Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP, PHD DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2015 SUIT NO. NIC/LA/574/2013 BETWEEN Alhaji Abdul Lateef Usman - Claimant AND 1. Alhaji (Dr) Mustapha A. Oshodi 2. Alhaji Mubashir A. Ojelade 3. Alhaji (Dr) Abdul Lateef O. Jokomba 4. The Registered Trustees of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria - Defendants REPRESENTATION Adedapo Fashanu, and with him is Miss P. I. Ihesie, for the claimant. Ayodeji Awobiyide, for the 1st and 4th defendant. Musbashir Ojelade, the 2nd defendant, appears in person. Ade Ogunbiade, and with him is Mrs. Doris Owenaze, for the 4th defendant. No legal representation for the 3rd defendant. RULING The claimant by a complaint dated and filed on 29th October 2013 instituted the present suit against the defendants praying jointly and severally for the following reliefs – 1. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s letter dated 23rd September 2013 directing the claimant to proceed on compulsory leave and appointing Mr. Akeem Lawal as Ag. Administrative Secretary is a usurpation of the function or duty of the 3rd defendant and a violation of article 21c of the 1992 Revised Constitution of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria and therefore ultra vires, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. An order setting aside the 1st defendant’s said letter dated 23rd September 2013 directing the claimant to proceed on compulsory leave. 3. An order of injunction restraining the defendants particularly the 1st defendant whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or functionaries from interfering with the claimant’s employment with the Movement and the performance of his duties as Administrative Secretary. 4. An order of injunction restraining the defendants particularly the 1st defendant whether by themselves, agents, privies or functionaries from withholding the salaries and entitlements of the claimants. 5. An order of injunction restraining the defendants particularly the 1st defendant, by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or functionaries from evicting or threatening to evict and/or disturbing the claimant’s possession and occupation of his quarters or residence at No. 28 Ogunmola Close, Surulere, Lagos. At the first sitting of the Court on 26th November 2013, two separate counsel (Ayodedeji Awobiyide and Ade Agunbiade) announced appearance for the 4th defendant. It, therefore, became necessary to resolve the issue of legal representation of the 4th defendant. In that regard, Mrs. Doris Owenaze of Adefarasin Adio Saka & Co. filed a motion on notice dated 20th May 2014 but filed on 6th June 2014. The motion, which was brought pursuant to Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007, section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, is praying for – 1. An order allowing and/or permitting or directing the Law firm of Adefarasin, Adio Saka & Co. of Penguin Suite 2nd Floor, Wing E Elephant Cement House CBD Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos to act for and represent the defendant in this suit. 2. An order setting aside the memorandum of Appearance filed by Messrs Bayo Osipitan & Co. purporting to enter appearance for the 4th defendant in this suit. 3. For such further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. In support of the motion is an affidavit with exhibits attached as well as a written address. In reaction, the 1st and 4th defendants filed a counter-affidavit with exhibits attached as well as a written address. The counter-affidavit was deposed to by the 1st defendant as current President of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria and as such the representative of the 4th defendant. Ayodeji Awobiyide Esq. of Bayo Osipitan & Co. signed the written address in support. Mrs. Doris Owenaze of Adefarasin Adio Saka & Co. then filed a reply on points of law. The issue consequently before the Court is which of the two law firms, Adefarasin Adio Saka & Co. or Bayo Osipitan & Co. has the legal authorization to represent the 4th defendant. For ease of reference, I shall refer to the law firm of Adefarasin Adio Saka & Co. simply as AASC and Bayo Osipitan & Co. simply as BOC. ADEFARASIN ADIO SAKA & CO.’S SUBMISSIONS To the law firm of AASC, the issue before the Court is: who is the counsel briefed or authorized to represent the 4th defendant in this suit? It then contended that consistent with the principle of fair hearing, a party to an action is entitled to act for or represent himself in person or through a legal practitioner of his own choice, referring to Atake v. Afejuku [1994] NWLR (Pt. 368) 379. Consequently, the 4th defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel; and this Court has the jurisdiction and power to resolve controversy between counsel claiming to be entitled to act for the 4th defendant. That it is the law that Courts must not make a habit of demanding for proof or evidence of counsel’s authority to act for his client, citing Compt. NPS v. Adekanye (1) [2002] 15 NWLR (Pt. 790) 318 at 328 and Salim v. Ifenkwe [1996] 5 NWLR (Pt. 450) 564 at 585. That this principle is predicated on the assumption that any counsel who announces appearance to represent a party has been appropriately briefed. The law firm of AASC went on that in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit in support, the deponent deposed to facts on how AASC was briefed, referring to Exhibit BOJ3, the letter of instruction conveying the decision of NEC and Exhibit BOJ6, the 1992 Revised Constitution of the Movement. Exhibit BOJ4 shows that the 1st defendant is aware that a resolution was in fact passed at the NEC meeting of 10th November 2013 and had no objection except for his right to appoint counsel to represent himself. The law firm of AASC then submitted that the power to appoint counsel to represent the Movement in any law suit is an executive or management decision involving use of the Movement’s funds and, therefore, falls within the purview of NEC by reason of articles 8, 15, 85 and 5 of the Movement’s constitution. As a persuasive authority, the Court was referred to the unreported decision of the Lagos High Court in Suit No. LD/368/09 (Ambali Ajayi & ors v. Alhaji L. A. Katayeyanjue & ors) where the learned judge said that the NEC has the power to appoint a legal representative for the Movement. The law firm of AASC continued that while the 1st defendant is free to appoint Messrs BOC or any other counsel to act for him, he cannot without the ratification of NEC engage any counsel to act for the Movement (4th defendant) in this case. That the contention of AASC is that NEC did not appoint Messrs BOC to represent the 4th defendant and did not approve any fees for that purpose. It is the further contention of AASC that when an official of a body vested with the responsibility to appoint a representative, that official is under the duty in law to do so in the general interest of the body. But when the interest of the official is in conflict with the general body as is the case in this suit, the official has relieved himself of the duty to appoint a representation for the body. That this situation is what section 18(b) of the Movement’s constitution envisaged by providing a check in form of ratification without which any purported appointment by the President is invalid. That the appointment of the legal representation by the President was not brought to the knowledge of NEC for necessary ratification either before or after the decision of NEC to appoint its legal committee to represent NEC on all litigations against the Movement. The law firm of AASC then urged the Court to void this appointment for lack of mandatory ratification and allow AASC as instructed by the Legal Committee to represent the 4th defendant in this suit. In conclusion, AASC urged the Court to grant its application. BAYO OSIPITAN & CO.’S SUBMISSIONS The law firm of BOC agreed that the bone of contention is the legal representation of the 4th defendant. That while AASC trace their authority to the purported resolution of the National Executive Council (NEC) of the Movement, BOC traced its authority to the letter issued to him by the 1st defendant who is the current President of the Movement. To BOC, the issue before the Court is to be resolved against the backdrop of the provisions of the Movement’s constitution, Exhibit MA2 to the counter-affidavit of the 1st defendant. That it is common ground that the 1st defendant is the Movement’s President; and it is also not in dispute that the 1st defendant was the person who was served the writ of summons and statement of claim. The natural assumption, therefore, is that the 1st defendant is the person entitled to arrange for the defendant of this suit of the 4th defendant. The law firm of BOC then referred the Court to Article 18 of the Movement’s constitution which deals with the specific powers of the President to represent the Movement either personally or through his nominee in any matter involving or affecting the Movement. The said Article 18(b) provides as follows – The President is charged with the following duties – (b) To represent the Movement (either personally or through his nominee) in all matters anywhere at any time subject to the ratification of the National Executive Council. Meanwhile that Article 18(a0 provides that the President shall preside over meetings of and see to the smooth working of the NEC. To BOC, it is obvious from the above that the better person to know about decision of NEC as between the President, 1st defendant, who presides over NEC meeting and the deponent of the supporting affidavit to the motion dated 20th May 2014, who is not even e NEC member, is the President. BOC accordingly urged the Court to hold that the deponent of the affidavit who did not attend NEC meeting of 10/11/2013 is not competent to depose to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the supporting affidavit on the alleged resolution of NEC that the Legal committee should represent the 4th defendant in this suit. That where as in this suit it is alleged that NEC passed a resolution on legal representation, the least evidence that the alleging party should produce is the duly signed copy of the resolution. Alternatively, the minutes of the meeting duly signed by the 1st defendant as Chairman of the NEC and the General Secretary of the Movement should be placed before the Court. That failure to produce these vital documents is fatal to the cause of the applicant in this case. That the Court is entitled to hold that either there was no such resolution or that such resolution if produced will be against the interest of the applicant, referring to section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, Lawson v. Afani Cont. Co. Ltd [2002] 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 585 at 625 and Adeniran v. Alao [2001] 18 NWLR (Pt. 745) 361 at 408. To BOC, it is clear that prima facie the 1st defendant is entitled to represent the Movement in any matter. That he can do so personally or through a nominee. That it is exercise of power conferred on him by Article 18(b) of the Movement’s constitution that he nominated/instructed Prof. Taiwo Osipitan SAN to represent the Movement. This nomination although subject to ratification by NEC is not a void nomination. That unless and until NEC so decides not to ratify the nomination, the nomination is valid. In other words, the nomination is voidable. It is valid until set aside or disapproved by NEC. It is the further submission of BOC that the position of the 1st defendant in relation to the appointment of counsel to represent the Movement is analogous to the position of a family head with respect to alienation of family property. That it is trite that a sale of property by a family head without the approval of other principal members of the family is voidable and not void. However, a sale of family property by other members of the family without the consent of the family head is void ab initio. Similarly, that the appointment of Prof. Taiwo Osipitan SAN by the 1st defendant on behalf of the Movement is only voidable and not void. That said appointment can be ratified by the NEC. However, that the purported appointment of AASC by the NEC is void ab initio. It is incapable of any ratification because of the absence of the concurrence of the President who is vested with the power of appointment of counsel who will represent the Movement in this case. BOC went on that the applicant relied on Articles 15 and 25 of the Movement’s constitution to contend that AASC was properly appointed to represent the 4th defendant in this case. To BOC, these provisions cannot and should not override the specific power conferred on the President to represent the Movement in any matter where the President as this case decides to exercise his presidential power of nominating a counsel for the 4th defendant. That where there is a conflict between a general provision and a specific provision, the latter will always override the former, referring to NECO v. Tokode [2011] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1239) 45 at 70 and Schroder & Co. Ltd v. Major & Co. Ltd [1989] 2 NWLR (Pt. 101) 1 at 21. In the alternative, BOC submitted that none of the provisions relied upon by the applicant authorizes the NEC to nominate counsel to represent the Movement. That without an enabling power given to NEC to appoint counsel the power of ratification vested in NEC does not translate to power to nominate counsel to represent. That where a person has no power, he cannot delegate the power to a delegate. That it is trite law that a person cannot give what he does not have (nemo dat quod non habet), referring to Olosunde v. Oladele [1991] 4 NWLR (Pt. 181) 717 at 726 and Ajuwon v. Akanni [1993] 9 NWLR (Pt. 316) 182 at 202. To BOC even if NEC gas power to appoint solicitors, Exhibits BOJ2A – BOJ2B are completely void documents and, therefore, incapable of supporting the appointment of counsel at the instance of NEC. That one “cannot put something on nothing and expect it to fall it must surely fall), citing Mcfoy v. UAC [1961] 3 WLR 405 at 409 and Skenconsult v. Ukey [1981] 1 SC 6. That assuming the appointment of legal committee by NEC was properly made, the legal committee cannot delegate the appointment to the firm of AASC. It is trite that a delegate cannot delegate his power to another person not appointed by the principal. That Ambali Ajayi & ors v. Alhaji L. A. Katayeyanjue (Exhibit BOJ1) cited by the applicant is not on all fours with the instant case. It is distinguishable and consequently inapplicable to the instant case. That it is not a judgment in rem but a ruling in personam. That it binds only the parties to case; it is not binding on this Court for the obvious reason that the said case did not interpret the power of the President of the Movement under Article 18 of its constitution to appoint a legal practitioner for the Movement. On the contrary, that the case interpreted the powers of the Trustees themselves to appoint counsel of their own choice. BOC then urged the Court not to apply the case hook, line and sinker as urged by the applicant because the said decision is inapplicable to the facts of this case. That it is trite law that a case is authority for the facts it decides. Where, as in this case, the facts are inapplicable this Court is entitled to disregard the case. In conclusion BOC urged the Court to dismiss the motion on notice dated 20th May 2014. ADEFARASIN ADIO SAKA & CO.’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW In its reply on points of law, AASC submitted that Article 8 and section 15(a) and (i) empower the NEC to do all things including appointing a legal committee to represent the Movement. That the power to appoint a counsel to represent the Movement in any suit is an executive or management decision involving the use of the Movement’s funds and, therefore, falls within the purview of NEC. In any event, that by articles 8 and 15(i) of the Movement’s constitution, nothing is outside the purview of the NEC. That Article 8 provides: “The Government, Control and Management of the Movement shall be vested in the National Executive Council”; and Article 15(i) states: “The National Executive Council to be the final arbiter in any dispute within the movement whether between individual associations, Missions or any organ whatsoever”. To AASC, by the operation of the constitution of the Movement, the NEC is the overriding authority in the Movement which can assume any function if necessary even though such function may be under the duty of other official(s). That the unwillingness of the constitution to leave the duty of appointing a legal representation to its President (1st defendant) is seen in section 18(b) of the constitution of the Movement which subjects the power of the President to appoint to ratification by the NEC in order to ensure that the President Acts at all times in good faith and without conflict of interests. However, that when the opposite is the case as in this matter, the NEC takes over the duty as the final arbiter by virtue of section 15(i) of the constitution. AASC then asked whether there has been conflict of interest and answered in the affirmative. In support, AASC asserted that the 1st defendant deliberately and intentionally appointed a legal representation without seeking the required approval/ratification of NEC as prescribed by the Movement’s constitution – section 18(b). And that the letter written by the 1st defendant dated 12th November 2013 revealed the existence of crises between the President on the one hand and the NEC on the other hand. In this circumstance, that the constitution requires NEC to assume the responsibility to protect the interest of the Movement by appointing legal representation hence the appointment of AASC through its legal committee – section 15(i) of the constitution of the Movement. On the issue of sub-delegation, AASC submitted that where a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. That the national Legal Committee in performing its duty or power conferred on it has consequential power to do any act that will enhance the furtherance of such duty. That to enable the National Legal Committee perform the duty given to them, the appointment of AASC is purely incidental for the actualization of NEC’s instruction. More so when the duty to be performed requires a highly skilled professional therefore the service of a professional must be engaged. The Court was then referred to AG, Ondo State v. AGF [2002] 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 244, which applied section 10(2) of the Interpretation Act. That the letter written by the National legal Committee to AASC was necessary for administrative purposes to enable the Chamber to act accordingly within the scope of the authority granted it. Regarding the issue of the affidavit in support, AASC submitted that as per its paragraph 3, the affidavit in support conforms with section 115(3) and (4) of the Evidence Act. In conclusion, AASC submitted that section 18(b) relied upon by BOC requires ratification by the NEC, which was not done. That the appointment is, therefore, invalid, urging the Court to so hold and dismiss the counter-affidavit dated 17th July 2014 and allow the law form of AASC to represent the 4th defendant in this suit. COURT’S DECISION I heard learned counsel and considered all the processes filed in this matter. The simple issue before the Court is who between AASC and BOC can validly represent the 4th defendant in this suit. To be able to resolve this vexed issue, it may be useful to recount the facts of the case as gleaned from the evidence before the Court. The instant case was filed in this Court on 29th October 2013. On 5th November 2013, Alhaji Dr. M. A. Oshodi, the National President of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria wrote to BOC (Attention: Prof. Taiwo Osipitan, SAN) vide Exhibit MA1 attached to the counter-affidavit of the 1st defendant asking BOC to defend him and the Movement in Suit No. NICN/LA/574/2013 i.e. the instant suit. However, on 10th November 2013 the National Executive Council (NEC) of the Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria held its meeting. The minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit BOJ2A. In paragraph 7.1 of the minutes (Exhibit BOJ2A attached to the affidavit in support of the present application) it is stated thus – The National Legal Officer, Alhaji Jamiu A. Saka called for a motion to mandate the Legal Committee to represent the Registered Trustees of the Movement in all Court cases against the Movement. Consequently, he moved a motion that “the NEC hereby authorize the Legal Committee to represent the Registered Trustees and any other member who may so wish to be represented in litigations against the Movement as earlier reported”. The motion was supported by the 1st Assistant National General Secretary, Alhaji T. A. B. Osho. This motion was adopted unanimously. However, the National President belatedly said he had an objection to the motion but his view was not supported. I must point out that while Exhibit BOJ2A was signed by the National General Secretary, Alhaji (Dr) L. A. O. Jokomba (the 3rd defendant in the instant case), it is not so signed by the National President, Alhaji (Dr) M. A. Oshodi. On same day that the meeting of 10th November 2013, which generated Exhibit BOJ2A, was held the 1st Assistant National General Secretary, Alhaji T. A. B. Osho, who supported the motion as shown in paragraph 7.1 of Exhibit BOJ2A quoted above, wrote to the National Legal Officer (Attn: Prince J. A. Saka) vide Exhibit BOJ3 dated 10th November 2013 and attached to the affidavit in support telling him of the resolution adopted at the meeting of 10th November 2013 with the following instruction: “Your committee is required to take all necessary actions at all times to ensure effective and diligent handling of the litigation”. The National President was copied this letter. On 12th November 2013, the National President, Alhaji Dr. M. A. Oshodi vide Exhibit BOJ4 attached to the affidavit in support wrote to Alhaji T. A. B. Osho, the 1st National Assistant General Secretary, referred to the letter of 10th November 2013 (Exhibit BOJ3) and stated in the second to fifth paragraphs thus – The so called resolution was, I believe, passed when I went to the toilet within few seconds. The Legal Committee as I explained to their Chairman yesterday could not represent two opposing views. I was legally advised that I was not sued in my private capacity. I was sued as National President and Proprietor of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria. The Movement MUST be responsible for my defence. I hope we will NOT have to solve this in a court of Law to abate any frivolous resolutions. On 8th December 2013 another meeting of the NEC was held. In paragraph 10 of the minutes (which is Exhibit BOJ2B attached to the affidavit in support), it is stated thus – Alhaji Adio Saka reported that the Movement had four pending cases in court including the two from the suspended principal at the industrial Court. He reported that appearances had been made by him in the court to represent the Movement as earlier decided. However, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) also appeared purportedly to represent the Movement. This prompted the presiding judge to order that the issue of representation should be resolved. Once again, I must point out that while the minutes as per Exhibit BOJ2B were signed by the National General Secretary, they were not by the National President. What can we glean from all of this? By article 15(a) of the Movement’s constitution, under duties and powers of the NEC, it is the duty and power of the NEC to exercise executive authority of the Movement throughout Nigeria. Article 18(b) on the other hand provides that the President of the Movement is charged with the performance of duties which include representing the Movement (either personally or through his nominee) in all matters anywhere and at any time, subject to the ratification of the NEC. From these two provisions, there is no doubt that the NEC is higher that the President. Overall and overriding executive authority lies with the NEC, not with the President. So when Article 18(b) gives the President the authority and power to represent the Movement (either personally or through his nominee) in all matters anywhere and at any time, this is donated authority and power, which is exercisable only upon (subject to) the ratification of the NEC. When, therefore, Exhibit MA1 was issued by the 1st defendant regarding the legal representation of the 4th defendant, it was issued subject to (upon) the ratification of the NEC. In other words, Exhibit MA1 remained inchoate pending the ratification of NEC. I do not, therefore, agreed with the argument of BOC that Exhibit MA1 is simply voidable and so can confer legal consequences akin to what obtains in the alienation of family land by a family head. The analogy to alienation of family land is not apt to the circumstance of the instant case given that the nature of interests involved in both scenarios is markedly different. Exhibit MA1 being inchoate means that NEC ratification was required. So when NEC met on 10th November 2013, Exhibit MA1 should have been tabled before NEC for ratification. There is no evidence in the meetings of the meeting of 10th November 2013 that Exhibit MA1 was so tabled. Instead what we have is that in paragraph 7.1 of the minutes of the meeting of 10th November 2013 the Legal Committee of the Movement was mandated to represent the Movement in all litigations. That this is coming from NEC, which has overall and overriding executive authority over and above that of the President means that this mandate superseded that in Exhibit MA1. The mandate of NEC is to the Legal Committee of the Movement. It is a donated mandate exercisable only by the Legal Committee. As a donated mandate, it cannot be sub-delegated as the Legal Committee seems to have done by briefing AASC to represent the 4th defendant in the instant case. This being the case, the legal representation of AASC in this case is faulty and so invalid; and I so find and hold. That legal representation is accordingly null and void. This leaves out the legal representation of BOC. I stated that Exhibit MA1 was inchoate and needed ratification of the NEC for it to be valid. There is no evidence of such ratification before the Court. On this ground, the legal representation of BOC being inchoate cannot stand in the instant case. That NEC mandated the Legal Committee to represent the 4th defendant means that the ratification needed to authenticate Exhibit MA1 was denied albeit by conduct. This being the case, BOC as well has no valid authorization to represent the 4th defendant in this case; and I so find and hold. The legal representation of BOC in this case is accordingly null and void. I must point out that though the National President did not sign Exhibits BOJ2A and BOJ2B he was nevertheless at the two meetings and chaired them. He acknowledged being at the meeting in Exhibit BOJ4 when he stated that the so called resolution must have been passed within few seconds of his going to the toilet. Now by Article 19 of the Movement’s constitution, the Vice President by virtue of his office shall perform the duties of the President in the absence of the latter. The Vice President was at the two meetings that gave rise to Exhibits BOJ2A and BOJ2B. So the resolution arrived at to mandate the Legal Committee of the Movement to represent the 4th defendant in virtue of the overall and overriding executive powers of the NEC is valid and subsisting. It is immaterial that the National President did not sign Exhibits BOJ2A and BOJ2B since by Article 21(a) it is the duty of the National General Secretary to “…keep a Minute Book of the proceedings of the Meeting for reference”. Two decisions of the High Court of Lagos State, Yisa Adewale Ambali Ajayi & anor v. Registered Trustees of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria unreported Suit No. LD/268/09 the ruling of which was delivered on 9th September 2009 and Alhaji Abayomi Mufutau Adigun & 3 ors v. Alhaji (Dr.) Mustapha Oshodi unreported Suit No. LD/2595/14 the ruling of which was delivered on 16th September 2014, were brought to my attention. Both cases deal with the issue of the power to appoint legal representation for The Registered Trustees of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria, the 4th defendant in the instant case. In both decisions of the High Court of Lagos State, it was held that the power rested with the NEC given that section 15(a) of the Movement’s constitution vests “executive authority” of the movement on the NEC. This is the view I have taken in this ruling. I must, however, reiterate the feelings of Hon. Justice SBA Candide-Johnson in his ruling in Suit No. LD/2595/14 that the quarrel as to legal representation though an important one is nonetheless an unhelpful distraction to the smooth progress of the substantive case. There is, however, an issue, distant and inconsequential as it may be, but nevertheless of professional/ethical importance. In Suit No. LD/2595/14, Jamiu Adio Saka Esq. of Adefarasin Adio Saka & Co. it was who entered conditional appearance for and on behalf of the Registered Trustees of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria, the 4th defendant in the instant case. See page 2 of the ruling in Suit No. LD/2595/14 of 16th September 2014. He is by paragraph 7.1 of Exhibit BOJ2A the National Legal Officer of the Movement. He it was who moved the motion mandating the Legal Committee to represent the 4th defendant. As soon as this motion was moved and adopted (note that the motion was supported by the 1st Assistant National General Secretary, Alhaji T. A. B. Osho, the writer of Exhibit BOJ3), Exhibit BOJ3 was immediately written (same date as the motion was moved and unanimously adopted) to the National Legal Officer (Attn: Alhaji Prince J. A. Saka) asking his committee “to take all necessary actions to ensure effective and diligent handling of the litigation”. So what do we have here? Alhaji Prince Jamiu Adio Saka moved the motion that the 4th defendant be represented by the Legal Committee of the Movement; and when the motion was adopted, he was written to vide Exhibit BOJ3 and asked “to take all necessary actions to ensure effective and diligent handling of the litigation”. The next thing, his law firm, AASC, filed defence processes on behalf of the 4th defendant with a motion for extension of time to regularize the said defence processes. But there is a snag. Although the NEC under Article 30 of the Movement’s constitution has the discretion to create committees as are desirable, there is no evidence before the Court that the law firm of AASC is the National Legal Committee authorized by Exhibit BOJ2A to represent the 4th defendant. So when I found and held earlier that AASC has no valid authorization to represent the 4th defendant, I meant just that. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, it is the National Legal Committee as such (not the law firm of AASC) that has the authority of the Movement’s NEC to represent the 4th defendant in this case; and I so find and hold. Furthermore, by Exhibit BOJ4, the 1st defendant revealed the essence of his briefing BOC. He indicated that because he was legally advised that he was not sued in his private capacity but as National President and Proprietor of the Movement, the Movement MUST be responsible for his defence. A look at the complaint which originated this suit, however, shows that the 1st defendant was simply sued as “Alhaji (Dr.) Mustapha A. Oshodi”, nothing more, nothing less. That he was described in paragraph 4 of the statement of facts/claim as the National President of the Movement does not mean that he was sued as National President. I think it is this confusion in thought that must have influenced the thinking of the 1st defendant that his power to nominate a legal representative for the Movement is absolute and sacrosanct. In any event, it merely evidences the dog-eat-dog messy state of affairs in the Movement, a point Hon. Justice SBA Candide-Johnson equally noted in his ruling in Suit No. LD/2595/14. A litigant is free to choose who his counsel in a matter will be. As it is, it is the National Legal Committee, not the law firm of AASC, that NEC chose to represent the 4th defendant in this case. Sections 46 (dealing with right to practice) of the NIC Act 2006 provides that – All persons admitted as legal practitioners to practice in Nigeria shall, subject to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and the Legal Practitioner Act, have right to practice in the Court: Provided that a party to a dispute before the Court may represent himself or herself or be represented by the organization to which he or she belongs. Since the NEC of the Movement chose their National Legal Committee, this suffices for purposes of section 46 of the NIC Act 2006. Section 46 of the NIC Act 2006, as already shown, grants all legal practitioners right of audience before this Court. In fact, in its proviso, a party to an action may represent itself. In Mahmoud Bello & ors v. Nigeria Customs Service Board unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/664/2013 the ruling of which was delivered on September 25, 2014, this Court permitted a staff of the Nigeria Customs Service to represent the defendant on the authority of section 46 of the NIC Act 2006. In like manner, I find and hold that the valid legal representative of the 4th defendant as mandated by the NEC is the National Legal Committee, not the law firm of AASC since there is no evidence before the Court showing that the law firm of AASC is the National Legal Committee of Anwar-ul-Islam Movement of Nigeria. For the avoidance of doubt, neither the law firm of Adefarasin Adio Saka & Co. nor that of Bayo Osipitan & Co. has authority to represent the 4th defendant. It is the National Legal Committee of the Movement that has the authority to represent the 4th defendant in this matter. Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD