Response to Kunle Edun: J.S Okutepa got it wrong-Anthony Atata

I associate myself entirely with the position of Kunle Edun in his press release and yes, the EFCC charge is an attack against the Bar.

The three paragraphs below are what I intend to respond to in the response of the learned silk to Kunle Edun.

1. “The Charge seem to question the propriety of a lawyer being paid from government coffers for a brief done for private citizen”
2. “I am not going to allow myself or any other right thinking member of the Bar to be dragged into purely what Paul Usoro personal issue with security agents”
3. “Even the election that led to his being declared NBA President is still subject of both ethical and criminal controversies”

No ,I disagree with the learned silk  in his interpretation of the cahrge. The Learned silk probably did not with due respect understand the charge. Count one is published below.

“That you Paul Usoro (SAN), Emmanuel Udom (currently constitutionally immune to criminal prosecution), Uwemedimo Thomas Nwoko (still at large), Nsikan Linus Nkan (Commissioner of Finance Akwa Ibom State) (still at large), Mfon Jacobson Udomah (Accountant General of Akwa Ibom State) (still at large) and Margaret Thompson Ukpe (still at large), sometime in 2015 in Nigeria, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, conspired among yourselves to commit an offence, to wit: conversion of the sum of N1, 400, 000, 000 (one billion four hundred and ten million naira) property of Government of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful activity to wit: criminal breach of trust and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18 (A) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 as amended and punishable under Section 15 (3) of the same Act.”

The funds in question was actually paid in by Governor Udom in his personal capacity for personal services delivered to him.

The Charge says that there was a conspiracy to use Akwa Ibom State funds to pay for legal services by way of withdrawing same and paying for legal services.The funds were paid by the governor who EFCC claims used the state’s funds to pay for legal services.It is important to make it clear that in the case in question,the money was paid into Paul Usoro and Co account by the Governor not by Akwa Ibom State Government.

So the case against Mr Usoro is that he received his legal fees knowing that the governor took it from the state’s funds not that funds were paid from state coffers for Private briefs.

There were actually paid by the governor but EFCC alleges that the source is Akwa Ibom State government.

That said,i will also try to embark on the voyage of discovery in the argument of the learned silk.

If  indeed there is  an offence in receiving professional fees from Akwa Ibom State Government, should that  offence  lie with the lawyer whose services were paid for.

I think that it is common sense not even law that if an offence has been committed in the circumstance, the offender should be the client and not the Lawyer who received his due fees. The learned silk should have been less biased here.

Let me simulate it a little. If Mr ABC approaches me to file a petition for dissolution of Marriage and I charge him N100. Subsequently, I receive an alert of N100 from XYZ LTD a legal person. Good, it is the duty XYZ Ltd to pass the necessary resolution to pay for the services on behalf of ABC, and can never be my duty to question if the company passed a resolution to pay me for the services I rendered to ABC in his private capacity.

Let us assume that Paul Usoro only handled the governor’s personal briefs and the state decides to pay for it.It is not the duty of the counsel to question the governor why the state paid for it. It is purely the governor’s business.

I therefore disagree vehemently that the Charge questioning the propriety of a lawyer being paid from government coffers as  for a brief done for private citizen is not a private matter of Paul Usoro but a matter that affects the legal profession.

Before anyone is persuaded to adopt the position of the learned silk,let us remember that if the court rules that receiving professional fees from a source different from the person who briefed you, it  will give rise to the following hypothetical situations(Continue to be guided that this situation is not the case against Mr Usoro)

If Mrs ABC briefs me to file a petition for dissolution of Marriage and subsequently I receive a call from her father who tells me that he is interested in making sure that her daughter walks away from an abusive marriage, then asks for my account number and pays. I have received my Professional fees from a source other than the person I offered services. I will become liable for not questioning my client’s father or for failing to reject my Professional fees?

Again, can I subsequently sue Mrs ABC for my professional fees on the grounds that I did not receive any payment from her directly? Will a right thinking person allow me to get away with the payment made by her father just because the payment was not made by the person who received the services?

The learned silk took the story of EFCC,gave it his own interpretation and ran with it without considering the statements of Paul Usoro. I know he would have argued differently if he was less biased. The reason is obvious.

“I am not going to allow myself or any other right thinking member of the Bar to be dragged into purely what Paul Usoro personal issue with security agents”

The statement above by the learned silk is unfortunate. A lawyer is being arraigned because he received his professional fees from a source other than the source that briefed him(That is what the EFCC is saying not mine) and the learned silk is calling it personal. Something that happened in the course of his duty as a lawyer is personal that is capable of affecting the way we run our practice. That is unfortunate.

My questions are

1. When a lawyer is kidnapped or assassinated, is that not a personal matter of these lawyers. Why do NBA get involved in such personal matters?
2. When a lawyer is harassed by security agencies at the police stations in advancing the case of his client, is that not a personal matter within the ambit of the submissions of the learned silk? Why do the NBA get involved?
3. If the security agents arrest a lawyer for misappropriating client’s money. Will J.S Okutepa treat it as a personal matter when it comes to the disciplinary committee if he finds himself as a prosecutor there?

Now a lawyer is being arraigned for receiving his legal fees which is due to him, the learned silk calls it personal. Too bad

“Even the election that led to his being declared NBA President is still subject of both ethical and criminal controversies”

In response to the above, the allegation is a figment of the imagination of those who lost in the last election who are too immature to accept defeat. The so called controversy if it exists is a storm in a tea cup.