Paramount Chambers & Notary Public

16/08/2026

18/07/2026

UMAHI: WHEN THE LAW BENDS FOR THE RICH AND POWERFUL

When the law bends for the powerful, it breaks for everyone else. In Nigeria, when highly placed individuals—whether politicians, wealthy elites, or influential public figures—are shielded from rigorous criminal investigation or treated with kid gloves by the police, it triggers a domino effect that compromises the entire social fabric.
It doesn't just let one guilty person walk; it actively deconstructs the justice system for the remaining 200+ million citizens. Here is what happens systematically when the law is selectively applied:

1. The Collapse of Public Trust and the Rise of Vigilantism
When the average citizen observes that wealth or political connection acts as a shield against accountability, they lose faith in formal justice.

Under-reporting: Victims stop reporting crimes because they believe the system is rigged. Why risk retaliation by reporting a powerful perpetrator if the police are likely to dismiss the case or, worse, turn it against the complainant?

Jungle Justice": Deprived of a credible arbiter, communities frequently bypass law enforcement altogether, resorting to mob action and extrajudicial violence to resolve disputes and administer their own version of "justice."

2. The Weaponization of Law Enforcement
Differential treatment doesn't stop at shielding the powerful; it often extends to weaponizing the state's security apparatus against the weak.
* In many instances, influential individuals can leverage their connections to "buy" police protection or actively redirect an investigation.

A classic systemic issue in Nigerian policing is the reversal of roles, where a legitimate complainant who exposes elite wrongdoing suddenly finds themselves detained, accused, and investigated under fabricated charges.

3. Destruction of Police Morale and Institutional Integrity
For the rank-and-file officers on the ground, investigating an influential suspect is a professional minefield.
* Officers who attempt to conduct unbiased investigations against elite suspects often face punitive transfers to remote areas, demotions, or dismissal.
* This fosters a culture of compliance and survival, where officers learn that professional advancement depends on protecting the powerful rather than enforcing the law.

4. Constitutional Devaluation
Nigeria’s legal framework is built on the premise of absolute equality. **Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution** guarantees freedom from discrimination, and the Supreme Court famously affirmed in *Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu* that the Nigerian Constitution is founded on the rule of law, meaning everything must be done according to the law and no one is above it.
When the police systematically ignore this principle, the Constitution is reduced to a "paper tiger". This erodes the very concept of constitutional supremacy, transforming laws into mere suggestions for the elite while remaining iron-clad shackles for the poor.

The Economic Toll: Selective law enforcement is a major deterrent to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Investors are highly hesitant to sink capital into an economy where contracts cannot be reliably enforced and where powerful local actors can use the police to bypass legal disputes.

Ultimately, the differential treatment of elites by law enforcement normalizes a **two-tier justice system**: one characterized by strict, often harsh enforcement for the impoverished, and another defined by negotiation, deference, and immunity for the powerful. This systemic disparity was a core driver of the deep-seated societal anger that fueled the landmark protests in 2020, proving that unchecked impunity always carries a breaking point.

18/07/2026

UMAHI: AFFIDAVITS ARE INCONSEQUENTIAL IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

In criminal law and practice, there is a sharp and critical distinction between a police statement (used for investigations) and a sworn affidavit (used for judicial proceedings).

The question could be asked; of what import is the affidavit of the lady who claimed to have lived in the same "staff apartments" in Umahi's residence?. The short answer is that this affidavit is of no import at this stage when the alleged crime is still under Police investigations.

It is important to note that Police investigations are not carried out using affidavits. Instead, they rely on voluntary witness and suspect statements.
Here is a breakdown of how the law views both, and the precise legal position of affidavits in the criminal justice process.

1. Why Police Investigations Use "Statements," Not Affidavits
During an investigation, the police require witness statements and suspect statements. Under Nigerian law—specifically Section 17 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 (and the equivalent State ACJLs) along with the Police Act—the police are empowered to record statements from anyone who can assist with an investigation.
Police statements are unsworn. The witness simply writes down their account (or has an officer write it down) and signs it.

These statements are purely investigative tools. They help the police decide whether there is a prima facie case to file charges. They are not substantive evidence and cannot be used by the prosecution as a substitute for the witness's live, oral testimony in court.

If a complainant or a witness walks into a police station with a pre-prepared, sworn affidavit, the investigating officers will still insist on taking a fresh, handwritten police statement.

2. An affidavit is a written statement of facts sworn voluntarily before a person authorized to administer oaths (such as a Commissioner for Oaths or a Notary Public), governed strictly by Sections 107 to 120 of the Evidence Act 2011.
In criminal matters, the law treats affidavits with a very specific, limited scope:
A. The General Rule is that an affidavit is inadmissible as Substantive Proof of Guilt. This means that you cannot prosecute or convict a defendant using affidavits. Under Section 36(6)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, every accused person has the constitutional right to examine (cross-examine) the witnesses called by the prosecution. Because an affidavit is "hearsay on paper" that cannot be cross-examined, the court will not accept an affidavit as proof of the ingredients of an offense during a trial. The prosecution must present its witnesses physically to give oral evidence (examination-in-chief) and be subjected to cross-examination.

B. The Law only Actively Requires Affidavits in Criminal Law
in interlocutory and ancillary criminal proceedings. These include:

Bail Applications: Applications for bail (especially at the High Court or appellate courts) are brought by way of motion, which must be supported by an affidavit detailing the facts showing why the defendant should be released (health grounds, non-flight risk, etc.).

Remand Proceedings (Holding Charges): Under Section 293 of the ACJA, when the police seek to remand a suspect in custody pending legal advice or formal arraignment, they must apply to a Magistrate Court supported by an affidavit of urgency/remand.

Search and Arrest Warrants: To obtain a warrant, an officer must depose to an information on oath (which is functionally an affidavit) before a Magistrate or Judge, proving there is reasonable suspicion to search or arrest.

Fundamental Rights Enforcement (FREP Rules): If a suspect is detained beyond the constitutional limit (24 to 48 hours) without trial, their remedy is to file a Fundamental Rights application. This application is highly reliant on affidavit evidence to prove unlawful detention.

Consequently, if a complainant tries to use a sworn affidavit as their primary tool to drive a criminal complaint, it can create several strategic hurdles:
The "Locked-In" Risk: Because an affidavit is sworn under oath, any material deviation between what a witness swore to in an affidavit and what they later tell the police (or testify to in court) can be weaponized by the defense. It can be used to impeach the witness's credibility, or worse, expose them to charges of perjury (lying under oath).

The only common, practical scenario where a sworn affidavit is useful at the investigation stage is when sending a formal petition to higher police authorities (like the AIG or Inspector General of Police). Attaching a verifying affidavit to the petition adds weight and shows the petitioner is willing to stand by their claims under penalty of perjury, but the police will still record standard administrative statements once they begin the actual investigation.

The use of an affidavit by that lady at this stage, perhaps at the behest of people who want to lock her in to a particular version of the narrative in order to exonerate themselves from the alleged offence is at best I'll informed and at worst a reckless subterfuge to undermine police investigations.

05/01/2026

05/01/2026

TINUBU'S LAWYERS BILL IS FULL OF BAD INTENTIONS - PROF ODINKALU*

President Tinubu’s legal practitioners bill seeks capture and reprisal

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

▪️Photo: (Left) Bola Tinubu. .. planning to weaken the Nigerian Bar Association by subterfuge? (Right) Anselm Odinkalu raises an alarm.(Credit: Google)

Twenty-three days after the transmission by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the upper chamber of Nigeria’s National Assembly, better known as the Senate, held public hearings on 18 December 2025 to consider the Legal Practitioners Bill. At this pace, the bill will be certain to become law well before the middle of 2026.

The journey to this bill has been somewhat tortured. The last time there was meaningful legislative action on the regulation of the legal profession in Nigeria, the military were in power and that was over 50 years ago. The existing framework governing Nigeria’s legal profession has in fact evolved very little since the Legal Practitioners Act was first enacted two years after independence in 1962. Long before the onset of this millennium, it was evident that the design and regulation of Nigeria’s legal profession needed to be updated. Substantial disagreements, however, existed as to how to accomplish this.

In December 2016, then president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Abubakar Balarabe (AB) Mahmoud, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), constituted a Legal Practitioners Regulation Review Committee under the leadership of Anthony Idigbe, SAN, with a mandate to undertake consultations and rationalize proposals for the reform and regulation of Nigeria’s legal profession. As part of its work, the Idigbe Committee took soundings from the official legal profession and from branches of the NBA. The Committee comprised entirely of lawyers and, in its work, appeared to make little effort to reach out to or consult with consumers of legal services. That was a significant flaw in its process.

Upon receiving the committee’s report, the president of the NBA then set out the desired goals and ambitions of the reform he sought: “We need a legal profession” he declared, “that will inspire confidence in the Nigerian legal system such that entrepreneurship will thrive and foreigners will feel confident to invest in our country thereby generating prosperity for our people.” He complained that – afflicted as it was by chronically incapable regulation – “the Nigerian Bar Association as presently structured and managed cannot provide that leadership expected to produce these outcomes.”

For nearly two decades preceding the Idigbe Committee Report and immediately thereafter, the NBA had been led by SANs. In 2020, the membership of the association elected Olumide Akpata to lead it. An exceptional and able lawyer, Olumide made his name at the commercial Bar. It is fair to say that some traditionalists took personal affront at his election to lead the Bar.

Any hopes for a quick dash to translate into legislative reality the lofty dreams inspired by the Idigbe Committee Report were to be quickly frustrated by an internecine contest that ensued of egos and interests too complex to be rehashed here. As this contest unfolded, the original proposals of the Idigbe Committee vegetated; then mutated, before getting annihilated.

It appears that some interests within the Body of Benchers (BoB) decided in this flux to capture the profession. Much of the contest that followed over the future of the regulatory proposals was to occur within the BoB. A statutory body created by the existing Legal Practitioners Act, the BoB is described under law as “a body of legal practitioners of the highest distinction” in Nigeria responsible for admitting new entrants into the legal profession.

While the BoB sought to subordinate to itself the NBA and all other organs for the regulation of the Legal Profession, the NBA sought to argue for its independence as the professional association of lawyers in Nigeria. As this argument raged, some interests instigated a contest over the assertion of associational monopolies by the NBA with the emergence of a Nigerian Law Society (NLS), in effect forcing the NBA to battle on two fronts for its own survival.

These contests were still ongoing when in 2023, Nigeria elected a new President. Leading protagonists in the BoB, who were also counsel to the new president, acquired presidential leverage in the battle to shape the new regulatory environment. With the strategic landscape thus redefined, the NBA was left to seek tactical accommodation in shaping the content of the new Bill, with a focus on preserving its considerable revenue streams. The original ambitions outlined in 2018 for a radical reinvention of Nigeria’s legal profession suffered a tragic stillbirth.

Among its eight objectives, the bill proposes to advance public confidence in legal services; promote the public interest, rule of law and access to justice; and, above all, “ensure the independence, integrity and honour of members of the legal profession.” There is, however, a clear mismatch between the essential proposals of the Bill and these high sounding objectives.

For starters, about half of the bill is devoted to provisions for a revamped Body of Benchers, which emerges from these proposals as a supreme regulator – if not owner – of Nigeria’s legal profession. If these proposals become law, the provisions of the bill governing the BoB will prove to be the cemetery of Nigeria’s legal profession.

Far from being a guarantor of an independent Bar, the BoB created by this Bill is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ruling government. It will be funded by the Federal Government through the National Judicial Council. Among its membership, the BoB will include the Chief Justice of Nigeria; Attorney-General of the Federation; all Justices of the Supreme Court; President of the Court of Appeal and Presiding Justices of divisions of the Court of Appeal; Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and of all state High Courts (including the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory); President of the National Industrial Court; all State Attorneys-General; as well as the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chairs of Judiciary Committee in both chambers of the National Assembly if they have been lawyers for at least 15 years. The NBA’s representation in the Body will be 61, comprising its president and 60 other lawyers nominated by its National Executive Committee. It will be a no-contest.

Second, the BoB will be responsible not merely for admission into the legal profession but also for discipline. So, Body will subsume the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC). Members of the Body will become, in typical Nigerian fashion, above discipline.

Third, to underscore the supremacy of the BoB, the bill now proposes that the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) can only make, retain or review rules and criteria for conferment of the rank of SAN, including any conditions for withdrawal of the rank “with the approval of the Body of Benchers.”

Fourth, in a specific act of legislative reprisal, the new bill excludes from the LPPC, the President of the NBA – until now a member of the LPPC which determines the conferment of the rank of SAN – unless he or she is a SAN. This provision is a specific reprisal against the NBA for electing in 2020, a president who was not a SAN. For that reason, this provision may, in time, become known as the “Olumide Akpata Reprisal”.

Fifth, the ambitions of the bill venture into the impossible. In addition to regulating the practice of law in Nigeria, it also purports to reserve for Nigerian lawyers only legal services in relation to any matter of Nigerian law; or in relation to any dispute or transaction with substantial nexus to Nigeria. Implicitly, the bill asserts extra-territorial effect. It is hard to see how that can work.

The bill contains other significant provisions, such as the requirement for mandatory pupillage of up to two years for new lawyers or for licensing of foreign lawyers. Even the provision concerning foreign lawyers tone-deaf. It defines a foreign lawyer as “a person entitled to practice law in a foreign jurisdiction.” By this bill, a Nigerian lawyer qualified in another jurisdiction is foreign.

Admirable though its original goals were, Nigeria’s new Legal Practitioners Bill has suffered predictable derailment. If it gets adopted in its present form, the new law will be a shrine to institutional capture. Its main achievement will be to create in members of the Body of Benches, a new breed of super lawyers. The currency of their trade will be influence peddling, the very anti-thesis of what the effort to reform the Legal Practitioners Act was meant to be.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]