3 weeks ago
31
Law is injustice codified. It protects the powerful against the poor….
Noble Writer €1759. VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS, VBQ p 120.
It is quite possible that in no other country are two instruments of law abused by the powerful with the active connivance of the judiciary, as in Nigeria.
The first one is ex-parte in junction; the other is the Mareva injunction. The trending case between General Hydrocarbons Limited, GEl, and Pirst Bank has brought all of us face to face with the realty of how the two injunctions, in the hands of powerful litigants and complaisant judiciary can be used to victimise one party involved in litigation.
The first most people knew about the case were stories in newspapers proclaiming that GHL and Obaigbena assets had been ordered seized by order of a Federal High Court on account of an es-parte Mareva injunction.
It was stunning. But, before proceeding, permit me to make certain disclosures in order to let the reader understand the basis of my position.
Borrowers And Lenders: Honour Important
When Shakespeare, 1564-1616, advised that “Never a borrower or a lender be” he lived in an age far removed from our own. Today, it is virtually impossible to avoid being a borrower or lender; and frequently both. Every subscriber to MTN, GLO or Ariel is a lender. We give them our funds and hope they will deliver services to us.
Meanwhile, the Discos operate as borrowers and lenders with respect to their clients. They are lenders to those without prepaid meters; and borrowers to those with prepaid meters. Under normal circumstances, honour and various laws demand that the two parties involved in any transaction should fulfil their own obligations.
Unfortunately, disputes arise because one party or the other (in some cases both) fail to redeem their pledges under the agreement – written or unwritten. Litigation sometimes becomes inevitable.
Two of the legal instruments available to any litigant, but more often used and abused by the powerful are ex-parte and Mareva injunctions – both of which I honestly believe are being abused in Nigeria by parties involved in cases with the active support of some justices.
“A principle embalms a precedent.” William Scott, 1745-1836. VBQ p 198.
I have been opposed to es-parted injunctions since President Bubari and the Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF, went to a court to seek an ex-parte judgment proscribing the Shiites from practicing their own brand of Islam.
Bubari, Malami and the Justice were Sunis; who used their positions in government to perpetrate injustice. I am not a Muslim; let alone, a Shi’ite.
But, what the three Federal officials, elected and appointed to uphold our constitution had done, while we all remained silent, has now made it possible for a Catholic President, and his Catholic AGF to go to a Catholic Justice of the Federal High Court to obtain an es-parte proscription of every other Christian sect.
The Justice who issued the ex-parte proscription order against the Shiites could not even hide his bias.
He instructed the Federal Government to legalise the judgment by drafting an order for the President’s signature. All these were done without a word of self-defence from the Shi’ites.
The question must now be asked: what happens to the fundamental principle of law which stipulates that for justice to be done the other party must be heard. Es-parte, especially when punitive, by its very nature imposes penalties on one party without taking their own plea. It is injustice codified
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
Rev(Dr) Martin Luther King, Jr, 1929-1968. VBQ p 104.
When allied with the Mareva injunction, which authorises the assets of one party to a case to be seized or frozen, ex-parte is the worst form of injustice from the darkest pit of hell.
The court issuing it has in effect bound one party in a fight, hands and feet, without hearing a word in its own defence.
It is always amazing to me, how anyone sitting on the bench can imagine that justice is being done under the circumstances.
Nigerian courts are becoming too frivolous with issuing es-parte injunctions.
A Magistrate Court issues an es-parte ruling that someone, living in another state, should be arrested and brought to his state, for a crime which does not exist in his state; and which can only be handled by the AGF.
The poor victim is handcuffed, driven over 230 kilometres of Nigeria’s bad roads; thrown into jail and denied bail for days. If this is not punishment before trial, I want to be educated.
Ex-parte injunctions are increasingly becoming tools in the hands of biased justices – who are sometimes too brazen in demonstrating their bias.
GHL Versus First Bank Illustrates The Danger
“GHL floors First Bank in Court.” VANGUARD, January 30, 2025.
“Injunctive orders against Obaigbena, GHL, others stay, FBN counsel.”
On January 29, 2025, the court which had issued wide-ranging injunctions in favour of First Bank and against GHL, Obaigbena and others, found itself in the embarrassing situation of having to roll back some of those orders.
But, not before it had caused pain and disgrace to the defendants.
By swallowing what FirstBank placed before it; and not allowing GHL Obaigbena and others to have their say before punishment was imposed, the court was, in effect, tying the hands of the defendants in this monumental case, destined to consume billions of naira and millions of dollars by the time it is over.
Don’t get me wrong. I am a small shareholder of First Bank and have held accounts with it since 1980.
It is not in my interest for debtors to the bank to fail to repay their loans, as and when due. At the same time, I am privileged to be a regular public commentator and an influencer.
It is a role which carries with it a great deal of social responsibility. Columnists must eschew emotionalism and be always objective even in cases involving one of their own. Esprit de core also demands that we stand by our colleagues when under attack.
Ordinarily, there should have been an ethical dilemma for me as a shareholder and a media person.
But, there wasn’t. To me an ex-parte injunction is the Devil’s handiwork irrespective of who is at the receiving end of it.
Thus, I was, right from the start opposed to the order granted to First Bank. Thank God, the original injunction had been partly amended by the same court to allow the defendants access to their accounts while the case progresses through the courts for years to come.
Depend on it, irrespective of what is decided at the lower courts, several aspects of the case will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Most people over 70 might not live long enough to see the end of it.
Supreme Court To The Rescue
“Are you going to hang him anyhow and try him afterwards?”
Mark Iwain, 1835-1910. VBQ p 85.
The ex-parte injunction, in the hands of malevolent litigants, ably supported by complaisant justices frequently legalises injustice.
At least, it forces the victim to go through the costly process of vacating them; and there might be collateral damages involved, for example, tenants in a building locked out on account of ex-parte injunction. The Supreme Court should severely limit their use.
Follow me on Facebook @ J Israel Biola.
English (US) ·