Notice of Registration

Click here to CHAT on WhatsApp

Only those who have registered are entitled to CHAT with or CONSULT Akintunde Esan (the Legal Adviser Online) for further legal illumination or legal advice.


TO REGISTER: Pay your registration fee of 10,000 NGN (Individual) or 20,000 NGN (Corporate) to: BANK: Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB), NGN ACCOUNT NO.: 0211166053, ACCOUNT NAME: ASE OLODUMARE CHAMBERS.


REGISTRATION OUTSIDE NIGERIA: USD ACCOUNT NO.: 0211176029, ACCOUNT NAME: ASE OLODUMARE CHAMBERS, SORT CODE: 058152340 SWIFT CODE: GTBINGLA, BANK: Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB)


Payment portal to be available soon.
Showing posts with label Jurisprudence/Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jurisprudence/Law. Show all posts

Friday 21 November 2014

CURRENT LAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA

1. Abuja Environmental Protection Board  Act
2. Admiralty Jurisdiction Act
3. Banking & Other Financial Institutions Act
4. Civil Aviation Act and Allied Matters Act
5. Companies and Allied Matters Act
6.  Companies Income Tax Act
7. Computer Professionals(Registration Council of Nigerian) Act
8. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(Promulgation) Act
9. Copyright Act
10. Court of Appeal
11. Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja(Jurisdiction on Chieftaincy matters) Act
12. Endangered Species( Control of International Trade & Traffic)Act
13. Electric Power Sector Reform Act
14. Electoral Act
15. Electric Power Sector Reform Act
16. Emergency Powers Act
17. Evidence Act
18. Federal inland Revenue Service Act
19. Federal Road Safety Commission( Establishment ) Act
20. Federal Capital Territory Abuja Area Courts( Repeal & Enactment)Act
21. Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria Act
22. Freedom of Information Act
23. Industrial Training Fund Act
24. Legal Aid Act
25. Legal Practitioners Act
26. Merchant Shipping Act
27. Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act
28. Money Laundering( Prohibition)Act
29. National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act
30. National Oil Spill Detection & Response Agency(Establishment) Act
31. National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (Establishment) Act
32. National Institute for Legislative Studies Act
33. Nigerian Communications Act
34. Nigerian Export Processing Zones Act
35. Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority( Establishment etc) Act
36. Nigerian Communication Act
37. Nigeria  Export Processing Zones Act
38. Nigeria Ports Authority Act
39.  National Industrial Court Act
40. Nigerian Maritime Administration & Safety agency Act
41. Oil Terminal Dues Act
42. Pension Reform Act
43. Personal Income Tax Act
44. Personal Income Tax Act
45.  Petroleum Act
46. Public Enterprises( Privatisation and Commercialization) Act
47. Retirement Age of staff of Polytechnics & Colleges of Education( Harmonisation) Act
48. Supreme Court Act
49. Terrorism( Prevention)Act
50. Tertiary Education Trust Fund( establishment etc)Act
51.  Value Added Tax Act
52. Weights and Measures Act

To be continued

© Akintunde Esan, Managing Partner, Ase Olodumare Chambers a Lagos based Law Firm engaged in the provisions of general legal services to domestic and international clients in different areas of law.
08073828487
akintundeesan@gmail.com  
  

Wednesday 4 September 2013

THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AUTHORISING PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST SYRIA.

The US senate Foreign Relations Committee has agreed on a the draft resolution of  authorising President Barack Obama to use military force against Syria.

Below is the full text of the draft resolution.
___________________________________________________________________________
SYRIA JOINT RESOLUTION FOR MARKUP

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the limited and tailored use of the United States Armed Forces against Syria.

Whereas Syria is in material breach of the laws of war by having employed chemical weapons against its civilian population;

Whereas the abuses of the regime of Bashar al-Assad have included the brutal repression and war upon its own civilian population, resulting in more than 100,000 people killed in the past two years, and more than 2 million internally displaced people and Syrian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, creating an unprecedented regional crisis and instability;

Whereas the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the region and has demonstrated its capability and willingness to repeatedly use weapons of mass destruction against its own people, including the August 21, 2013 attack in the suburbs of Damascus in which the Assad regime murdered over 1,000 innocent people, including hundreds of children;

Whereas there is clear and compelling evidence of the direct involvement of Assad regime forces and senior officials in the planning, execution, and after-action attempts to cover-up the August 21 attack, and hide or destroy evidence of such attack;

Whereas the Arab League has declared with regards to the August 21 incident to hold the “Syrian regime responsible for this heinous crime”;

Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004) affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
Whereas in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;

Whereas the actions and conduct of the Assad regime are in direct contravention of Syria's legal obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention on the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, and also violates standards set forth in the Chemical Weapons Convention;

Whereas Syria's use of weapons of mass destruction and its conduct and actions constitute a grave threat to regional stability, world peace, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners;

Whereas the objectives of the United States use of military force in connection with this authorization are to respond to the use, and deter and degrade the potential future use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government;

Whereas the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons”.

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION-The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, only to: (1) respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria; (2) deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons; and (3) degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—

(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent the deployment and use of weapons of mass destruction by Syria;

(2) the Syrian government has conducted one or more significant chemical weapons attacks;

(3) the use of military force is necessary to respond to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government;

(4) it is in the core national security interest of the United States to use such military force;

(5) the United States has a military plan to achieve the specific goals of responding to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Syrian government in the conflict in Syria, to deter Syria’s use of such weapons in order to protect the national security interests of the United States and to protect our allies and partners against the use of such weapons, and to degrade Syria’s capacity to use such weapons in the future; and

(6) the use of military force is consistent with and furthers the goals of the United States strategy toward Syria, including achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. § 1541, et seq., the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution, within the limits of the authorization established under this Section.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SECTION 3. LIMITATION. The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.

SECTION 4. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

The authorization in section 2(a) shall terminate 60 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, except that the President may extend, for a single period of 30 days, such authorization if –

(1) the President determines and certifies to Congress, not later than 5 days before the date of termination of the initial authorization, that the extension is necessary to fulfill the purposes of this resolution as defined by Section 2(a) due to extraordinary circumstances and for ongoing and impending military operations against Syria under section 2(a); and

(2) Congress does not enact into law, before the extension of authorization, a joint resolution disapproving the extension of the authorization for the additional 30 day period; provided that any such joint resolution shall be considered under the expedited procedures otherwise provided for concurrent resolutions of disapproval contained in section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546).

SECTION 5. SYRIA STRATEGY.

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this resolution, the President shall consult with Congress and submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives an integrated United States Government strategy for achieving a negotiated political settlement to the conflict in Syria, including a comprehensive review of current and planned U.S. diplomatic, political, economic, and military policy towards Syria, including: (1) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian Supreme Military Council and other Syrian entities opposed to the government of Bashar Al-Assad that have been properly and fully vetted and share common values and interests with the United States; (2) the provision of all forms of assistance to the Syrian political opposition, including the Syrian Opposition Coalition; (3) efforts to isolate extremist and terrorist groups in Syria to prevent their influence on the future transitional and permanent Syrian governments; (4) coordination with allies and partners; and (5) efforts to limit support from the Government of Iran and others for the Syrian regime.

SECTION 6. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING.

(a) Notification and Provision of Information. Upon his determination to use the authority set forth in section 2 of this Act, the President shall notify Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of the use of such authority and shall keep Congress fully and currently informed of the use of such authority.

(b) Reports. No fewer than 10 days after the initiation of military operations under the authority provided by Section 2, and every 20 days thereafter until the completion of military operations, the President shall submit to the Congress, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a report on the status of such operations, including progress achieved toward the objectives specified in Section 2(a), the financial costs of operations to date, and an assessment of the impact of the operations on the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capabilities and intentions.

SECTION 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. The authority set forth in Section 2 of this resolution shall not constitute an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war except to the extent that it authorizes military action under the conditions, for the specific purposes, and for the limited period of time set forth in this resolution.
Source:Al Jazeera

Monday 22 April 2013

ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY COMPUTERS



1.0        INTRODUCTION:

One of the new provisions included in the Evidence Act of 2011 to update the law of evidence in Nigeria to the twenty-first century and bring it to terms with the computer generation is Section 84 and 258 (1) of the Act. These sections define what a “computer” is in the jurisprudence of evidence and expanded the scope of the definition of a document.

2.0        DEFINITION OF A COMPUTER:

Section 258 (1) of the 2011 Evidence Act, defines a computer as

“any device for storing and processing information, and any reference to information being derived from other information is a reference to its being derived from it by calculation, comparison or any other process;”


3.0        DEFINITION OF A DOCUMENT:

Section 258 (1) of the Act, expanded the scope of the definition of a document to include:

(a)     books, maps, plans, graphs, drawings, photographs, and also includes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of these means, intended to be used or which may be used for the purpose of recording that matter;

(b)     any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced from it, and

(c)     any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced from it; and

(d)     any device by means of which information is recorded, stored or
retrievable including computer output:

              (Emphasis supplied)

Similarly, Section 258 (1) of the 2011 Evidence Act, unlike the old Act defines a "Copy of a Document" to include:

(a)     in the case of a document falling within paragraph (b) but not (c) of the definition of "document" in this subsection, a transcript of the sounds or other data embodied in it;

(b)     in the case of a document falling within paragraph (b) but not (c) of that definition, a reproduction or still reproduction of the image or images embodied in it whether enlarged or not;

(c)     in the case of a document falling within both those paragraphs, such a transcript together with such a still reproduction; and

(d)     in the case of a document not falling within the said paragraph (c) of which a visual image is embodied in a document falling within that paragraph, a reproduction of that image, whether enlarged on not, and any reference to a copy of the material part of a document shall be construed accordingly;


4.0        ADMISSIBILITY OF A STATEMENT CONTAINED IN A DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY A COMPUTER:

Section 84 expressly permits the admissibility of a statement contained in a document produced by a computer once the four conditions precedent for it admissibility stated in Section 84 (2) of the Evidence Act of 2011 are met.

These four conditions precedent are :

(a)      that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;
 
(b)      that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;

(c)      that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and

(d)      that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.

These four conditions precedent for admissibility of a statement contained in a document produced by a computer were considered by the Supreme Court in the recent case of   Dr. Imoro Kubor & Anor. v. Hon Seriake Henry Dickson & Ors. (2012) LPELR-SC.369/2012, where the eminent jurist, Onnoghen, J.S.C  expounded  that, the above conditions precedent were the pre-conditions laid down by the law  and consequently,  held that, the  two computer generated documents in issue were not admissible in evidence on the ground that, the said four conditions precedent were not satisfied by the Appellant.

Below is the dictum of His Lordship at pages 48-50, paras. F-E of the Report cited:

"Granted, for the purpose of argument, that Exhibits "D" and "L" being computer generated documents or e-documents down loaded from the internet are not public documents whose secondary evidence are admissible only by certified true copies then it means that their admissibility is governed by the provisions of section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Section 84 (1) provides thus: "(i) In any proceedings, a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the condition in sub-section (2) of this section is satisfied in relation to the Statement and the computer in question. The conditions are:- (a) that the documents containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process the information for the purpose of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by anybody whether corporate or not or by any individual; (b) that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or if not that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that point or that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) that the information contained in the Statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities. There is no evidence on record to show that appellants in tendering Exhibits "D" and "L" satisfied any of the above conditions. In fact they did not as the documents were tendered and admitted from the bar. No witness testified before tendering the documents so there was no opportunity to lay the necessary foundations for their admission as e-documents under Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011. No wonder therefore that the lower court held, at page 838 of the record thus:- "A party that seeks to tender in evidence a computer generated document needs to do more than just tendering same from the bar. Evidence in relation to the use of the computer must be called to establish the conditions set out under Section 84(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011. I agree entirely with the above conclusion. Since appellants never fulfilled the pre-conditions laid down by law, Exhibits “D" and “L” were inadmissible as computer generated evidence/documents."

 [Underlining supplied]

Be that as it may, Section 84 (4) of the Act provides that:

“    In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate

(a) identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate  for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer.

(i)  dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities, as the case may be, shall be evidence of the matter stated in the certificate; and for the purpose of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.”

In the case of Kubor & Anor. v. Dickson & Ors. (supra) the issue of the certificate stated in Section 84 (4) was not an issue rather His Lordship referred to the failure of the Appellant to lay the  necessary foundation for the admission of  e-documents under Section 84 of the Evidence Act .

5.0        CONCLUSION:

It is submitted that, in the absence of the certificate referred to in Section 84(4), if a witness is a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer by which a document was generated such a witness may be led in evidence to lay the necessary foundation of the particulars required to be in the certificate.

By Akintunde Esan, Solicitor, Advocate and Chartered Mediator. Senior Partner, Ase Olodumare Chambers, a Lagos based dispute resolution law firm. 

Popular posts