Katrina struck, he was surprised that so many companies didn’t have flood insurance. He’s less surprised this time.

“People just don’t expect it. People think, ‘Well, gee, I’m out of the worst flood zone so I don’t need it,'” Geary said. “The truth is a 100- or a 500-year flood, they happen.”

Jean-Paul Perrault, managing member of McGlinchey’s Baton Rouge office, said the firm, whose headquarters are in New Orleans, and a lot of its clients went through Katrina.

“We did the flood blog to help, to serve as a repository for the click-and-get answers,” he said. “It’s not just legal analysis but stuff about insurance, questions arising with those issues, FEMA.”

The idea was to create a resource where businesses could go and get the information they need and/or directions to the agency or agencies that can answer their questions, Perrault said.

So far, the biggest number of queries on the blog have involved Federal Emergency Management Agency assistance and U.S. Small Business Administration loans.

Brad Axelrod, a member of McGlinchey’s business and corporate matters section in New Orleans, said that reflects small- and midsized businesses’ need to quickly secure some cash to make repairs, pay their workers and suppliers, and keep their businesses operating.

Once companies secure the funds, whether from the SBA, lenders or another source, they can concentrate on other critical issues, like re-establishing supply chains, he said. This can be a purely business issue but can give rise to legal issues.

Elisabeth Prescott, a partner in Kean Miller’s Baton Rouge office, said one of the bigger issues for landlords and property managers is they assume their commercial property insurance, like a residential policy, doesn’t include flood coverage.

“The reality is they certainly may, but there’s also instances where they don’t. And there are commercial policies that are written in such a way that they do include flood damage,” Prescott said. “So it’s always important for our commercial clients to not assume otherwise.”

It’s always safer to file a claim, Prescott said, since insurance policies can be convoluted.

Another issue property managers are working through is figuring out what their obligations are to tenants under the terms of the lease, Prescott said. The lease may give the landlord a certain amount of time to repair the damage. If the damage is great enough, either the tenant or the landlord can break the lease.

The answer, when it comes to making repairs, isn’t always black and white, she said. The lease may not directly state the provisions for flood. If it does, the contract may spell out what the landlord has to do in the case of “mere injury” or “partial destruction.” But those terms are subjective, and there’s no guarantee a court will agree with the landlord’s interpretation.

Geary said the main lesson from Katrina is to buy flood insurance.

The National Flood Insurance Program says that nearly 40 percent of businesses that flood never reopen.

In addition to helping repair damage, a flood policy enables a company’s separate business interruption insurance to kick in, Geary said. Business interruption coverage can cover lost profits and some expenses, such as payroll. It also may cover the cost to relocate while the business is restored. There also may be a provision for an extended interruption, covering the profits lost after the business has been restored but has yet to ramp up.

———

©2016 The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La.

Visit The Advocate, Baton Rouge, La. at www.theadvocate.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Go to Source

Go to Source

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — Paul F. Eaton, Jr. and Carl A. Griffith, partners in the Sidney, N.Y–based law firm of Eaton & Griffith, have joined Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, a Binghamton–based law firm with a half-dozen offices across the Southern Tier.

Eaton and Griffith will join Coughlin & Gerhart in an “of counsel” role and will be located at the firm’s branch office at 29 N. Main St. in nearby Bainbridge, along with partners Beth Westfall and Meiying Austin, currently the primary attorneys at the Bainbridge branch, Coughlin & Gerhart said in a news release.

The law firm of Eaton & Griffith has been providing legal services to Sidney area residents and businesses since 1973.

“For over 43 years, we have had the privilege and good fortune to practice law in the Tri-Town area. We are confident that our new affiliation will achieve our goals of securing continuity and consistency in providing quality legal services to our clients,” Eaton said in the release.

Griffith added, “We are both looking forward to our new association with Coughlin & Gerhart and anticipate a smooth transition as we go forward.”

The law firms contend that their alliance will offer Eaton & Griffith clients additional experience and expertise in real estate, estate planning, elder law, trust and estate administration, and municipal law.

Coughlin & Gerhart, which was founded in the 1890s, has grown to be a multi-service law firm, with more than 45 lawyers and a professional support staff. The firm’s main office is located at 99 Corporate Drive in Binghamton. In addition to Bainbridge, it also has branch offices in Ithaca, Owego, Hancock, Walton, and Montrose, Pennsylvania.

 

Contact The Business Journal News Network at news@cnybj.com

 

 

 

 

Go to Source

Wednesday, 12 October 2016, 11:14 am Press Release: NZ LAW

Kristine King appointed Chair of NZ Law Limited and Two New
Directors Elected

Women make up almost 50% of board

NZ
LAW Limited has announced the appointment of its new chair
– Kristine King – and the election of two new directors
to its board – Natalie Gaskin and Daniel (Dan) Moore.
These appointments took effect from 7 October 2016. NZ
LAW’s board now comprises three women and four
men.

Kristine King succeeds Auckland lawyer, Michael
Busch, who has retired from NZ LAW’s board. Kristine says,
“The board and I would like to acknowledge the
contribution Michael Busch has made to the board as a
director for seven years, and in the past three years as
chairman. As chair he has bought a level of enthusiasm and
professionalism that has greatly benefited the board and the
group. Under his leadership, NZ LAW has implemented a number
of new initiatives to support and encourage our members to
tackle the challenges that face legal professionals.

“We
are also pleased that NZ LAW acknowledges the strong
contribution that women have in its member firms by having
nearly 50% female representation on our board. Women have a
significant part to play in the governance of any
organisation and NZ LAW is well pleased to be leading the
way.”

Kristine King was elected to NZ LAW’s board in
2012, with special responsibilities for the financial
portfolio. Kristine King is a director of Duncan King Law a
boutique practice in Newmarket, Auckland following a merger
of several local firms. Kristine’s areas of practice are
property, trusts and commercial matters with a special
interest in subdivisions. Kristine is a regular public
speaker and presents on a number of property and asset
protection issues for ANZ, Bayleys Real Estate and the
Auckland Property Investors Association. In addition
Kristine volunteers time to the New Zealand Law Society as a
Standards Committee Lawyer Member in Auckland.

New
director, Natalie Gaskin is a partner of Wellington law
firm, Johnston Lawrence Ltd and advises clients on
commercial, property and trust matters. Natalie is one of
New Zealand’s top amateur long-course triathletes and
competes nationally as well as internationally in ironman
and half-ironman events. She recently placed second in her
division at the 70.3 (half-ironman) World Champs in
Mooloolaba and achieved a top-10 finish at the Ironman World
Champs in Kona, Hawaii.

Hamilton lawyer, Dan Moore, is a
commercial law partner at Norris Ward McKinnon specialising
in joint ventures, IT matters, commercial property and
construction law. Dan is also a chair of the Waikato Rugby
Union’s judiciary and appeals panels and a member of the
board of trustees for the Waikato Diocesan School for Girls.

Ms King says, “We welcome Natalie Gaskin and Dan Moore
to the board and we look forward to their contributions to
the group. NZ LAW would also like to acknowledge the long
service to the board of David Graham of Panmure member firm,
DG Law Limited. He retires from the board having completed
five years as a director. David has been pivotal in driving
the group’s benchmarking initiatives and library
portfolio.

NZ LAW’s board of directors now
comprises:

• Kristine King, Duncan King Law, Newmarket,
Auckland (chair) with directors

• Michael de Buyzer,
Berry & Co, Oamaru

• Gerard DeCourcy, Downie Stewart,
Dunedin

• Natalie Gaskin, Johnston Lawrence,
Wellington

• Jacquie Gray, Gifford Devine,
Hastings

• Mark Henderson, Corcoran French,
Christchurch, and

• Dan Moore, Norris Ward McKinnon,
Hamilton.

ends

© Scoop Media

Go to Source

Go to Source

Business

[ 2016-10-11 ]

Automobile firms push for strict regulation on car importation
Automobile companies operating in Ghana are
unhappy about the strident increase in the
importation of used cars into the country.

Most of the used cars manufactured in Europe do
not meet the Ghana’s environmental standards.

The automobile companies say the lapses in the
enforcement of laws regulating the importation of
used cars are affecting their business and some
users of the said vehicles.

One of such automobile companies is the Nissan
Group of Africa.

Speaking at an event to unveil the New Nissan
ALTIMA in Ghana, the Managing Director in charge
of Sales and marketing for the Sub Saharan Region,
Xavier Gobille, said it is time government moved
to streamline the importation of used cars.

I think the job of the manufacturer, regulator,
government and local authority is to protect the
consumer and dumping of used cars is not the right
thing to do for the consumer”.

He believes the move will not only benefit
consumers but also the government.

“you cant just regulate everything but you need
to regulate what is good for the consumer in terms
of safety and health, and I really believe that is
the purpose of the law.

Source – Starrfm

---

… go Back

Go to Source

Fast-growing companies across the North East could see their expansion driven further and faster if proposed transport improvements for the region are delivered in full.

Experts at law firm Ward Hadaway, which organises the definitive run-down of the fastest growing companies in the region, the Ward Hadaway North East Fastest 50 , say that links to other parts of the UK and the world already help North East businesses compete at the highest level.

And they add that with transport set to play an even bigger role for the region in the years to come as the UK deals with the impact of Brexit, further improvements will be crucial to continued and increased prosperity in the North East.

Dean Murray, partner in the commercial team at Ward Hadaway, who works with a range of major companies in the transport sector, said: “The North East’s existing transport links already make a vital contribution to the regional economy and are particularly important to the region’s status as a net exporter of goods and services.

“There is also plenty of evidence to show that in many respects transport in the region is already going from strength to strength.

“For example, last month Newcastle International Airport revealed that it is carrying record numbers of passengers – 4.6m in 2015 – with revenues and profits also growing and a marked increase in traffic from hub carriers Air France and Emirates.

“The recent announcement from Heathrow Airport of plans to further expand domestic flights is also good news for the North East and further strengthens our connections worldwide.

“As well as making the best use of flight connections, many of the companies in this year’s Ward Hadaway North East Fastest 50 and in previous years have taken advantage of the region’s capabilities in the ports sector to ship goods around the world.

“Many of the region’s ports are seeing increases in demand for their services from freight and passenger liners whilst the ports themselves are planning major investments in areas such as renewable energy.

“And major public transport operators based in the North East, such as Arriva and Go-Ahead, are continuing to expand their operations not just in the UK but increasingly overseas.

“However, despite this encouraging picture, there is the potential for much more to come, which could further benefit all kinds of businesses right across the region.”

Devolution still has potential to shape future of North East, says law firm boss

Mr Murray cited the pioneering agreement reached earlier this year between Northern port operators PD Ports, Port of Tyne, ABP Ports and Peel Ports to create the Northern Ports Strategy.

Amongst other things, this calls for £100m of Government money to be invested in an East-West freight ‘super corridor’, boosting road and rail links to enable more goods to pass through Northern ports on both sides of the country.

Mr Murray said: “At the moment, 60% of freight destined for the North travels through Southern ports – imagine how much time, fuel and resources could be saved if a greater proportion went through the North’s ports.

“It would also greatly increase the capacity for more goods produced in this region to be shipped via North East ports across the world.”

Transport for the North has weighed in to the topic with its Northern Freight and Logistics Report, which was published last month.

This highlights the potential for the North’s freight and logistics sector to make a significant contribution to the North’s overall economy with a forecast potential £35bn worth of benefits by 2060, as well as making a positive contribution to the sustainability agenda by encouraging more freight on rail.

Transport for the North is also campaigning for faster and more regular transport links between the major urban areas of the North.

Mr Murray said: “Further improving road and rail connections between the North’s key urban areas has the potential to create a major boost for the North East economy.

“Not only will it make it easier and faster to move goods and services between these main centres, it will also bring these centres closer together, greatly increasing the potential for co-operation, allowing industry clusters to develop and supporting trade and business generation.

“There is already much to shout about in the Ward Hadaway North East Fastest 50 – transport has the potential to turn the volume up even further.”

The winners of the Ward Hadaway North East Fastest 50 Awards for 2016 will be revealed at Baltic, the Centre for Contemporary Art, in Gateshead on Friday.

Awards will be announced for the fastest growing small business, fastest growing medium-sized business and fastest growing large business with one of these three winners going on to be crowned as the overall fastest growing North East business for 2016.

Go to Source

New York law firm Shearman & Sterling LLP said recently it plans to cull the ranks of lawyers who share in its profits, by demoting some partners to a lower-paid rung of the law firm’s hierarchy.

The move, unthinkable a generation ago, has become a reality of modern-day legal practice.

Faced with client pressure to keep down costs and industry competition to achieve the highest profits, law firms now frequently assess…

Go to Source

Few Nigerian lawyers, have over the years, distinguished themselves in other jurisdictions, especially the United Kingdom. Professor Fidelis Oditah QC SAN is one of such. In a chat with Onikepo Braithwaite, Jude Igbanoi and Tobi Soniyi, he gives a legal perspective on the raid of the Judges by the DSS, and the ongoing debate over the proposed sale of the nation’s assets, which he supports with a caveat. He also spoke on a wide range of national and professional issues and compares legal practice in the UK and Nigeria, jurisdictions both of which he practices in.

What is your view on the Dawn Raid of some of the Federal High Court and Supreme Court Judges by the DSS today?
Like most Nigerians I woke up with that breaking news. I felt very sad because, the commando style arrests and attempted abduction of serving judicial officers are entirely misguided, represent a further misadventure in our democratic journey, and threaten to return the country to its recent dark days. The manner of the arrests and attempted abduction represents the height of impunity and breakdown of law and order. In all circumstances, the rule of law must prevail. There can be no excuse for the shameful desecration of the rule of law by the DSS. We cannot condone such jungle justice under any pretext and I fear that the misguided actions of the DSS have done more harm than good, to the fight against corruption. The DSS is seeking to return us to the rule of force, but that can only presage a breakdown of law and order. Whatever the alleged crimes are, there must be due process. Was any of the Judges invited for interrogation and refused? Are public officers suspected of crimes arrested by the DSS in such commando style? We must strengthen our institutions rather than weaken them. The actions of the DSS show how very weak our institutions are, and how they can be manipulated and misused for ulterior purposes. We need strong and independent institutions, not strong Presidents or DSS Directors. Our judiciary cannot be intimidated or cowed. We must expose and condemn abuse of power, whoever the abuser or the abused is.

To be clear, Judges like all of us, are subject to the rule of law, including the criminal law of Nigeria. If they commit offences, they should be investigated and prosecuted like any other citizen. And, if found guilty, should be sentenced like any other citizen. The judicial office cannot be used to cloak corruption or any other crime. Judges should be paragons of virtue, not petty or serious criminals abusing and desecrating their judicial oaths. There are known instances in the United States and other countries, of Judges being imprisoned for corruption after they were investigated, prosecuted and convicted, following due process. We should do the same in Nigeria and cleanse our judiciary of the criminals amongst them masquerading as Judges and abusing their judicial powers. So far, the National Judicial Council (NJC) has shown little appetite to prosecute erring Judges, preferring to retire or dismiss those found guilty and in some cases with full benefit. Such decisions do not serve the public interest, and must be corrected. We expect the NJC to recommend criminal Judges for prosecution, otherwise it risks undermining public confidence in the judicial system and in the NJC¹s ability to discipline erring Judges.

Finally, as we condemn the show of shame by the DSS, we must not lose sight of the fact that judicial corruption has become the bane of the Nigerian justice system. Many Judges are corrupt and corruption takes a variety of forms. What is common to judicial corruption in all its forms, is that the case is thrown and justice is miscarried. Because of the general fall in the standard of our Judges and adjudication, it is often difficult to tell where incompetence ends and corruption begins. But given that there should be no room for incompetence or corruption, we call on the NJC to be more proactive in disciplining incompetent or corrupt judges, while we commend and eulogise the thousands of honest Judges doing their best for the country, under the most challenging circumstances created by executive and legislative corruption.

Learned QC SAN are there any constitutional provisions and other laws that allow for the sale of Nigeria national assets by the Federal Government? If so, do they stipulate any conditions for such sales?
Inherent in the concept of ownership is the power and ability to dispose of the bundle of rights constituting the ownership, unless there is a prohibition against alienation or disposal. Indeed one of the features of ownership of an asset which is inherent in everything capable of being the subject of ownership is the power of disposal. There is therefore no need to search for a statutory or constitutional power to dispose of an asset owned by Nigeria. Like any other owner, Nigeria as the owner of an asset has inherent power to dispose of its assets unless there is an express or implied prohibition against disposal. And Nigeria’s dispositive power is generally exercisable by the executive arm of the government. There can be no doubt therefore that Nigeria has the power to dispose of its assets.

In addition, there are a number of statutory provisions which make express provisions for the disposal of assets by identified functionaries of the government. Two examples are, first, the Petroleum Act 1969, gives the Minister of Petroleum power to grant oil exploration licences, oil prospecting licences and oil mining leases – all species of asset disposal and, second, the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation) Act 1998 which lists specified public enterprises for partial or total divestiture and gave power to add to the list by a publication in the Gazette.

Under section 16(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, the Government is mandated to harness the resources of the nation and promote national prosperity and an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy. Section 16(2) requires the government to harness and distribute the material resources of the nation for as best as possible, to serve the common good. How can this objective be attained if there is no power of disposal of national assets?
The power of disposal of assets owned by Nigeria is exercised routinely. We concessioned our ports and are about to concession our airports. The Federal Government disposed of many of its landed properties in many parts of Nigeria. This Day newspaper of 4 October 2016 carried an advertisement of the proposed sale of two aircrafts from the Presidential fleet. That is a proposed disposal. There is no distinction for this purpose between strategic and non-strategic assets. The executive power to dispose is constrained by the well known public law principles that the power of disposal must be exercised for proper purpose, in good faith, for the purpose of raising revenue or stopping waste or some other identified public benefit.

In addition, the Public Procurement Act lays down procedures and safeguards for the disposal of national assets, eg sections 55 and 56, eg that: (i) the primary source of receiving offers for the purchase of any Government asset shall be via an open competitive bidding, (ii) a valuation report must be prepared for the property by an independent valuer, (iii) the disposal of assets shall be planned and integrated into the income and expenditure budget projection of Government, and (iv) the timing of the disposal of the assets shall take place when the most advantageous returns can be obtained for the asset in order to maximise revenue accruing to government.
If the sale process is transparent, full value is achieved for the national coffers and the sale proceeds are invested in critical infrastructure. Asset sales should be encouraged. A sale in such circumstances would make Nigeria’s balance sheet more liquid and enhance the value of Nigeria. Past experiences do not suggest that Nigeria has the political will to achieve these objectives.

The Senate seems to be against the sale of national assets. What is your opinion?
I am aware that on Wednesday, 28 September 2016, the Minister of Information stated that the Government was yet to make a decision on this matter and that reports suggesting an imminent sale were mere speculations. Be that as it may, as I had previously noted, the decision on whether or not to sell national assets is a purely commercial and economic one for the executive arm of the government. The Senate has no power to direct the executive arm of the government not to sell any asset. The functions of the Senate are spelt out in the Constitution. They do not include the power to pass resolutions directing the Executive on how to exercise executive powers of the Federation that is vested in the President.

What is the impact of the Senate saying that the national assets should not be sold? Does the Constitution allow the Federal Government to by-pass the Senate and go ahead with the sale? Can you comment on the Senate’s 20 point agenda to reflate the economy?
The resolution of the Senate is just what it is – a resolution! It is at best advisory. As I have stated in the previous question, a resolution is not a law. There are procedures for making laws. The Senate can pass a Bill seeking to place restrictions on the power to dispose of assets and hope that the House of Representatives will pass the same Bill and that the President will assent to same. When these procedures are followed, a valid law will be in place restricting sale of national assets. But simply passing a resolution directing that the assets be not sold, is futile.

The Senate 20 point agenda – which added 13 to the late President Yar’Adua’s 7 point agenda is entirely advisory. In these challenging times, any useful advice is welcome. To the extent that the Executive arm of Government sees merit in some of the Senate’s 20 point agenda, it will adopt and implement them. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think there are some good recommendations in the Senate’s 20-point agenda and no doubt the President and his cabinet would have found some of them useful, although most of the recommendations are matters of common sense. The devil is in the implementation. Nigeria has found it difficult to implement even the most basic reforms partly because of corruption, partly because of conflict of interest, partly because of an inefficient, corrupt and almost illiterate public service.

Is there a constitutional provision for Nigerians to have a referendum to decide for or against the sale of national assets (as in the case of Brexit or Bremain)? Or will it be a case of the Federal Government thrusting its decision on Nigerians, whether they want it or not?
The 1999 Constitution does not provide Nigerian citizens with the right to have or request a referendum to decide whether or not Government should sell national assets. In fact there is no constitutional provision for deciding national issues through a referendum. Nigeria’s representative democracy is built on the overarching premise that its citizens exercise control over the executive through the ballot box and over the legislature through the ballot box and the power of recall, not the referendum.

Some Nigerians (including trade unions, who have threatened to go on strike) are dead set against the sale of national assets, arguing that nothing good has ever come out of those sales. That Nigerians have never benefited. That past governments have simply sold such assets to their friends and cronies at ridiculously cheap, under-value prices, and this new exercise would be no different. Others argue that if the Federal Government alienates all the country’s assets, our children will not have much to benefit from in the future. What is your opinion? Do you think that the concerns of the opposers to the sale of national assets are germane?
I believe the debate has become somewhat confused. Transparency, full value and judicious use of the sale proceeds are my guiding principles for the disposal of assets. If we can get a few billion dollars from the asset sales to invest in our infrastructure, I would be all for the sale. Sadly, there is every reason to be apprehensive whether these objectives can be achieved. Some asset sales have been very successful, eg telecom licences in early 2001. But in some cases, corruption took over the sale process and many people who have no two brown pennies to rub together, acquired ownership of national assets without the technical or financial capacity to own or operate such assets. A good recent example is the privatisation of NEPA where a number of “investors” borrowed both equity and debt to fund acquisition, leaving the acquired DISCOs overburdened by debt and no source of fresh investment.

Taking into consideration, the reservations of Nigerians in respect of the sale of national assets, do you think that there is a better method that the Federal Government can adopt in its sales technique, to ensure that the goals of the sales are achieved and maximum revenue is derived from same? How will Nigerians benefit from the sales?
If there is integrity in the disposal process, it is transparent, full value is obtained for the assets and the proceeds are put to infrastructural development then I am all for asset sale. You use what you have to get what you need. That is what everyone of does. Nigeria can be no exception. Besides, leaving the assets in public ownership encourages rent-seeking and other forms of corruption and waste. The public fear, which is well founded, is that the sales would be affected by monumental corruption and what belongs to all of us will end up for little or nothing, in the portfolios of private individuals. The Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Company Limited (NLNG) is not a good candidate for disposal, because it is not a burden to the Government and appears to be professionally managed and generates reliable revenues.

As you are aware, the State Governments go to the Federal Government regularly, for ‘bail outs’, even to pay their workers. Recently, it was reported that a further reduction in the Federal Government’s dwindling revenue, is imminent, as NNPC intends to use Royalties (part of which were probably being given to the Federal Government) to fund Joint Ventures. Obviously, this may result in less bailout funds for the States. Do you think that this system of 36 States plus FCT is viable and sustainable in the long term, seeing that most of the States in Nigeria do not seem to be able to generate any funds to maintain themselves?
Both in the short and long terms, the kind of federalism we practice in Nigeria whereby the Federal Government plays a paternalistic role by offering monthly handouts to the states is highly problematic. It is plainly is unviable and unsustainable. But there are several aspects of the problem. The first is the vesting of all natural resources in the Federal Government by section 43 of the 1999 Constitution. This is a recipe for disaster. It creates too strong a central government and impoverishes the states.

Every state cannot generate IGR like Lagos where almost 60 of all economic activities in Nigeria takes place. Many state governments are lazy, clueless and simply have no agenda to improve the lives of their people, but the root cause of the problem is the dysfunctional constructional structure, which vests all the natural resources in the Federal Government and returns a little back to the states through derivation and other sharing principles. The solution is to go back to the 1963 Constitution of Nigeria where we had genuine devotion of political and economic power to the regions. In other words, we need fiscal federalism and not the lip service of the 1999 Constitution. Vest resources in the states and make them contribute an agreed percentage to the Federal Government to run those services that are best provided centrally. That is not rocket science; it is common sense. But will it be implemented? Probably not. Turkeys are not known to vote for Christmas! The allure and sucre of Federal power and the capacity for graft that it promotes, are so strong that politicians are unlikely to find the political will for such obviously beneficial reform. In the absence of fiscal discipline, we are likely to continue to have the problem of paucity of funds even where States are allowed to manage their resources. The bailout of States by the Federal Government is thus a short-term measure and is neither viable nor unsustainable.

The ECOWAS Court has ruled that the continuous detention of Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd), the former National Security Adviser, is unlawful. Can you comment on this?
As a Nigerian, I am outraged by the scale and manner of dissipation of scarce resources by Dasuki as the National Security Adviser. It was shameful and disgraceful that a national security adviser should waste public resources in financing a political party. It was most irresponsible and he should be punished for his shameful role. However, that punishment has to come from the courts following due process. It cannot be from the executive. Our Constitution does not give the executive arm of the government the power to punish any Nigerian for any alleged crime. Dasuki’s detention after he was granted and met the bail conditions imposed by the Nigerian court, is plainly unlawful and a gross violation of his rights and of the Constitution. Nigeria does not belong to anyone – not to Dasuki, not to Buhari, not the DSS. Every power which every government functionary exercises in Nigeria is derived from law, not from force. The rule of law is sacrosanct. The executive arm of the government cannot cherry-pick which laws to observe. It has no such choice. Dasuki’s continuous detention cannot be justified on the basis that he is a security risk or that he is being detained for his own protection. That is utterly disingenuous. Whether or not he is a security risk is or needs to be detained for his protection is for the court to consider and take into account, in deciding whether to grant him bail and if so, on what terms. And having taken these considerations into account and decided to grant him conditional bail, it is childish, disrespectful and wrong for the DSS to continue to detain him. He must be released immediately.

Do you think that the Code of Conduct Tribunal and the Prosecutors, have been performing within the ambit of the Code of Conduct Act, in the handling of some of the recent high profile cases?
I believe the CCT and the prosecutors have been acting within the ambit of the existing law in handling some of the recent high profile cases. The problem is not with the CCT; it is with the high profile individuals who have a feeling of entitlement and see themselves as being above the law. It is an arrogant mental state that needs to be disabused. Another aspect of the problem is the misuse of legal procedures by senior lawyers in shielding their clients from prosecution. It is a wrong and ignoble role for the lawyers and they should be sanctioned.

In every legal system, if you are accused of a crime or other wrongdoing, you are entitled to your day in court for the prosecution to prove its case. In Nigeria, senior lawyers promise their client that they will frustrate the prosecution and filibust and they misuse every available legal procedure to achieve their ignoble ends, and in the process bring the profession into disrepute and erode public confidence in our legal system. In this way, both the senior lawyers and their clients act with impunity – one to commit a crime, the other to shield the accused from prosecution. That is truly disgraceful as they give the impression (which can no longer be regarded as wrong) that Nigeria cannot enforce its laws and has outsourced the enforcement of its criminal laws to foreign prosecuting authorities. Or that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.

You have had the benefit of practicing in the UK and in Nigeria. How will you compare both? What really distinguishes legal practice in the UK from practice in Nigeria with particular reference to civil procedure?
The differences are like night and day and probably worse than comparing chalk and cheese. The UK courts are probably the most efficient and dependable in the world. Over 75% of the cases litigated in the UK Commercial Court have no connection with the UK. Neither party is a national of or resident in the UK. They are foreign parties who have chosen English law and English courts to resolve their disputes because of the ubiquity of English law. The court staff including masters, registrars and judges are courteous skilled and efficient professionals that provide high quality public service. For similar reasons, London is the global centre for international arbitration. The availability of experts, the existence of arbitral infrastructure and a very knowledgeable and supportive court system. In short, the court is administered as a high quality professional public service. As small as England is, four out of the top ten global law firms are English law firms – providing legal services to clients the world over and generating over £40 billion annually from the provision of legal services. You can imagine the significant contribution that the provision of legal services makes to the UK GDP. UK regulators and courts are facilitative.

In Nigeria, in contrast, the court system is administered as a bureaucratic, incompetent and highly inefficient public service where judicial staff – registrars and judges treat litigants as if they are doing them a favour. The system for listing cases is chaotic, too many cases are listed, routine applications that should be dealt with by registrars, come before the judges, very few judges read case files before sitting, very few are prepared to give bench rulings on disputed interlocutory issues, adjournments are the order of the day, there is a very weak exercise of case management powers, the appellate courts provide insufficient support to the High Courts especially in respect of case management interlocutory decisions, there is no effective or meaningful cost regime, there is no sifting system for appeals.

Every flimsy issue can be pushed all the way from the High Court to the Supreme Court, provided a question of law can be formulated. The court registries simply do not do their work efficiently or at all – this too is a function of management and I must note the improvements in the administration of the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal. Because of an incompetent court registry, judges perform registry functions in open court. It is not unusual to go to the Supreme Court and the Judges will be asking when did you file this or when did you file that, or hear applications to file processes out of time. With all due respect, those are registry functions, not for the Judges in open court. When you have not seen how other systems work, you won’t find anything wrong with judges performing registry functions in open court. It is impossible to see this in the UK or the US, for example. In the UK, a few days to the hearing of an appeal, the Barristers clerks attend the registry to ensure that all the papers are in apple pie order. In Nigeria, there is a litany of problems. Underlying the dysfunctional court system are the same factors that underlie our dysfunctional public service – indiscipline, incompetence, inefficiency, corruption and weak administration.

It appears that we simply cannot administer or run any public service efficiently in this country. If we cannot run our public utilities or schools or civil service efficiently, why should we be able to run an efficient court system? Lawyers are hampered from providing efficient and world class services by an impossible court and public service, that are rooted in the distant past and stifle innovation and impedes everything rather than being innovative and facilitative. For example, we have had to abandon two large transactions this year, because we were impeded by regulators in Nigeria and consequently lost the significant revenues that would have accrued from both transactions. The cost of our incompetent system is huge, and we are not doing much to address the problems. How can there not be youth unemployment if virtually illiterate public servants and regulators frustrate the most innovative transactions? If the deals I am talking about were in the UK, we would have done and completed both transactions. Does it mean that the Nigerian regulators truly know more than the UK regulators? We must tell ourselves a few home truths.

You are a well known access to justice enthusiast, and the Nigerian justice delivery system has been adjudged as one of the slowest in the world. What, in your view, is the panacea to this worrisome problem of wanton delays in the system? What measures can be taken to improve the system?
We need more efficiently administered court system, competent judges must be recruited across all levels of decision making, proper costs orders must be made, and the appellate system needs to be streamlined. Let me give you an example of the problem we have in this country. A judge grants an accused person bail. The Judge does not sign the bail order before he travels for Judges conference. The bail cannot be processed because the registry staff say there is no signed and sealed court order. The Judge is away for over a week. The accused person languishes in jail for an additional 10 days because of this silly issue. In most sensible places, the court staff will process the bail application on the basis of the manuscript order read by the Judge in open court. Another example. I go to court in July to argue a case.

The Judge says he is no longer taking contentious cases because of the looming vacation. He gives me a date in September. I turn up in September and I am told the Judge is away for Judges conference. To my mind that is a most incompetent way to administer any public service. How can the court not know in July the date for the annual Judges conference in September – 6 weeks away? In over 20 years of high end legal practice in England, I have never heard of a Judge refusing to hear a contested application because the vacation is looming! Why can’t the Judges have the conference during the court vacation? How many weeks vacation do other public servants get annually? We have truly set the bar for performance of public service in this country, self indulgently and self destructively too low. We run a court system that will spare the court users no inconvenience.

Our courts were not always this incompetent or inefficient. We have entrenched mediocrity everywhere and sacrificed merit. No system can make progress in that way. You must put your best people in positions of authority. Sadly there are very many mediocre people occupying very senior and powerful positions, in all aspects of our public service and dumbing down on all of us. While other countries are aspiring to reach the top in public service delivery, we appear to be engaged in a race to the bottom. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand!
Another example of how we have lost our way, is how the courts exercise the power to award costs. Costs are supposed to help the victorious litigant to recoup his expenditure in prosecuting or defending a case. Its assessment, requires the victorious person to file evidence of costs incurred. The assessment could be detailed or a summary. But the object remains the same. In the 1970s and 1980s our courts awarded proper costs. In some instances, costs of more than £200,000 were awarded in Nigeria. In one case, I saw costs of £435,000. In today’s money, that would be costs of between N120 and N250 million. Would a Nigerian court ever award such costs today? Very unlikely. But such costs are awarded routinely by arbitral tribunals seated in Nigeria and are enforced by the courts as part of the award.

It is not unusual for the Supreme Court to award N100,000 at the end of a case that has taken over 15 years to prosecute from the High Court to the Supreme Court. Today, N100,000 is $200. Is it conceivable that anyone can conduct a case in this country in the High Court for such paltry amount? Is the N100,000 the filing fees paid or the cost of compiling records of appeal or the cost of flying to Abuja? What about the legal fees? Is there any appeal that can be prosecuted or defended by any lawyer for N100,000? In short, what does the court think it is doing by awarding such ridiculously low amounts as costs? Until and unless the courts begin to award proper costs, they cannot give litigants any incentive to use the courts efficiently or to settle unmeritorious cases. The abuse of interlocutory applications and interlocutory appeals and their irresponsible use to delay the resolution of cases in court, is possible in part because of the absence of an effective costs regime and in part because of weak exercise of case management powers by the courts.

Finally, the courts at all levels will continue to be overburdened with spurious and unmeritorious cases so long as they refuse to impose proper cost orders. In this respect, the Supreme Court must lead the change. With no sifting mechanisms for determining appeals that should be heard, and a career promotion (SAN) based on the number of appearances in the appellate courts and no proper costs orders, we have erected a court system that has failed its users. Only politicians are served effectively and timeously by our courts, but there are many commercial cases that are more important than disputed governorship elections. Many of them wallow in the Supreme Court dockets for 10 years or more while political cases get resolved within 6 months. It shows that we really know our priorities and that our aspirations for being a top 20 economy in 2020 is well on course!

Go to Source