TELLA LAW Consult

14/05/2026

Can a Former Counsel Withdraw Applications Filed on Behalf of a Client After Withdrawing from the Case?
Generally, no. A lawyer who withdraws from representing a client does not automatically have the right to withdraw substantive applications already filed on behalf of that client without the client’s authority or the leave of court.

Once an application is properly filed, it belongs to the client’s case, not to the personal ownership of counsel. The lawyer is merely the client’s agent.
So, after withdrawing from the matter:
the former counsel may apply to cease appearing for the client;
but he ordinarily should not take further substantive steps capable of prejudicing the client’s case, including withdrawing pending applications, unless:
he still has the client’s express instructions; or
the court permits it in circumstances recognized by law.

For example, a bail application, motion, or appeal already filed remains part of the court record even after counsel withdraws. New counsel may adopt, amend, argue, or abandon it on the client’s instructions.

Under the Nigerian Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may withdraw from employment only for good cause and upon reasonable notice to the client.

Also, the client has the constitutional right to counsel of his choice, meaning a change of counsel should not ordinarily destroy applications already competently filed for the client.
ATOYEBI VS OYINLOYE (2021)LPELR- 53990(CA)
D. Tella Attoni, Esq.
Managing Solicitor & Notary Public

30/04/2026

The Commissioner of Police, Rivers State, is not above the law and is, by constitutional imperative, bound to obey and give full effect to the orders and directives of courts of competent jurisdiction. Where he is dissatisfied with any such order or judgment, his only lawful recourse is to exercise his right of appeal, and not to engage in self-help or disregard same.

20/04/2026

My Lord, I appear before this Honourable Court with a Preliminary Objection of utmost urgency, praying for an order setting aside, nullifying, and voiding ab initio the so-called victory of Manchester City over Arsenal FC, same having been procured in a manner inconsistent with the principles of fair play, natural justice, and if I may respectfully submit, the emotional stability of Arsenal supporters worldwide.

My Lord, the said match, with profound respect, is a nullity. It is incurably defective, fundamentally flawed, and liable to be struck out in limine. We urge this Honourable Court to restore the status quo ante bellum and/or at the very least, award three points to Arsenal FC in the interest of justice.

24/03/2026

The courtroom is indeed a public space, but that doesn’t mean you can treat it like a media stage. Any loud, disruptive, or “rowdy” activity like giving a noisy press interview, can interfere with the proceedings, disturb the judges, lawyers, and parties, and could even be construed as contempt of court.
The safe approach is to conduct interviews outside the courtroom or in a designated press area, ensuring the proceedings inside remain orderly.

25/02/2026

25th February, 2026
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reserved judgment until 22nd May, 2026 in Civil Suit No. SC/541/2025 between the Attorney General of Lagos State and the Attorney General of the Federation & 35 Others.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of Sections 10-13 of the National Inland Waterways Authority Act (NIWA Act), which purportedly confer on the Federal Government proprietary, regulatory, and management powers over intra-state inland waterways ( to wit, waterways located wholly within the territory of a State, including Lagos, Rivers, Bayelsa, Benue, Delta, Cross River, and others.
The decision of the Court is expected to clarify the constitutional boundaries between Federal and State legislative competence over inland waterways, particularly as it relates to ownership, control, and regulatory authority over waterways situated entirely within a State’s territorial limits.

24/02/2026

Summary of Major Changes in the Electoral Act, 2026
The key changes include:
1. Financial Autonomy and Election Funding-
The Act establishes a dedicated fund for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), thereby enhancing its financial autonomy. It further mandates that all funds required for the conduct of elections must be released to INEC not later than six (6) months before the date of the election. This provision is intended to improve electoral preparedness and reduce undue executive influence.

2. Use of Technology in Voter Accreditation and Result Management-
The Act makes it mandatory for INEC to deploy the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS), or any other technology approved by the Commission, for the accreditation and verification of voters. This measure strengthens the integrity of the voter authentication process.
Additionally, the electronic transmission of results directly from polling units to INEC’s Result Viewing Portal (IReV) or any other designated electronic platform is now compulsory. Electoral officers who deliberately frustrate or undermine this process are subject to sanctions.

3. Regulation of Political Parties and Primary Elections-
Political parties are now required to maintain accurate and verified digital registers of their members and submit same to INEC at least twenty-one (21) days before conducting party primaries.
The Act also removes the option of indirect primaries, thereby restricting political parties to the use of direct primaries or consensus arrangements for the nomination of candidates. This reform promotes internal democracy and transparency within political parties.

4. Campaign Finance Reforms-
The Electoral Act, 2026 significantly increases the limits on campaign expenditure. For instance:
Presidential candidates: from ₦5 billion to ₦10 billion
Governorship candidates: from ₦1 billion to ₦3 billion
Furthermore, political parties are required to submit accurate audited financial reports. Failure to comply attracts penalties, including fines of up to ₦10 million.

5. Strengthened Penalties for Electoral Offences-
The Act introduces stricter penalties for electoral offences such as vote buying, impersonation, falsification of results, and other forms of electoral malpractice. Offenders may face substantial fines, terms of imprisonment, or both.
In particular, Resident Electoral Commissioners or electoral officials who unlawfully withhold electoral materials or documents may be liable to imprisonment for up to two (2) years.

6. Inclusivity and Improved Voter Access-
The Act introduces measures aimed at improving inclusiveness and reducing voter disenfranchisement. These include:
Special provisions to assist visually impaired and physically challenged voters
Queue management arrangements sensitive to cultural and social considerations
Recognition of additional valid forms of identification, such as Nigerian passports and birth certificates
Provision for downloadable voter identification credentials to facilitate easier voter participation.
Copied

03/02/2026

Just another day of a trial lawyer:
arguments made, ground held.

16/12/2025

The published and widely circulated summary of the majority judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC does not appear to have expressly pronounced upon, nor conclusively resolved, the pivotal constitutional issue of :
whether under the colour or guise of a proclaimed State of Emergency, the President is vested with the authority to suspend an elected Executive Governor of a State?

With the greatest respect, that fundamental question remains unresolved and continues to subsist within the realm of constitutional uncertainty.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court undertook a commendable scholarly exercise by examining comparative constitutional provisions from India and Pakistan, and observed as follows:

> " Across constitutional democracies, they ( emergency powers) remain subject to legal limits, legislative oversight, and judicial scrutiny.
Comparative Constitutional experience is instructive . In India, Sections 352-360 of the Constitution expressly empower the President, upon satisfaction that Constitutional governance in a State and authorise Parliament to exercise State legislative powers.
Similarly, in Pakistan, Article 234 of the Constitution authorises the President, in clearly defined circumstances, to assume Provincial executive functions, with legislative powers exercised by Parliament, subject to time limits, Parliamentary approval , and judicial oversight.
The Nigerian Constitution adopts a markedly different approach. Section 305 authorises the President to proclaim a State of emergency under specific conditions, including war, imminent danger of invasion, actual or threatened breakdown of public order and safety, or other public danger threatening the existence of the Federation. However, unlike the Constitution of India and Pakistan, Section 305 of the Nigerian Constitution does not expressly conference power on the President to assume or temporary displace the executive or legislative institutions of a State . This omission is deliberate and reflects Nigeria's constitutional commitment to Federalism and the autonomy of State governments of State governments."

Significantly, while the above comparative exposition is both instructive and illuminating, it stops short of making a definitive pronouncement on the narrow but crucial constitutional question at the heart of this dispute, namely:
whether the proclamation of a State of Emergency, without more, constitutionally authorises the suspension of an elected Executive Governor by the President?

In the absence of clear, express, and unambiguous constitutional language donating such power, any attempt to imply it into Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) would amount to an unwarranted expansion of executive authority, inconsistent with the principles of constitutional interpretation, destructive of Nigeria’s federal structure, and subversive of the democratic mandate freely conferred by the electorate.

By:
D. Tella Attoni
( Legal Practitioner & Notary Public)

14/12/2025

A convicted bank robber, now a law professor!
In Nigeria, his opportunity to attend the Nigeria Law School would have been precluded by the institution's strict policy of not admitting felons.

From 2017, Steve Kroft’s profile of a man who discovered he had a brilliant mind for the law while he was serving time in prison for armed bank robbery. From...

08/12/2025

Being a constitutional matter that challenges the validity of the National Inland Waterways Authority Act, particularly its purported conferment of powers on the Federal Government to impose tariffs, collect revenues, and issue permits over the inland waterways of Lagos State and other States with similar geographical attributes, including my dear Rivers State, the full panel of the Supreme Court was duly constituted and convened to sit today. The occasion was marked by the full presence of both the inner and outer Bar, with legal luminaries in attendance. Of particular note was Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, appearing not in his former capacity as Executive Governor, but in the distinguished role of Advocate and Counsel, representing the interests of his State with the authority of his legal acumen.

07/12/2025

How many of us are able to recall that the Land Use Act is one statute that enjoys a constitutional flavour, meaning that any alteration to it must follow a procedure closely akin to that required for amending the Constitution itself (see Section 9(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended).

This will be one of the key points I will emphasize before the Supreme Court , particularly in urging that Sections 10 to 13 of National Inland Waterways Authority Act which purports to empower the FGN to regulate and generate revenues in respect of inland water ways in a state be struck down.