S I Agih & Co - Elites Chambers

25/12/2025

🎄 Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from S.I AGIH & CO.!⚖️

​As the festive season is upon us, we want to extend our deepest gratitude to our cherished clients for entrusting us with your legal matters throughout the year. Your trust and confidence mean the world to us.

​Wishing you and your loved ones a joyous Christmas filled with peace, happiness, and memorable moments. May the New Year bring you abundant prosperity, success, and good health.

​We look forward to continuing to serve you with dedication and excellence in 2026.

​Warm regards,

​S.I AGIH & CO.
Email: [email protected]
WhatsApp: 08025711119

​ &CO"

21/09/2025

22/03/2025

TANGLED LIES AND FAMILY TIES: A COURTROOM DRAMA

At the family court the other day, a married man accused his side chick of making an international passport for the daughter she bore him, using the name of another man. He claimed that the side chick planned to fly his daughter out of the country without his consent while the case in court was pending.

To disprove the man's claim, the side chick hastily presented an original birth certificate, purporting to show that the daughter's name included the man's surname and that the daughter's surname on the passport could not be different.

Guess what? When the court examined the birth certificate, it observed that it bore a different surname from the man's.

Confused, the side chick quickly asked for the return of the birth certificate, claiming it was 'invalid,' and presented a photocopy of yet another birth certificate, which the court confirmed carried the man's surname.

Determined to prevent her from gaining interim custody of the child, who is just 3 years old, the man told the court that the child had been defiled while in the custody of the side chick and that she refused to tell him the hospital where the baby was taken until he eventually removed the baby from her custody.

The side chick interjected, shouting, 'Allegedly, allegedly, Ma!' She went on to explain that nothing of the sort had happened. She admitted that she had lied to the man because he hadn’t been showing care toward his daughter or her, and it was the only way to get his attention at the time.

In the end, the court allowed her access to the child for about six hours on weekends, pending the determination of the case.

20/03/2025

A TALE OF TWO SUSPENSIONS: SENATOR NATASHA, GOVERNOR FUBARA, AND THE QUEST FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

In Nigeria’s ever-evolving political landscape, two recent events have sparked whispers of intrigue and raised eyebrows: the six-month suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan and the similar fate met by Rivers State Governor Siminalayi Fubara. Both members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), their suspensions—handed down by an All Progressives Congress (APC)-led Senate and federal government, respectively—hint at more than mere coincidence. Beneath the surface lies a deeper narrative, one that intertwines political maneuvering with the urgent need for judicial accountability.

Senator Natasha’s saga began in February 2025, when a seating dispute with Senate President Godswill Akpabio escalated into allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of power. Her subsequent petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the Senate swiftly suspended her for “gross misconduct,” a move she decried as unjust. Meanwhile, Governor Fubara’s suspension came on March 18, 2025, announced by President Bola Tinubu amid Rivers State’s political unrest. Citing constitutional authority, Tinubu sidelined Fubara, his deputy, and state lawmakers, appointing an administrator to take charge. Both cases, strikingly similar in duration and timing, have fueled speculation of partisan overreach.

What binds these stories together is the judiciary’s role—or lack thereof—in checking such actions. Natasha’s suspension has already faced legal scrutiny, with a Federal High Court previously halting Senate disciplinary proceedings, only for the Senate to proceed regardless. Fubara’s case has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, who argue that the 1999 Constitution does not grant the President power to suspend a governor without due process, such as impeachment by the state assembly. Past judicial precedents, like the 2018 Omo-Agege ruling limiting Senate suspensions to 14 days, further cast doubt on the legitimacy of these moves. Yet, the courts have been sidelined, leaving both leaders in limbo and the public questioning who holds the reins of justice.

This isn’t just about two politicians; it’s about the system itself. When political institutions bypass judicial oversight, democracy wavers. The Natasha-Fubara saga underscores a troubling trend: unchecked power risks silencing dissent and eroding accountability. If the judiciary can’t step in to arbitrate fairly, what’s to stop this pattern from repeating?

It’s time to act. Nigerians deserve a judiciary that’s robust, independent, and unafraid to uphold the rule of law. Let’s demand transparency—push for swift court rulings on these suspensions and insist that political decisions bow to constitutional limits. Write to your representatives, amplify this call on social media, and support advocacy groups like Citizens Gavel pressing for justice. The clock’s ticking; let’s ensure accountability isn’t just a buzzword but a reality.

S.I AGIH ESQ

16/08/2023

DISTINCTION BETWEEN MANSLAUGHTER AND MURDER

In Nigeria, the difference between murder and manslaughter is that where killing is unintentional in the southern states, it is termed "manslaughter" and in the Northern states, it is termed "culpable homicide not punishable with death".

The distinguishing factor between murder and manslaughter is the lack of intention to cause death. In murder, that intention must be proven. In manslaughter, there isn’t intention to cause death, but death still results nonetheless.

09/08/2023

WHY CANDIDATES SHOULD INSIST ON REVIEW OF ELECTION RESULTS BEFORE DECLARATION

"Election results are presumed by law to be correct until the contrary is proved. It is however a rebuttable presumption. In other words, there is a rebuttable presumption that the result of any election declared by a returning officer is correct and authentic and the burden is on the person who denies the correctness and authenticity of the return to rebut the presumption. See: Omoboriowo v. Ajasin (1984) 1 SCNLR 108; Jalingo v. Nyame (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 231) 538; Finebone v. Brown (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 600) 613; Hashidu v. Goje (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 361 and Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) 7 SC (Pt. I) 1; (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 941) 1."

Per NIKI TOBI, JSC (Pp 54 - 54 Paras D - F) in BUHARI v. INEC & ORS (2008) LPELR-814(SC)

09/08/2023

BUHARI v. INEC & ORS (2008) LPELR-814(SC)

"Courts of law, in interpreting the Constitution or a statute have no jurisdiction to read into the Constitution or statute what the legislators did not provide for, and a 'fortiori read out of the Constitution or statute what is provided for by the legislators. In either way, the Courts are abandoning their constitutional functions and straying into those of the Legislature by interfering or interloping with them. As that will make nonsense of the separation of powers provided for in Sections 4 and 6 of the Constitution, Courts of law will not do such a thing, whatever is the pressure by counsel."

Per NIKI TOBI, JSC (Pp 38 - 39 Paras E - A)

03/06/2023

Children have rights too!

They have the right to be safe, healthy, educated and happy.

They have the right to express their opinions and be heard.

They have the right to play, learn and grow.

They have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.

They have the right to dream and hope for a better future.

Let's protect and promote the rights of children everywhere!

02/06/2023

Are you a landlord in Nigeria and are wondering what the procedure for recovery of your premises let out to your tenant is? Well wonder no more:

The procedure for recovery of premises in Nigeria is governed by the tenancy laws of each state. These laws regulate the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants in relation to the use and occupation of rented properties. Generally, the landlord must serve a notice to quit on the tenant, stating the reason and duration for terminating the tenancy. The notice period depends on the type of tenancy and the terms of the agreement. For example, a monthly tenancy requires one month's notice, while a yearly tenancy requires six months' notice. If the tenant fails to vacate the premises after the notice expires, the landlord can apply to the court for an order of possession. The court will hear the case and grant or refuse the order based on the evidence and circumstances. The landlord cannot use force or self-help to evict the tenant without a court order. This means that the landlord cannot change the locks, disconnect utilities, or harass the tenant in any way. Doing so may amount to a criminal offence or a civil wrong.

12/03/2023

Is it morally right to pay an elected public officer or political appointee pension and gratuity or severance allowance for holding such office for a period of years?

The court appeal, Per EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JCA, in GOVERNOR OF KOGI & ORS v. AHMED & ORS (2019) LPELR-48367(CA) answers the question thus:

"I must state here that the claimants' claim for payment of severance allowance because the tenure of their appointment has come to an end is as unfounded as is morally wrong. As I have held their letters of appointment did not stipulate their entitlement to such payment. They did not produce any law or any document or instrument that entitles them to such payment. The fact that elected p***c office holders and political appointees are paid huge amounts of money as monthly salaries and other forms of allowances while in office is common knowledge in Nigeria and is not reasonably open to question. It is also common knowledge that many of them after an office tenure of between 3 to 8 years become stupendously wealthy, exhibiting mind blowing opulence and splendour. Yet these office holders insist on being paid severance allowance for holding such offices. Meanwhile, career Civil Servants who have served this country or their States or Local Governments all their life can hardly collect their pensions and gratuity when retired. They are now being subjected to contributory pension schemes in which they contribute part of their monthly meager salaries that are always paid in arrears while in service to be able to earn pension and gratuity upon retirement. The political appointees and elected public office holders who do not work as long and as hard as the career Civil Servants quickly get paid huge severance allowances upon leaving office in addition to the huge wealth they acquired while holding such offices and without having been subjected to any contributory pension schemes. It is not morally right to pay an elected public officer or political appointee pension and gratuity or severance allowance for holding such an office for 3 to 8 years as the case may be. It cannot be justified in the context of our present social realities. It amounts to gross social injustice. The provisions of S. 84(5) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution that provides that any person who has held the office of President or Vice President shall be entitled to pension for life at a rate equivalent to the annual salary of the incumbent President or Vice President if he was not removed from office by impeachment is not a moral law in the context of our governance experience since 1960. The same applies to S. 124 (5) of the 1999 Constitution which enables a House of Assembly to make a law providing for the grant of pension and gratuity to a Governor or Deputy Governor of a State who was not removed from office by impeachment. These kind of provisions should not be contained in the Constitution of a moral society in which the primary objective of governance is the welfare and equal treatment of the people. The identifying character of a democratic Constitution is that it vests the sovereignty of the country in the people of Nigeria from whom all authority of government is derived and for whose welfare and security such authority is exercised. Such a constitution that promotes social justice and existence of an egalitarian society should not contain features of feudalism like the provision of pension and gratuity for the holders of the offices of President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy of Governor of State. ?Service of one's country state or any community in an elected or political office is an honour, the honour is derived from the selfless nature of the service. The purpose of public service is not to financially enrich the political office holder. In our present situation where huge amounts of money are paid to the political office holder as salaries and uncountable number of allowances while in office, which amounts of money make him very rich before the end of the tenure of such office, any law that provides for the payment of pension and gratuity to such office holder after he leaves such office lacks moral justification, promotes social injustice and cannot be democratic. The fact that the right is provided for in the Constitution and thereby made a Constitutional right, does not make it morally right. It is an absurdity in a democratic Constitution."