Lottery Regulation Feud: Supreme Court Hears Lagos, Ekiti Suit Against FG, March

Fifteen years later, the Supreme Court on Monday, fixed March 13, 2024 to hear a suit filed in 2008, by the Attorney General of Lagos State against the Federal Government, in respect of who controls and regulates the gaming and lottery sector.  Ekiti state was joined as co-Plaintiff in the suit following an order of the court made on October 6, 2020. The Attorney General of the Federation is the 1st Defendant while the National Assembly is 2nd Defendant. The Attorneys General of 34 other States, were joined as defendants by the Supreme Court on November 15, 2022. A 7-man panel of the Supreme Court led by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, fixed the date at a resumed sitting on Monday.  Bode Olanipekun SAN, announced appearance for Lagos State Government while Adetunji Osho appeared for Ekiti state. The Federal Government (1st Defendant) was represented by Innocent Daa’gba, while Ifeanyi Mrialike represented the National Assembly.  The Attorneys General of the 33 States were duly represented and announced appearances.  However, there was no legal representation for Kwara state despite being served with hearing notice. The Supreme Court ordered Jigawa and Kaduna State Governments to put their houses in order by resolving the issue of legal representation before the next hearing date.  Meanwhile, the apex court panel unanimously deemed all the processes filed out of time by the defendants as duly and properly filed, having been regularized. The application by the Attorney General of Oyo state to join as co- Plaintiff having been withdrawn, was struck out by panel.  Justice Kekere-Ekun advised that all the State Governments that are on one side in accordance with their respective interests should present a common argument in order to save the time of the court on the hearing date.  Speaking to judiciary correspondents at the Supreme Court, Innocent Daagba, said he had filed processes and submissions of the Federal Government since 2020, adding that the processes have been regularized by the court, which clears the coast for hearing of the matter.  Recall that on 15 August 2022, the Federal Government (the Nigerian Lottery Regulation commission and the Nigerian Lottery Trust fund) won against Lagos and other States, on the issue of multiple regulation in the gaming sector. The Bookmakers association of Nigeria had initiated the lawsuit to determine the legitimate regulators of gaming businesses because they complained about paying multiple taxes and licensing fees to States and the Federal Government. In the Suit NO: FHC/L/CS/15992020, filed before Hon. Justice I.N Oweibo of the Lagos High Court, the Judge declared that the Federal Government should be the sole regulator of gaming business in the country as the constitution is clear on the position of lottery in the exclusive list and the National Assembly can legislate on lottery matters. Despite the judgement, there is still not an end to the back and forth bickering between the bookmakers and State Governments on multiple taxation and regulation. On July 19, 2023, Justice Iniekenimi Oweibo of the Federal High Court (FHC) in Lagos State ruled that the Federal Government, through the National Assembly, had the exclusive right to legislate and control lottery activities in the country. Few months after the FHC judgement, a Lagos State High Court delivered another judgement holding that matters pertaining to lottery and one-chance betting were subjects under the residual list in the constitution. By this, the judge held that Lagos State had the right to regulate the sector.  However, by a further amended originating summons marked SC/1/2008, the Plaintiffs want the apex court to declare “that lottery is not one of the 68 items in respect of which the National Assembly has the Exclusive vires to make laws under Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).  They are seeking a declaration that having regard to the clear provisions of Section 4(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the National Assembly lacks the vires to legally and constitutionally make any Law to regulate and control the operation of lottery in Nigeria.  “A declaration that having regard to the clear provision of Section 4(4)(a), (b) and Part ll of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), matters relating to lottery do not fall within items which the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly are concurrently empowered to make Laws with regard thereto.  “A declaration that having regard to the clear provisions of Section 4(7)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the Lagos State Government, vide the Lagos State House of Assembly has the power to the exclusion of the National Assembly, to make Laws to regulate and control the operation of lottery within Lagos State.  More so, the Plaintiffs are praying for, “A declaration that having regard to the clear provisions of Sections 4(4)(b), (7)(a) and 299(a) of the Constitution as amended, the power of the National Assembly to make Laws to regulate and control the operation of lottery is limited by the 1999 Constitution to only the Federal Capital Territory.  “A declaration that Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, made by the National Assembly are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.  Further more, they want “A declaration that the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.  In addition, the Plaintiffs want “An order nullifying Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria as well as an order nullifying the entirety of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.  Also, they are praying for “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant either by himself, agents’ privies, agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria or Federation of

Misapplication Of Discretion In Judicial Proceedings In Nigeria

By Douglas Ogbankwa Esq. Justices, Judges, Magistrates and Presidents of Area and District Customary Courts in Nigeria are very powerful. What they say and write is the Law, which you must obey. The latitude and discretion however given to My Lords, Their Worships and Their Honours are however too wide and sometimes unfettered. This could give room for abuse and perversion of Justice. It was Lord Atkins that said ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!’. The following are some practices and procedures in the Justice Delivery System in Nigeria, which require guidelines to ensure a uniformity of the Application of the Law and Discretion in the Nigeria Legal System. Same is currently now being abused and misapplied by some. 1.Ex Parte Orders or Interim Injunctions: Ex Parte Orders or Interim Injunctions are orders that are made for the time being, usually to provide succour for a person in an urgent situation, in a way that if you do not do so, the res-subject matter will be destroyed. This Procedure is being abused by some Nigerian Judges, Magistrates and Court Presidents, who some times determine the main issues in a matter at the Ex Parte Stage. There are no guidelines for the issuance or refusal of Ex Parte Orders. Judicial Officers usually hide under the hazy and nondescript concept of the word “Discretion”, to do what ever they wish, even if some times such is not allowed by Law. My Noble Lord, The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), must as a matter of urgency provide a Practice Direction to establish the compass of how to and how not to grant Ex Parte Injunctions. This should be like the one that was given that stopped conflicting Judgments of Courts. This is very important to delimit the ambit of the Law on this subject and make the granting and refusal of Interim Injunctions ascertainable. It will also stop the current practice of some parties going about looking for Interim Injunctions. There should be pointers to the grant or refusal of same, pointing to the names of the parties, whether they are juristic persons, the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the main matter before the determination of an Interim Injunction, whether there is real urgency, which must be established and not by mere deposition in an affidavit of urgency. For example, the Judge will ask the question, “What will go wrong in the event that the order party is put on Notice?” Will the heavens fall? The current practice of any thing goes in the grant or refusal of Interim Injunction is  one of the reasons for the perceived  disdain with which the Legal Profession is viewed in Nigeria today. The Narrative among the public is not palatable. While I concede that Judges do not give their Verdicts based on Public Perceptions, the Judiciary should however realise that the general public are the customers of our Judicial System and like a good Customer Care Service , it is important we get the feedbacks from the public, to know how we can improve our services .We must not operate among people that live on earth and act as if we live in planet Mars. There must be a symetry of purpose between the Law and the Society. 2.The need for sentencing guidelines: The Concept of Sentencing is a creation of Statute and Case Law. If the Body of Laws says you can give an option of fine, why should a Judicial or Presiding Officer Order otherwise? The needless imprisonment of Citizens is one of the reasons our Prisons are congested. There should be a uniform Sentencing Guideline issued to all Judicial and Presiding Officers, which My Lords, Their Worships and Their Honours should subscribe to and apply to the Letter. A Matter with the same facts and circumstances should not be determined in a different manner. This will obviate the abuse of Sentencing Powers of Judicial and Presiding Officers to preclude them to be too excessive or too mild in exercising their sentencing powers. 3.Granting of bail The Granting of Bail by Judicial and Presiding Officers even require more streamlining as it the most abused of the discretionary powers of Judicial and Presiding Officers. Bail is no longer entirely at the discretion of Court. The Administration of Criminal Justice Law Act and Laws of different States have indicated Matters in which a Judicial and Presiding Officer must grant bail. So ,it is no longer a privilege to the Defendant for such Matters indicated in the Administrative of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) and  the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJLs), but a right, for which they could even seek redress ,if denied Bail. To this end, to ensure that the Law is followed in symmetry l, Guidelines should be issued stating all the Offences and conditions therein for Bail, which should follow the Statute creating the Offence and should not be too excessive or too mild. This is to avoid allegations of bias, malice and ensure Judicial Powers are exercised, with out affection or ill will. 4.Election petitions Election Petition Cases though sui generis, appear mysterious and esoteric in the way and Manner that two Election Petition Cases for example, in the same State, in two Constituencies, will be determined differently by the same Panel, with the facts and applicable authorities being the identical, evaluated differently to reach a different conclusion. This is completely unacceptable! Election Petition Cases are even more grave, because they deal with the destiny of the Local Governments, States and Country. To this end, I recommend that only retired Justices and Judges of the applicable Courts are used for Election Petition Matters and Appeals. This will also ensure that cases in the Courts do not suffer owing to the absence of Justices and Judges that conduct Election Tribunal Cases and Election Appeal cases respectively. There should also be penalties for Members of a Tribunals and Appeal Panels who fail, neglect and/ or refuse to follow Judicial Precedents set by higher Courts of Records and their own Court,