by By Elijah Ugani – Calabar
A human right and constitutional lawyer, Mr. First Baba Isa Esq… has raised alarm over the continues threat by the Independent and Corrupt Practices Commission ICPC, to arrest, detain or declare him wanted, to compel him to bridge the attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Isa took to his verified Facebook account @First Baba Isa to disclose this maintained that he rather die defending the attorney-client privilege than to live and be pointed at as that lawyer who broke the attorney-client privilege without due process of the law.
Hear him “Yesterday, I told my story: a story of how I got a valid court judgement in favour of my client. A story of how this judgment apparently went against the plans and dreams of ICPC. A story of how because of this ICPC is hunting me down like a wanted terrorist. You can read the full story, with all documentary attachments by clicking on this link https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10160002509834408&id=725834407.
“There is another horrendous angle to this. An angle so patently and gruesomely illegal; the thought that ICPC can even contemplate this makes me shiver.
“On the 19th of June, 2020 and after going to my office and home to arrest me unsuccessfully, ICPC went to my home and office to paste a letter on my door inviting me for questioning concerning a case I am handling as a legal practitioner. Find the letter attached.
“That same day they published a press release, so I know exactly why I was being invited. If you clicked on the link above, you must have seen the press release.
“If you read the letter of invitation attached, you will see that their invitation is premised on Section 28 of the ICPC Act.
“It will be apt to reproduce Sections 28 and 29 of the ICPC Act for fluid adumbration:
“Section 28 of the Act states that: “(1) An officer of the Commission investigating an offence under this Act may – (a) order any person to attend before him for the purpose of being examined in relation to any matter which may, in his opinion, assist in the investigation of the offence…”
“Section 39 states that: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law (INCLUDING SECTION 28), a Judge of the High Court may, on application made to him in relation to an investigation into any offence under this Act or any other law prohibiting corruption, order a legal practitioner to disclose information available to him in respect of any transaction or dealing relating to any property which is liable to seizure under this Act provided that no court shall require an advocate or solicitor to disclose any privileged information or communication which came to his knowledge for the purpose of prosecuting any pending proceeding.”
“The above provisions read together is as clear as crystal. Section 39 made it abundantly clear that a Legal Practitioner can only be invited by an order of court and not a mere letter from ICPC. And an order of court can only be obtained to compel the attendance of a legal practitioner for an interview with ICPC only when the matter has to do with a property liable to seizure and when it is not related to a pending proceeding.
“In the instant case, I did not carry out a transaction for my client touching any property which was liable to seizure; at the time I carried out a transaction for my client concerning the money in her account, there was and still is a valid court judgment authorizing GTB to give my client access to her money. At the time I carried out transaction touching on that money, it was not and is still not liable to seizure. In any case, there is no court order obtained by the ICPC to invite me, assuming without conceding that I dealt with any property for that matter that is liable to seizure.
“Obtaining such an order will even be a gross illegality since there is a pending proceeding instituted by me on the instructions of my client against the ICPC. Section 39 of the ICPC Act, supra, made it abundantly clear “… that no court shall require an advocate or solicitor to disclose any privileged information or communication which came to his knowledge for the purpose of prosecuting any pending proceeding.”
“What I am being invited to come and disclose is “… privileged information or communication which came to (my) knowledge for the purpose of prosecuting (a) pending proceeding.” This cannot and should not be allowed to happen.
“It is settled law that when the word ‘shall’ is used in a statute, it is not permissive but mandatory, and the person or body to which it relates has no option but to comply with the provision of the statute. See KALIEL & ANOR V ALIERO & ORS (1999) 4 N.W.L.R (PT 597) 344@ 355.
“In Hunt v. Great Northern Railway (1891) 2 Q.B. at page 191, Lord Esther M.R. said: “A privileged occasion arises if the communication is of such a nature that it could be fairly said that those who made it had an interest in making such a communication, and those to whom it was made had a corresponding interest in having it made to them. When these two things co-exist, the occasion is a privileged one.”
“This statement of the English Court of Appeal in the case of Hunt vs. Great Northern Railway, supra, was adopted by the Nigerian Court of Appeal in the case of GIWA V AJAYI (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 294) 423.
“The letter of invitation purportedly derived its foundation from Section 28 of the ICPC Act, supra, while the ICPC conveniently ignored Section 39 of the same Act. They cannot choose and pick which section of the Act to obey and which section to disobey. This is highly preposterous.
“On another remove, the strategy of freezing my accounts containing my legally earned fees in other to frustrate me and get me arrested so as I can be compelled to divulge privileged information is not only illegal but primitive and nebulous.
“This is why yesterday, I filed processes in a court of competent jurisdiction to strike down this demonic move with the gavel of justice.
“ICPC has threatened to declare me wanted if I don’t honour their illegal invitation. I know they can do that. I know they can even arrest me while this suit is pending in court. We are all witnessing the funeral of the rule of law. But no matter what happens to me, I will not be that lawyer who will be illegally compelled to divulge privileged information. If I do that, my career as a lawyer is finished: I will be known as that lawyer who divulges privileged information; my clients will leave me. Then the ICPC will go for other lawyers… Then, the law is doomed.
“I rather be remembered as that lawyer who died defending attorney-client privilege than to be alive and be pointed out as that lawyer who broke that privilege without due process of law.
“If I perish, I perish!”
F. Baba Isa, Esq.,
Principal Partner,
FBI LEGAL, Abuja.
07037162029 (WhatsApp only);
fbilegalfirm@gmail.com
N/B. This opinion is strictly that of First Baba Isa and did not represent the views of Thelumninenews or its staff.
