 Welcome back. Now to the next major conversation. We have a human rights lawyer joining us. He is Justice Uhuebu, who will do justice, of course, no pun intended, to the issue up next. A legal practitioner, Anigoro Mathias, has falsely the judgment of the National Industrial Court, ordering the immediate upward review of the judge's salaries on the grounds that it was delivered out of the jurisdiction. And should be voided forthwith. Justice Obasaki Osage had in her judgment held that the minimum monthly salary of 10 million should be paid to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and 9 million to each justice of the Supreme Court. The judgment followed suit filed by senior advocate of Nigeria Chief Sebastian Hon, who argued that since 2008, when judges' salaries and allowances were last increased, inflationary trends and socio-economic realities have rendered such pay inadequate. However, picking holes in the judgment, the lawyer said the plaintiff, Mr. Sebastian Hon, lacked the requisite local standee to institute the case and the court was duty bound to have declined its jurisdiction and dismiss the case now. To help us unpack this and understand what's going on in Analyze, we have, once again, Justice Uhuebu, who is a human rights lawyer. Mr. Uhuebu, thank you very much for your time. Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much. Now, for those who do not understand what's going on here, we have, we hear that the lawyer was gone to court, who's what I commented, commented on the decision of the National Industrial Court regarding the salaries of the members of the bench. What exactly is this lawyer's problem, as far as you can tell? When issues come up like this, you look at the interest. Why, first of all, the person that went to court with the court, although they want to achieve and follow the law. The lawyer actually talked about it. And actually, when a lawyer comes up in court, the court in the court looks at the issue of local standee. That is the court of action. Talk about local standee, talk about local standee. Then, local standee in the court, what is your interest? What is your interest? First, secondly, how would that case or judgment of the court affect you personally, for you to be able to go to court in the court? I think the lawyer is just the people that are supposed to go to court to challenge or to request for agreements, sorry, or whatever, because people that are directly affected by the court or just as we're talking about. So, the law is no respect for the court to challenge any situation they are at. All right. Audio hasn't been too clear, but are you agreeing with the view of this legal practitioner, Mathias and Igoro, that the lawyer who filed this suit lacks the local standee? Is that what you're saying, or are you disagreeing with him? No, no, the lawyer, remember that the person that filed the suit, the lawyer, because he's the member of the bar, that's the major ambassador. And all the judges, all the magistrates, they are also members of the bar, of the major ambassador. That's part of the fact that they are in the bench, which they are also members of the major ambassador. So, for me, a lawyer, any lawyer can come up with a name, any issue that assails the judiciary, because we're talking about the judiciary here. So, for me, I believe he has the local standee, because if the court is not filing, you have the local standee to go to court for court matter, the court don't arrive as in the district. So, in the wisdom of the court, the court department has the issue of the decision, because I believe the person that filed, for me, he needs to be another person who is not a lawyer, who is not an employee, who is not a candidate. Alright, so you've talked about the fact that this lawyer who filed the suit, the National Industrial Court, is a member of the bar indeed. He's a very senior member of the INA bar. And of course, when you talk about local standee, you've broken it down for us. You have to have something at stake for you to file a suit. Being a member of the bar, you've said that all members of the bench are members of the bar, if I heard you correctly. But are members of the bar members of the bench? The answer is no. Yeah, the answer is no. But remember, you don't meet a lawyer's type. You don't meet a member of the bar before you're called to the bench. In fact, let me say to you, when the puta, the puta, the JSC of Bezell Memorial, was asked a question, the difference between the bar and the bench. He simply answered me and said that a lawyer who stands in the bar to argue matters, while a judge is someone who after long standing at the bar, is supposed to sit on the bench. So the implication there is that the judge also is a member of the bar. You don't meet a lawyer before you're called to the bench. But Justice Huaybu, a member of the bench, this is a judge who is sacked or who retires. Can this judge go back to practice law? Of course. If you're a member of the bench and you have retired, you can set up a law firm, but still a lawyer. I've heard that once you leave the bench, you are not allowed to go back to practice law. The truth about it is that when you set up a law firm, you can involve people in the law firm. But can you work as a practicing lawyer after graduating and retiring or leaving the bench? I'm sure it's no because I've spoken to lawyers who tell me it's no. You can practice. Hello sir. Okay, so you're saying as a retired or fired lawyer, maybe you were sacked. You cannot practice once you leave the bench. You're talking about sacked. There's a difference between sacked and retired. Okay, please allow me to rephrase my question. Once a lawyer who becomes a judge leaves the position of being a judge, leaves the bench, can he or she practice again as a lawyer in Nigeria? Well, you are still a member of the firm. So the issue, the standard in firing rules, once you have retired as a judge. Because if the purpose of your effort is to go and start practicing as a lawyer, you can start standing in the back. Okay, so if that is said that you can go back to practice as a lawyer, then where in lies the connection between you, for instance, you as an example as a lawyer and a judge? It therefore means that there's no connection, wouldn't you say? I said something, before you become a judge, you were already pressed for a lawyer. You cannot be appointed as a judge without being a lawyer. No, but you're saying that when you leave the bar and graduate to the bench, you are saying goodbye, bye bye, au revoir, to the bar? That does not mean that you're not a member of the firm. I don't know what I mean, I'm not practicing. That does not mean that you're not a member of the Nigerian Bar Association. Because you just don't know who's going from you. Okay, I did some research and you were able to give us a sort of definition and explanation as to why this lawyer who filed this suit before the National Industrial Court raised the issue of local standing. And a little bit of what I was able to fish out from the material I had access to is to say local standing is a condition, just like you've said, that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. So is there sufficient connection between the lawyer who filed this suit and how much the Chief Justice ends? Is there sufficient harm from this increase in the salaries of the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the judges, justices of the Supreme Court to this particular lawyer from the increase in these salaries? Is there any sufficient connection or harm? Does this lawyer suffer as a result of this national industrial court decision? Yeah, it's it for me personally. That's why the court has been living above the Supreme Court judges. If I were to go to court for the Supreme Court, I would even be converted for all the advocates of all the judges in Nigeria and even sent down to the magistrate. Why? Because, because if their standard of living and so far away is something to write from above, we continue to be having judgments in the court. And remember, judgments will affect everybody in the society because they want to come and respect laws when judgments are given in court. It becomes a law on to set aside. So everybody becomes a particular of him. So naturally, if the judges or the agitator are paid well, the issue of giving judgments by a plant or one thing or the other will be a thing that will not be successful. Because we want issues where some people put on an argument or an issue that exhausts policies right and other aspects and let some petitions are not good. But if the judges are not well taken care of, all these allegations will not be coming up. But it will affect the society. It will affect the judiciary. Okay, so what you're saying basically is that the harm or the adverse effect to this particular law or any law in the country is that if the judges are not paid well, it will obviously affect the way they carry out their work and maybe make them susceptible to influence. What they are doing in the chamber, their judgments are not right. Alright, so if they paid better, the lawyers will also have better, fairer judgments, therefore. Definitely, you don't need to know the court before you put your hand up. Because there's a saying that some people always say, not the law and not the court. For me, it's an affirmation. What you need to do is to not the law and not the court. What about the position or the issue of jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court, which we're all aware of the position or the responsibility and the duties of the National Industrial Court in Nigeria, you know, labor disputes and all that. The lawyer is also fighting this whole situation in respect to the jurisdiction of the court that are entertained this suit. When you say that you're getting told, the National Industrial Court is talking about the law and vis-à-vis employer-employee relationships are common. So the judge is also creating an employee in and out of the matter. Because each side must have taken all this into consideration before the decision. Okay, alright. What do you think will inform a lawyer having such a view? You know, it's hard to see all the lawyers in the country or in the state having the same view on a particular matter. So what do you think will inform a lawyer having such a view? Is it that he doesn't want to see the lawyer, the judge is better paid or he just simply feels that the right thing should... Can you read the mind a bit into the motives and the reasoning behind this lawyer raising questions over the case? Yeah, like I said in the assessment, I would be going to court of harvesting for a uniform, there are some states, for example, in Nigeria today, I mean the members of the bank, that are not being paid well, their worker is not being cadastic and visually in some states, you know, it becomes more like a larger stock. So how do you not treat everyone differently? I keep on saying this on and on again. Every country that judiciary has failed, that country is finished. The judiciary is the only armed that can revive a country, where the country is. And that is why we say that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man. That person that you are hoping to be the last hope of the common man, what about the work rate of that person and all the way? All right, all right. Back to the issue of local study, permit me to ask and bring that up again. Are you supposed to just maybe talk about, in general terms, to prove how a case affects you, how it harms you? Are you supposed to give, as a lawyer, or a plaintiff before a court, a case in point, particular cases in point to prove that injury came to you or harm came to you as a result of a situation for which you want to see change? So for instance, this lawyer is supposed to show, prove to the court, the national industrial court, that give them instances, specific instances where he suffered harm, injury, you know, adverse situation as a result of a low payment, perceived low payment, and salaries of judges in the country. Is he meant to show that? To me, he may or may not because, for example, they are neither driver, you always say that injury to one is injury to all. Let me also give you an example. You, you are the journalist. That's not the fact that you are in one media app. But you can also translate an issue that is happening in another media app. Why because you are a journalist? Yeah, but if I, if I, if I go to court, there's something I hear lawyers say or judges say, sufficient reason. Am I not supposed to present sufficient reason or proof or evidence that the issue at hand, the matter, the facts affect me personally and give them instances to say, on this date that this happened and affected me and that's why I'm coming to the court to say, please make this, you know, change and rule in my favor. So, sufficient reason is different from those standing. Now, let me, let me give you an example. For example, in the issue of fundamental human rights acquisition, because the law is that you can, it goes to court, it goes to your right, if your right has been free done, about to be free done or likely to be free done. So, you will go to your right, if it's free done, it's going to go to court. The price of the reason is not right. Okay, all right. In your view, do you feel that if this is implemented, if there's no challenge to this decision by the Honorable Justice of the National Industrial Court, Milord Justice Obasekyo Sage, who's directed that the National Assembly, the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission, the Attorney General of the Federation in the midst of justice, and the National Judicial Commission comply with the directive of the court to initiate immediate compliance with its order. Do you expect that after such an order is complied with by these apartheid states? Do you suspect that the issues of bribery or alleged bribery of judges in the country will cease automatically? Miss Ohui, why are you there, sir? All right, we seem to have a natural connection and we've lost the guest, but I think he's been able to do justice to the topic at hand. Quite interesting one, a very interesting one indeed. I even had to catch a break, a sweat or two on my face. Right, thanks for joining us on this episode of Legal Education 101. Let's call it that. The breakfast will be back tomorrow with more interesting analysis of the relevant issues in national life. My name is Kofi Patels. Please follow us on social media at Plus TV Africa on YouTube. You can also follow us. We have two accounts there, Plus TV Africa and Plus TV Africa Lifestyle. We're also on the internet at PlusTVAfrica.com. Thanks for joining us. We'll see you tomorrow in the morning.