Legal Options and Company (Dunamis Chambers)

16/02/2026

When Words Become Evidence: Admissions, Cybercrime and the National Security Question

The Federal Government has today instituted cybercrime proceedings before the Federal High Court in Abuja against Mallam Nasir El Rufa'i, a former Kaduna State governor over claims of tapping the phone of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu.

The controversy intensified following public remarks in which the former governor appeared to claim that he had tapped the NSA’s phone, a statement he has since tried to walk back. The matter now raises questions of evidence, burden of proof, and the national security implications of such assertions.

Public debate often reduces criminal proceedings to spectacle. A bold statement is made. A denial follows. Supporters argue. Opponents react. Many assume that a simple 'I didn’t do it' settles the matter - but it does not.

The first principle in criminal law is clear - the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. It does not shift merely because someone made an incriminating statement. Guilt must still be established beyond reasonable doubt, but once a voluntary admission exists, the legal terrain changes.

Under the Evidence Act, a confession or admission, if voluntary, is admissible. If a person publicly declares, 'I tapped the NSA’s phone,' that statement becomes evidential material. It does not dissolve because he later says, 'I was joking.' Retraction affects weight, not admissibility.

The court will examine whether the statement was clear and unequivocal, whether it was voluntary, whether it was serious or flippant, and whether there is corroboration. Nigerian courts have long held that a retracted confession can ground conviction if the court believes it to be true and finds supporting evidence.

The constitutional burden remains with the prosecution. However, once the admission is proved, the accused who seeks to neutralise it carries an evidential burden. If he claims he was joking, he must provide a credible basis for that claim.

Context matters. Tone matters. Audience matters. Surrounding circumstances matter. So too does capacity. Was there technical ability? Was there actual interception? Were there digital traces?

A mere assertion of humour is not a legal shield. Courts test credibility against facts.

The seriousness escalates when national security is implicated. The National Security Adviser’s communications are not routine exchanges. They may involve intelligence coordination, counter-terror strategy, or classified state matters. The legal inquiry therefore extends beyond the words themselves:

Was there unauthorised access?
Was any system compromised?
Was sensitive material exposed?
Or was the statement reckless political bravado?

If investigation reveals no device, no breach, and no system compromise, the defence gains ground, but if digital records, intermediaries, or security logs suggest otherwise, the admission becomes powerful corroborative evidence.

Custody in such matters is not punishment but procedure. Where national security concerns arise, courts may impose strict bail conditions or remand pending investigation. That is caution, not conviction.

Ultimately, this is not about personalities. It is about institutions. The prosecution must meet its burden. The defence must be afforded full constitutional protection. But one truth remains - in law, words carry consequences.

Once a person publicly claims to have committed an act that constitutes an offence, the courtroom question is no longer simply 'Did you do it?' It becomes 'Was that statement true, serious and supported by facts?'

And that question is not answered by saying, 'I was only joking.'

LOC

21/07/2025

True Crimes Series - Episode I

The State v Salisu - A Night of Evil

Farin Ruwa (not real name) is a dusty village in Bauchi State, where the nights are quiet and the stars seem to be the only ones awake to admire the stark beauty of the night.

A scream tore through the silence one night that propelled Farin Ruwa into Nigeria's law books where it has remain, mentioned from time to time as authority for a new trial.

By morning of the night of the scream, 17-year-old Rabi was found dead. Her body lay lifeless in a hut, her neck bruised, her dignity desecrated. The man responsible? A relative. A trusted face. A man named Salisu Ibrahim.

What followed was one of Nigeria’s most disturbing murder trials - quietly tucked away in the pages of law reports, rarely spoken of in mainstream media, but chilling in every detail. It wasn’t just murder. It was murder followed by necrophilia.

The Crime

Rabi and Salisu lived in the same compound. They were cousins, but something in their relationship had turned dark. Neighbours said he watched her too closely, and that she avoided him - and that he didn’t like that.

On the night of the crime, Rabi was alone in the hut. Witnesses saw Salisu enter. They never saw her alive again. The next morning, she was found strangled with a rope, her body showing signs of post-mortem violation.

When the police picked him up, Salisu confessed. In Hausa, without coercion, he told them he had tried to have s*x with her. She refused so he got angry. He wrapped a rope around her neck. After she died, he did what no one should say out loud.

The confession stunned the officers. But even confessions need legal proof.

The Trial

In The State v. Salisu Ibrahim (2002), the court had a straightforward but grim task - to determine if the confession was voluntary, and if it matched the evidence.

The defence argued that Salisu was scared and confused when he confessed. But the prosecution had more than words. They had:

A rope found in Salisu’s belongings, which matched the murder weapon.

Forensic evidence confirming strangulation.

A medical report that confirmed s*xual violation after death.

It was not just a case of murder - it was a case that exposed something even more sinister - necrophilia. It tested whether Nigeria’s criminal justice system could handle such horror with clarity and justice.

The Judgment

The trial judge, His Justice A. Aboki was firm:

'This court has no doubt the accused not only intended to kill the deceased but did so in the most heinous manner. The confession, corroborated by physical evidence, leaves no room for doubt.'

He found Salisu Ibrahim guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging.

There were no dramatic outbursts. No appeal reported. Just the cold finality of justice.

The Aftermath and Why This Case Still Matters

You won’t find this case trending on Twitter or covered in punchy crime podcasts, but in its silence lies a loud truth - some of the most horrifying crimes don’t happen in cities. They happen in compounds where trust is sacred and betrayal unthinkable.

Farin Ruwa village has never recovered fully from the case. It is now a permanent part of Nigerian case law and will be cited when the precedent is needed to buttress the case in another trial.

Rabi, too, has became a silent symbol of the dangers that lurk behind familiar faces, of the law’s long arm and of a system that, when it works, still delivers justice.

Justice in Nigeria may be slow, but sometimes, it is sure.

Note for Non-Lawyers

In Nigerian law, to convict someone of murder, the prosecution must prove:

1. That a person has died,

2. That the accused caused the death,

3. That the act was intentional or reckless.

Salisu’s confession, physical evidence and post-mortem report met all three. His case remains a rare, painful example where even the most depraved acts were brought to justice.

The Murder Trial of Salisu Ibrahim is a true crime article based on the 2002 Nigerian case of The State v. Salisu Ibrahim.

21/07/2025

Watch out for our True Crime Series.
We will regale you with stories of notorious crimes - all true & some of which beggar belief!

29/06/2025

US Birthright Citizenship Brouhaha

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that lower federal courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive orders unless such measures are necessary to protect actual plaintiffs who are under threat. This judgment curbs judges’ ability to halt federal policies across the country while their legality is being litigated.

President Donald Trump celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling, which cleared the way for him to move forward with his plan to end automatic birthright citizenship in the U.S.

The Trump administration insists that thousands of foreigners have exploited this right by traveling to America specifically to give birth so their children would receive U.S. citizenship, and has issued an executive order effectively banning the practice.

Public interest litigants challenged Trump’s order, but the Supreme Court has now said that question is beyond the scope of lower courts. It has, however, not addressed the policy’s legality or otherwise.

Personally, I say it is like tax avoidance versus tax evasion - the former is legitimate, the latter illegal. Birthright citizenship was a legal pathway to U.S. citizenship, and everyone who took advantage of it is protected. If it is struck down at the appropriate stage of this litigation, it will simply stop being available to new seekers.

The only sure thing about life is change.

24/08/2021

CONGRATULATIONS YOUR EXCELLENCY

May Zambia prosper greatly in your tenure.

04/08/2021

THE LAW IS AN ASS

But the story of Balaam and His Ass tells us that it's not the donkey's fault that his rider is a fake man who lacks the fear of God, will do anything for money, abuses the weak, could not even see the danger he has attracted to himself and would have died, but for his poor donkey.

Have some respect for the ass people, it still proved wiser than some people.

18/09/2020

OF NEW WIGS AND SUNDRY GIGS

I have been appalled at the vicious and malicious 'shewing and chewing' of the latest set of lawyers by outraged (hypocritical?) older lawyers.

Fuddy duddies have petitioned them, posted their images (I did find most delightful, if carefree) and written tomes denouncing everything from their home training to their learning to their character.

And for what? Standing up against alleged disrespect for a controversial dress code increasingly smeared with obsolescence in the modern world?

Oh please. Spare me the virtue signalling.
Do you need to name and shame children to feel important?

Let me ask all of us to hark back to how we celebrated our call to bar back in the days. Some had all nighters with friends where they drank and danced themselves to stupor in full or partial lawyer garb. Others went to testify before various altars - and rolled on the floor, fully robed. Is it because smartphones were scarcer in our own halcyon days, and social media non-existent?

Would that little dear be more acceptable if she were leading Praise and Worship in a fellowship in full robes, or performing salat, instead of dancing to Naira Marley, karaoke-style?

Let us leave these children be. It is the Igbo people who say that a man must dance the steps prevalent in his days.

Don't ruin their lives, or their minds, biko. The vicissitudes of Life and the indignities of Practice will curb their exuberance soon enough.

Who even knows, it might be one among this lot who will receive the revelation that will deliver all of you from wearing wig and gown on okada.

©

17/09/2020

IF ONLY THEY WILL ENFORCE THIS

Sodiq OyelekeThe Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission has clarified that the outstanding electricity bills of landlords are not to be enforced on new tenants.The NERC Commissioner, Fi...

23/08/2020

The poison pill in CAMA 2020 for not-for-profits
THE PUBLIC SPHERE with Chido Nwakanma

There is significant verbiage but little illumination out there about the trending disputation concerning the provisions of the 2020 Companies and Allied Matters Act on not-for-profits. The petulant intervention of Bishop David Oyedepo of Living Faith Church brought anger rather than light and has inflamed the discourse. The consequence is that it has engaged combatants on either side of the Church versus the State debate rather than reasoned discussion to finetune or discard the legislation.
Section 839 Chapter 4 of CAMA 2020 borrows part of what exists in other jurisdictions to spell out stipulations for the management of civil society organisations. It grants powers without responsibility. The decision of the Charities Commission in England to penalise the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries therein has suddenly become a justification for the inelegant Nigerian legislation. It is enough to state that while apples and oranges have the same shape and classification as fruits, they differ, nonetheless.
There is a loud hallelujah chorus for CAMA 2020. I share those sentiments in many areas. According to Banwo & Ighodalo Legal Practice, “CAMA 2020 is undeniably a progressive development in the Nigerian business and economic landscape and a big boost to the Ease-of-Doing-Business (EoDB) campaign of the Government. CAMA 2020 provides a robust framework for reforming identified onerous legal, regulatory and administrative bottlenecks which, for three decades, have made doing business in Nigeria substantially difficult (particularly for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)), and impeded investments into Nigeria.”
That ululation does not apply to Chapter Four of Section 839. First, we must pivot from the reductionist position that sees the section only in terms of the Church. Or the non-argument that secular authorities cannot regulate churches. Jesus Christ instituted the Church standard, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17).

Section 839 covers the incorporated trustees of various nonprofits. These are associations “for the advancement of any religious, educational, literary, scientific, social, development, cultural, sporting or charitable purpose.” S839 of CAMA 2020 applies to the operations and activities of private secondary schools and universities, cultural associations, sports clubs, or the Umuode Development Association of my community. It also applies to various NGOs and other CSOs.

It would help to read Section 443-558 on the appointment of administrators for companies in distress alongside a reading of Section 839. Subsection 1 of 839 empowers the CAC to apply to the court, suspend the trustees of an association and replace them with an interim manager(s). Reason? “If It reasonably believes” that there has been misconduct or mismanagement, fraud, to protect the property of the association or in the public interest.

Compare this with S571 on winding up of a company. It would only happen if “(a) the company has by special resolution resolved that the company be wound up by the Court; (b) default is made in delivering the statutory report to the Commission or in holding the statutory meeting; (c) the number of members is reduced below two in the case of companies with more than one shareholder; (d) the company is unable to pay its debts; (e) the condition precedent to the operation of the company has ceased to exist, or (f) the Court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.”

Did you notice the difference? CAMA 2020 states clear grounds for winding up of a company starting with the intent of the promoters through to compliance failures or indebtedness. Contrarily, the provisions for CSOs are ambiguous and include notably “if it (CAC) reasonably believes” that there has been fraud, misconduct, or mismanagement. In other words, if CAC suspects an organisation, it applies to the court to remove its trustees and take over its affairs. Just like that!

Moreover, there is no time limit to the running of affairs by the CAC-appointed and court-sanctioned managers. Then there is the nebulous “public interest” provision. What is that? What does public interest mean here, and who defines it?

Suspicion of the motive and intent of Section 839 stems from the nebulous grounds for the intervention of the CAC in the running of CSOs. The provisions are subject to varying interpretation. It comes against the backdrop of the poisoned chalice of mistrust that characterises Nigerian public affairs and governance in the Buhari Years. Only the paranoid survive, Andy Grove famously asserted concerning competition in the microchips market. Paranoia is excusable in Nigeria today.

S839 of CAMA 2020 sets a higher bar for CSOs than for even quoted companies. It is a bar that is, at times, invisible and other times unclear. If there is fraud or mismanagement in a company, the trustees would ordinarily involve the law such as invite the police, go to the court or seek arbitration. How is it the business of the CAC?

It becomes the business of CAC in the case of CSOs. That brings up the issue of public benefit and the story of the fine on MFM in the UK. The Charity Commission for England and Wales regulates charities in that jurisdiction. Charities are public benefit organisations run by their trustees for the benefit of the charity’s beneficiaries. “An organisation cannot be a charity if it is run in the interests of anyone beyond the charity, including private individuals and public bodies such as local authorities”.
The Charities Commission registers all charities. They enjoy grants-in-aid based on their registration. The charity law binds all charities, including those currently exempted from registration. They have an overriding duty to “act prudently and within the law” as in sound corporate governance. The Government intervenes based on the law and because it provides support and a cover for the charities to raise funds.
There are various regulators. For instance, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) regulates universities as charities.
CAMA 2020 empowers CAC without giving it any responsibilities. CAC will do nothing for not-for-profits in the country but would have the power to take over their operations by appointing a manager to run their affairs on patently nebulous grounds.
In an example of lazy legislative drafting, CAMA 2020 borrows aspects of the law from other jurisdictions but fails to go the whole hog. There is no Charities Commission, or will the CAC set up one?
S 17 demands plaintiffs to inform CAC in writing 30 days before filing a suit against it. Strange. Then in S19, it disallows freedom of association or action by 20 or more persons running a business unless they register it with CAC. “No association, or partnership consisting of more than 20 persons shall be formed for the purpose of carrying on any business for profit or gain by the association, or partnership, or by the individual members thereof, unless it is registered as a company under this Act, or is formed in pursuance of some other enactments in force in Nigeria.”

CAMA 1990 listed lawyers, accountants, and company secretaries as those who can handle company registration. CAMA 2020 regresses from professions to individuals. S 705 of CAMA 2020 brings in a private body, BRIPAN, and vests it with the sole right for the practice of insolvency in Nigeria.
S 839 is just one of many poisonous provisions in the new CAMA that necessitate a re-think of the entire law. It speaks to deleterious sloppiness or malice aforethought. Was there stakeholder engagement at all as should be the norm? There is a need to review the law.

15/08/2020

SAFEGUARDS WHEN PURCHASING A LAND IN NIGERIA:

By Douglas Ogbankwa Esq.

Purchasing a land can be a thing of great joy,but if you are not careful,it could be a living nightmare!

The following are safeguards when purchasing a land in Nigeria.

1.Let a Lawyer be with you at the beginning of the Transaction.It makes the Land Speculators to do the right thing ,from the beginning, knowing that a good Lawyer will detect fraud or discrepancies from the start.

2.Never make payments and sign documents later,most times after making payments,the Vendors become evasive and elusive ,knowing there is nothing to look on to

3. Never pay cash for land purchases ,do a bank transfer , issue a cheque or raise a draft to provide a trail of evidence .

4.Investigate title and ownership before purchase,don't believe every information given to you by the Vendor,subject it to scrutiny .

5. If they say the Vendor is abroad, insist on a Power of Attorney from the Vendor to a person here in Nigeria and go on line to verify the authenticity of the fact,by using social media channels to reach the Vendor.

6.Let the person who introduced you to the transaction sign as a witness for you

7.Always put dates in your Deeds of Transfer or Assignment ,an undated document has no probative value in Law-as per a ratio by the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

8 .If the land document is registered ,conduct a search at the Lands Registry to ascertain ,if there had been a Transfer ,if there was a Charge ,Mortgage ,Caveat or any kind of encumbrances whatsoever .

9.If the Owner of the land is dead, demand for a document conferring ownership on the Vendor ,like Letters of Administration,Document of Sharing or Order from the Customary Court .

10.Take your documentation seriously ,do not patronize quacks or business centres,be guided that according to the Land Instrument Preparation Law,,every document relating to land must be prepared by a Legal Practitioner,failure of which ,what you have will be a worthless sheet of paper!Pay right now or you will pay more later.

11. If you are not sure of the genuineness of the Land,pay Instalmentally,do some work to ascertain encumbrance or otherwise .

12.Do not allow the Vendor to rush you, while doing a land transaction ,being rushed is a red flag,that the land may not be genuine .

13.Always insist on a receipt for every payment made ,to give you evidence of same.

13.Do a Survey Plan immediately after purchasing a land, and lodge it in the Lands Registry,to put on purchase on official records .

14.Do not buy a land and leave it fallow,make sure you have contact of people around the land to monitor it for you and to alert you against any Trespass.

15.Make sure you have pictures and videos of the signing of the Land Documents,the children of the Vendor may feign ignorance of your transaction ,if for any reason the Vendor dies.

16.Do not allow the Vendor to get a Lawyer for you,get your Lawyer that will protect your interest.

17.Make sure the Community Leaders are aware of your purchase of land in their c
Community ,it makes fraud less likely and makes your purchase public knowledge.

18.Read through before signing a Land Document,every word is important and the Law only interprets your agreements and not your thoughts. "Pacta Sunt Servada "-Parties are bound by their Agreements.

19.You may require the Vendor to swear to an Affidavit of ownership,so if it turns out that he is not the Owner ,it becomes a Criminal issue of lying on Oath -Perjury.

20. Buying a Land from an individual that is ascertained to be the Owner of the land,is likely to be more authentic than buying from the Community!Be more thorough ,when buying from the Community!

21.Ensure you make the Vendor to sign and receipt and indemnity for you and ensure every Deed of Transfer prepared for you have an indemnity clause.If the land is fake ,the Matter becomes an automatic case of fraud.

content://com.android.chrome.FileProvider/images/screenshot/15975300561026164656406055652532.jpg

29/06/2020

I CONCUR ABSOLUTELY

Says Corporate Entity Which Employs More Than One Person As Security Guard Must Not Engage Private Guard Company – Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, has barred the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) and the Minister of Interior from meddling into the affairs of organisations or e...