Amicus curiae: Friend of the Court

Amicus curiae: Friend of the Court. 

An amicus curiae (literally, " friend of the court"; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case and may or may not have been solicited by a party and who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case; and is typically presented in the form of a brief. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin.

Not to be confused with Litigation friend.

History

The amicus curiae figure originates in Roman law. Starting in the 9th century, it was incorporated into English law, and it was later extended to most common law systems. Later, it was introduced in international law, in particular concerning human rights. From there, it was integrated in some civil law systems (it has recently been integrated into Argentina's law system and Honduras's 2010 civil procedures code). Today, it is used by the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Presentation

The role of an amicus is often confused with that of an intervener. The role of an amicus is, as stated by Salmon LJ (as Lord Salmon then was) in Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229 at p. 266 F-G:

I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by advancing the legal arguments on his behalf.

The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court in which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal; attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients. Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to articulate those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal or public policy ramifications of the court's anticipated decisions will not depend solely on the positions and arguments advanced by the parties directly involved in the case.

In prominent cases, amici curiae are generally organizations with sizable legal budgets. In the United States, for example, non-profit legal advocacy organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or NORML, frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation. If a decision could affect an entire industry, companies other than the litigants may wish to have their concerns heard. In the United States, federal courts often hear cases involving the constitutionality of state laws. Hence states may file briefs as amici curiae when their laws or interests are likely to be affected, as in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, when thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) filed such briefs.

Amici curiae who do not file briefs often present an academic perspective on the case. For example, if the law gives deference to a history of legislation of a certain topic, a historian may choose to evaluate the claim from specialized expertise. An economist, statistician, or sociologist may choose to do the same. Newspaper editorials, blogs, and other opinion pieces arguably have the capability to influence Supreme Court decisions as de facto amici curiae. They are not, however, technically considered amicus curiae, as they do not submit materials to the Court, do not need to ask for leave, and have no guarantee that they will be read. 

Credit:https://soft24hours.page.link/legalterminology

Read More

"Interrogating the Criminal Responsibility of a Minor Under the Nigerian Criminal Law System: Whether a Minor Can be Charged with Offence of Treason in Nigeria."

"Interrogating the Criminal Responsibility of a Minor Under the Nigerian Criminal Law System: Whether a Minor Can be Charged with Offence of Treason in Nigeria."

 

"Ever since the dawn of history crime has been with us and it is no exaggeration to say that it is a product of society. " (Kharisu Sufiyan Chukkol: 2010). It is trite that if there is no law, there is no sin. On the other hand, this amount to saying that if there is law, there is sin. It is an open secret that whenever an offence is committed the following must be identified: (a) there must be the written law proscribing the act or omission making it an offence (b) the laid down punishment for such an offence (c) criminal responsibility and lastly (d) the offender. In examining the Nigerian criminal law system, it is apropos to state that there are two criminal laws guiding the administration of criminal law system in Nigeria. Firstly, in the Southern part of Nigeria, the Criminal Code is the applicable criminal law there. The Criminal Code has its origin from the Queensland in Australia. Secondly, in the Northern Nigeria, the Penal Code is the applicable criminal law over there. It has its origin from Sudan Penal Code. In interrogating the criminal responsibility of a minor under the Nigerian criminal law system recourse shall be made to the Nigerian Criminal Code Act, Penal Code, Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and the Child Right Act, 2003. 

By virtue of section 1 of the Criminal Code criminal responsibility "means liability to punishment as for an offence." Under the Child's Rights Acts 2003, a child is a person under the age of 18 years. According to Proverbs 11:21 "Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished..." An offender will never go scot-free under the Nigerian criminal law system. However, it is necessary to know the position of the law in respect of criminal responsibility of a minor. The crux of this paper is to ascertain the criminal responsibility of a minor under the Nigerian Criminal law system and whether a minor can be charged with offense of treason in Nigeria and if yes, what are the laid down procedures for the adjudication of the fate of such a minor. The provisions of sections 30 and 50 of the Criminal Code and Penal Code respectively shall be examined in respect of the criminal responsibility of a minor under the Nigerian criminal law system. 

Pursuant to section 30 of the Criminal Code

 "A person under the age of seven years is not criminally responsible for any act or omission.

A person under the age of twelve years is not criminally responsible for an act or omission, unless it is proved that at the time of doing the act or making the omission he had capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.

A male person under the age of twelve years is presumed to be incapable of having carnal knowledge."

It can be deduced from the above provision of the Criminal Code that a minor under the age of seven years is incapable of committing an offence so he/she cannot be held criminally liable for an offence under the Nigerian Criminal Law. There is a strong presumption that a minor under the age of seven lacks the capacity to commit an offence (doli incapax). Also, a minor under the age of twelve can be held criminally liable if it can be proved that at the time of committing the offence he has the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission. Thus, illustrative in this instance is the Indian case of Musamut Aimona (1969) I. L. R, 43 where the accused, aged ten years killed her husband and hid herself the court held that she had attained a sufficient degree of maturity to know the heinous character of her act. Similarly, in another Indian case of Ula Mahapatra (1950) A.I.R. Orissa 293 an eleven year old boy threatened to cut the deceased into bits and later stabbed him to death with a sharp knife. The court held that his action could lead to only one inference, namely, that he did what he had intended to do and in fact knew that a cut made by a sharp knife could cause death or serious bodily injury. He was therefore convicted for murder. Lastly, under the Criminal Code a male person under the age of twelve years is presumed to be incapable of having carnal knowledge. However, he may be convicted of the lesser offence of indecent assault. (See section 231 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015; R v Waite (1892) 2Q B. 600.) 

Furthermore, section 50 of the Penal Code provides " No act is an offence which is done- Act of child.

   (a) by a child under seven years of age; or .

   (b) by a child above seven years of age but under twelve years of age who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequence of that act.

Summarily, under the criminal responsibility of a minor under the Nigerian criminal law system Okonkwo and Naish (2018) assert that: 

"No problem better illustrates the necessary arbitrariness of the legal concept of criminal responsibility than the problem of when to hold a child liable for an offence, because the solution is simply in arithmetical terms. People are divided into three age-groups. 

(a) A child under the age of seven is not criminally responsible for any act or omission 

(b) A child who is seven or over but under the age of 12, is not criminally responsible for an act or omission, unless it is proved that at the time of doing the act or making the omission, he had the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission. 

(c) At the age of 12, a child becomes fully responsible according to the criminal law."

The other part of this paper shall venture into providing an answer as to whether a minor can be charged with an offence of treason in Nigeria and what is the laid down procedures for the determination of the fate of such a minor in the light of the provisions of Child Right Acts, 2003.  

On the issue of whether a minor can be charged with an offence of treason. The answer to this is in the affirmative however it is apposite to state clearly and categorically that the laid down procedures as contained in the Child Right Acts, 2003 for the adjudication of the fate of such a minor must be followed. By virtue of section 204 of the Child Right Acts, 2003 "No child shall be subjected to the criminal justice process or to criminal sanctions, but a child alleged to have committed an act which would constitute a criminal offence if he were an adult shall be subjected only to the child justice system and processes set out in this Act." Also, as far as the question of proving age is concerned, if it appears to a court that an offender was a child or young person at the time of committing an offence, he shall be presumed so, unless the contrary is proved. This is the extant provision of section 265 of ACJA 2015. 

The following is the extant procedures as laid down by the Child Right Acts, 2003 for the adjudication of a minor charged with a criminal offence (treason). Until the age of 18, children are dealt with in special courts- family Courts. These courts are provided for by the section 149 of the Child Right Acts. The public and the press are not admitted. Only the members and officers of the courts, the parties and their counsel, parents and guardian of child and other persons directly concerned in the case are allowed to attend the court. (s. 156 of the Child Right Acts). There is no publication of the identity of the child. (s.157 CRA) . The words "conviction" and "sentence" are not to be used ( s. 213(2) CRA), the child's right to fair hearing and compliance with the due process shall be observed, (s. 214 CRA), his legal status as a child shall be respected (s.214(2) (a)) and the proceeding shall be conducted in such a manner as to respect the legal status of the child and promote his best interests and well-being ( s. 214(2)(a)(b)). 

The courts which should be staffed by people who are trained in dealing with children ( s. 154 CRA) , have at their disposal a wide range of methods, (s. 233 CRA) but no child shall be ordered to be imprisoned (s.221(a) CRA) or subjected to corporal punishment. (s. 221(b) CRA). And no child shall be subjected to the death penalty or have the death penalty recorded against him. (s. 211(1) (c) CRA). It would appear also that the death penalty cannot be recorded against an adult who was a child when he committed the offence. This provision has overrode the decision of the court in the case of R v Bangaza (1960) 5 FSC 1. 

In conclusion, having examined the criminal responsibility of a minor under the Nigerian criminal law system by considering the provisions of sections 30 and 50 of the Criminal Code and Penal Code respectively, it is submitted that a minor under ranging above the age of 7 to 18 years can be charged with offence of treason in Nigeria. However, the laid down procedures for the determination of the fate of such a minor as provided in the Child Right Acts, 2003 must be followed. However, there has been an upsurge movement from the concept of responsibility towards the welfare jurisdiction. The care and protection of the child is the sole aim of the concept of child welfarism as opposed to the criminal responsibility theory. If he has committed the offence, the court's decision must be aimed at the child's welfare. 

Olawuni Samuel Idowu (SanAfflatus)

Read More

Pathways to the Lawful Exercise of the Right to Freedom of Expression and Right to Freedom to Peaceful Assembly and Association in Nigeria: A Look into the Right to Peaceful Assembly, Rally and Protest under the Nigerian Constitution.

Pathways to the lawful Exercise of the right to Freedom of Expression and RIGHT TO Freedom to Peaceful Assembly and Association in Nigeria: A Look into the Right to Peaceful Assembly, Rally and Protest Under The Nigerian Constitution.   

Abstract

Nigeria is a democratic nation in which all things are permitted within the confines of justifiable limitations of the law. Owing to this, the Nigerian grundnorm makes provisions for basic rights which are categorically spelt out. In the light of this, this paper aims at looking into the pathways for the lawful exercise of the right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association in Nigeria. The doctrinal method of research approach was adopted using the primary, secondary and virtual sources. The paper concluded by giving recommendations on how these basic rights can be exercised within the confines of reasonable justifiable limitations in a democratic society. Also, the popular misconception of the right to riot is expelled, discontinuance and corrected. 

 

Key Words: Fundamental human rights, protest, rally, interest, society, orderliness. 

 

Introduction

In every democratic and constitutional society, the right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of peaceful and assembly, rally, protect and association of the people are expressly provided for and guaranteed in the constitution of such society. Owing to the global spread of democracy, each state in the global community has incorporated these basic inalienable and fundamental rights in their constitution. This implies that in every democratic society, the citizens have the freedom to express their opinion, and engage in a lawful and peaceful assembly or gathering to protest against bad government policies as it is believed that there is a social contract between the government and the people to see that the government is accountable to the people in respect of the administration of the common resources of the society. However, it is to be noted that this right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and is a qualified right as it can be lawfully restrained within the confines of law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

 The right to peaceful assembly, rally and peaceful protect is fully recognized as a fundamental right in western democracies such as the USA, UK, Germany, France, Canada and so forth, public places such as Hyde Park, Trafalgar Square, the Houses of Parliament, and conference venues of political leaders and so forth, are paraded by individuals and persons carrying placard, billboard and other conspicuous things to show their concern for an unfavorable government decisions, actions, policies and also other unfavorable and unacceptable acts in the country. This is being done under the watchful eyes of the security agency to afford the protest being overtaken by unscrupulous groups and in order to avoid riot and breach of peace in the society. For instance, on the issue of racial discrimination in U.S.A, U.K and other European countries there have been many protests against this act by individuals and groups to express their concern on the issue.     

Here in Nigeria, the constitution provides for the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. The citizens of Nigeria have in various instances exercised this right to express their disapproval against many bad government policies, actions and other unacceptable social occurrences. The Nigerian Labour Congress, ASUU, NGO and other private persons had one time or the other engaged in protest in Nigeria. The EndSAR Protest of October, 2023 is also an illustration of example of protest being carried out in Nigeria. The right to lawful protest and gathering is guaranteed in Nigeria. However, while exercising this right, caution must be observed in order to avoid breach of peace and violation of other people’s right.   

 1.0 Background to the Right to Peaceful Assembly, Rally, Protest and Association in Nigeria.

The writer would segment the provision of section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) into two parts. Firstly, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, gathering, rally and protest. Secondly, the right to form or join any lawful association of one's choice and seek for the propagation and protection of the interest and objectives of such lawful association whether social, political, religious, economic or educational etc. However, for the purpose of this article, the writer will focus on the first arm of the section which provides for the right to peaceful assembly, rally gathering and protest. 

On the first arm of the constitutional provision of section 40 (supra), the right of every person is guaranteed for peaceful assembly otherwise called protest whether against the government, private persons, or any other entity. This right can be aligned with the section 39 CFRN, 1999  which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and the press. These two inalienable basic rights are fundamental and germane in a democratic institution. They avail the citizens opportunity to express their views, opinion, agitation, concerns, burdens, problems and needs to their representatives in government. 

The right to freedom of peaceful assembly otherwise called right to protest is only expressly obtainable and exercisable in a democratic society. Nigeria has been a democratic nation for more than two decades now and her citizens have been exercising this right with little or hardened restraint from the government. 

Going through the pages of the events of permissibility of the right to protest in Nigeria, it was observed that there had been a time whereby before this right could be exercised the police as an institution of the government had to give license to anyone who might want to exercise this basic right. Pursuant to section 6(2) of the Public Order Acts the police of the rank of Inspector or above was empowered to stop any assembly for which no license has been obtained. This was the archaic draconic law restraining the free exercise of the right to peaceful assembly otherwise called right to protest in Nigeria. It seems odd and unthinkable how the government would give license to peaceful assembly, gathering or protest that is against it. This was a gross violation of this fundamental human right then during the Dark Ages of the enjoyment of this right. 

In the case of CHUKWUMA V.C.O.P. (2005) JELR 52796(CA) the Court of Appeal upheld the provision of the s.6 (2) of the Public Order Acts (supra) and held that the appellant required a police permit to hold the meeting of their association. With absolute reverence to the Justices of the Court of Appeal in this case, this decision was reached per incuriam because the honourable court either inadvertently or advertently failed to advert its mind to the constitutional provision of section 1(3) of the CFRN , 1999 which gives supremacy to the constitution above any other laws in Nigeria. The section provides, "If any law is inconsistent with the provision of this constitution, this constitution shall prevail, and such other law shall to the extent of inconsistency be void." This had been given judicial approval in the case of National Assembly v President of FRN (2001)

However, section 6(2) of the Public Order Acts had been held null and void in the case of IGP V ANPP (2007) 18 NWLR (PT1066) 457 by the Court of Appeal and the court went further to examine the provisions of the constitution vis-a-vis the power of the police to insist on a permit before allowing peaceful meeting or protest and held as follows: 

“The police have no powers under the act to cancel marches on the ground that the organizers have not obtained a license or permit. The learned counsel referred to the experience of the UK where all that is required under the public order act is to give six days noticed in advance to the police, so as to make adequate security arrangements for the protester or conveners of public meetings. The fear that any group may take over a peaceful protest cannot be a legal justification for banning or proscribing rallies or protest. There are no peculiarities that can justify the restriction of the right to hold public meetings without license." (Emphasis mine).

Also in the case of Thomas v Collins 323 US 516 (1914) a statute required a labour organizer to obtain a license before he could address an assembly of labour. The defendant unionist ignored the statute and spoke. His conviction for speaking without a license was overturned on appeal because the statute was an infringement of his constitutional rights to speak. He is not required to submit to the unconstitutional law, and apply for the license and be refused the right to speak before he can challenge the validity of the law. In the case JUSTICE WILEY B. RUTLEDGE vehemently and poignantly buttressed on the sanctity and necessity of this right thus: "The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. There are some modicum of freedom of thought, speech and assembly, which all citizens of the republic may exercise throughout its length and breath, which no state, nor all together, not the nation itself, can prohibit, restrain or impede."

By virtue of s.40 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (supra) the right to peaceful assembly, rally, gathering, meetings and protest is guaranteed. This has been given uncorrupted judicial anointing and approval by the last hope of the common man (the law court). Furthermore, the court has gone further to remove the unlawful shackle and unnecessary restrictions that might be a hurdle to the free and lawful enjoyment and exercise of this inalienable right.

2.0 Pathway to Lawful exercise of the Right to Peaceful Assembly, Rally and Protest. 

It has been established that it will be unconstitutional for the government or any private individuals to hinder people from exercising their basic rights. However, an uncurtail freedom is disastrous. The citizens must know that the Nigerian Constitution only provides for the right to peaceful assembly, rally and protest. Riot is unlawful by virtue of s.71 of the Criminal Code which provides that “Any person who takes part in a riot is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years”.

 According to Emeka Odikpo " Enforcement of Fundamental Right in Nigeria", Lagos: Princeton & Associate Co LTD: 2020 pg55 "In the context of right to protest, this remains an inalienable right of man, subject to non-interference with the right of others. Thus, if protesters can design a way to protest without interfering with such rights of third parties, such as right of way, then they do not need any permit to protest." In the exercise of this right to peaceful assembly, rally and protest caution must be observed as to see that this lawful demonstration doesn't lead to riot. Appropriate measures must be taken by the organizers to see that the assembly is peaceful in the stricto sensu of it so as not to lead to public disturbance, disorderliness and breach of peace in the society. 

The government will be justified if it takes measures reasonably justifiable in a democratic society to stop any gathering or meeting that is potentially unlawful and detrimental to the peace of the society. The Police and other law enforcement agencies may be deployed to stop or disperse an unlawful gathering; or a potentially explosive gathering. Also, pursuant to s. 275 of the Criminal Code, the police, peace officer or private individuals can intervene to prevent breach of peace by using reasonable force.

3.0 Recommendations for Lawful exercise of Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, Rally and Protest in Nigeria. 

In order to reconcile the interests of the protesters, the government and the society at large, several measures must be put in place. Although the court has invalidated the statutory provision of obtaining license before engaging in any protest, yet the presence of security agencies during the course of the peaceful protest cannot be undermined. The reason for this is to prevent the peaceful protest, assembly, rally or gathering from being hijacked by miscreants. Also, police and other security agencies that may be present at the protest or rally must not be a terror. The purpose of having them around is to maintain orderliness and smooth running of the protest. This is what is obtainable in countries like U.K., U.S. A, France, Germany etc. However, should the lawful protest turned unlawful, the police and other security agencies are enjoined to use reasonable and professional force required in such circumstance to quell the unlawful protest. Right to life must be respected in all circumstances.

In addition, prevention is better than cure, the government itself should be quick and pragmatic in responding to the citizens’ outcry. The government is seemed as steward of the common goods and resources of the society. They must always be ready to give proper account of their stewardship. The ugly incident of End SAR Protest must not reoccur.

Lastly, video coverage of protest and full reportage in all media houses should be allowed in order for the public to be aware of it and not to be put in the dark. And to avoid the spread of rumor and bias reportage. This will lessen the probability of a peaceful protest metamorphosing to riot. 

Conclusion

Fundamental rights are basic liberties recognized and enshrined in the constitution. These rights are inalienable. However, they are to be exercised within the confines of reasonably justifiable limitations in a democratic society. The Nigerian grundnorm provides for the right to peaceful assembly, rally, gathering, demonstration, protest and association. The law permits the government to take reasonable measures to forestall and stop riot and unlawful gathering or rally in the society. The writer has made some recommendations on how right to peaceful assembly, rally, demonstration and protest can be exercised within the confines of reasonably justifiable limitations in a democratic be exercised within the confines of reasonably justifiable limitations in a democratic society. Right to peaceful assembly and association is fundamental, basic and inalienable for all citizens of Nigeria. 

*OLAWUNI SAMUEL IDOWU alias Sanafflatus 

 

Read More

Kenneth Dikke: The Father of West African Historiography

Kenneth Dikke: The Father of West African Historiography

The first professor in Nigeria was Professor Kenneth Dike (1917-1983). He was a renowned historian and academic who made significant contributions to the field of African history and culture.

Professor Dike was born in Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria, and received his early education in Nigeria and the United Kingdom. He earned his Ph.D. in history from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland in 1950 and returned to Nigeria to teach at the University College, Ibadan (now the University of Ibadan).

In 1956, Professor Dike became the first Nigerian to be appointed as a professor, serving as the Professor of History at the University of Ibadan. He was a pioneer in the field of African history and wrote several influential books, including "Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta" and "A Hundred Years of British Rule in Nigeria".

Professor Dike's achievements and contributions to education and academia have been recognized and celebrated in Nigeria and beyond. He remains a celebrated figure in Nigerian history and an inspiration to generations of scholars and academics.

Read More

Collaborative Spirit and Individual Dedication: Brief History of Oxford English Dictionary

Collaborative Spirit and Individual Dedication: Brief History of Oxford English Dictionary. 

 In 1879, the ambitious project of creating the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) began under the leadership of James Murray. Initially, it was estimated that the dictionary would take about ten years to complete. However, the enormity of the task soon became apparent. After five years of painstaking work, the team had only managed to complete entries up to the word "ant." The challenge lay in the meticulous process of collecting and verifying quotations to illustrate the usage of each word throughout history. This slow progress highlighted the need for a more efficient method to handle the vast amount of data required for such a comprehensive dictionary.

To address this, the project turned to crowdsourcing, enlisting the help of thousands of volunteers from around the world. These volunteers contributed by reading books and submitting quotations, significantly speeding up the process. Despite this collective effort, it still took 44 years to complete the first edition of the OED, which was finally published in 1928. The dictionary comprised 12 volumes and covered over 400,000 words and phrases. Today, it is estimated that it would take a single person 120 years to type out the entire OED, underscoring the monumental scale of this lexicographical achievement. The OED remains a testament to the collaborative spirit and dedication of countless individuals who contributed to its creation.

Source: Historian Den 

Read More