Barrister (Mrs) Elizabeth Iyamu-Ojo is a lecturer in the department of Public Law, University of Benin.
Barr. Iyamu-Ojo.
Following her role as the Chief Judge at the Mock trial stage in the recently concluded Advocatus Superior competition between 400 level and 500 level constituencies, in a privileged interview, she spoke to ULP about the competition itself and other Faculty issues.
Excerpts:
How would you describe the performance of the students?
Students play out what they have been learning and try to put themselves in the real world. The counsels, the witnesses themselves, it was quite creative, I must say.
Based on what you said, that these students were able to put what they were learning into practice, what would you say? Considering the fact that the 400level constituency actually won against their senior colleagues.
Well, the deal is, Law has nothing to do with your level. There are some persons that are born Lawyers. Even from the 100level they can critically analyse issues. While there are some that are made Lawyers, they only imbibe what they have read.
One thing I did notice from the competition is that it seems like majority of the students have not been to view court proceedings properly. I would actually say the 500level, they did not give me the feeling that they had been to court at all. For example when they were introducing themselves with [terms like] 'Hallowed Temple of Justice' and all that, it tells me that it is just the students trying to be legal, [probably] because you hear that Lawyers speak big English and all that. If you go to court in practice you will not find Lawyers that introduce themselves to court like that.
So I intended to tell you guys that it is not a bad thing if while you are on holidays, you get up in the morning, dress up and then go to court. No court will drive you out, courts are open sessions. I particularly started going to court from 200level, I attached myself with a chamber, although it was because of strike, and I went with them consistently to court. So I think that will enure in your favour if you do that.
I think one of the reasons why the 400level beat the 500level was composure too. The 400level counsels were quite calm, in looks and other areas, but 500level, I think they felt they were the senior so they were bound to win, and then arguing [needlessly] consistently, the demeanour was not quite proper.
From the competition, can you tell us who was the best counsel?
Actually, the defence counsels were both very good, but the only thing that would have made us decide who the best counsel is, they did not do it.
In asking questions, examination and cross examination, the first counsel [Adefowale Mark] was good, he did more of examinations and cross examinations. While the other counsel, [Okonkwo Vincent] did not do as much, but he did beautifully. But we would have been able to put them on the same level and compared them if they had shared the address, but they did not share the address so the second counsel did all of the address. But they were both very co-ordinated, even at that stage we [the Judges] were stuck because we had not put them on equal footing. But we liked their calmness. The first counsel asked really insightful questions, so he was better at examination and cross examination, but the second counsel made up for it in his address.
Prosecuting counsels, they just blubbered along, they were not organised, [lacked] composure, they were not calm, that is why they lost.
One of the reasons why LAWBA decided to come up with a Mock competition has to do with the same thing you are talking about. They participated in a mock competition in Anambra state [in which they did not do so well] and they realised that the association in UNIBEN did not have a lot of knowledge as regards the general court proceedings, we are used to the whole moot thing, and it sort of contributed to what led to the organisation of this particular one. Ma'am, the question here is seeing the Mock competition, which do you subscribe to? The Moot or The Mock.
Truth be told I have never attended a Moot. So even when you talk about Moot and Mock, I really do not know what the difference is because I have not attended it. I think the only trial so to say by students I have attended is the one that is done in Law school, so I cannot really distinguish for you. I think the person that would be able to do that is Miss Alero, because she goes on those competitions with you and all that.
In Law school one of the standard that they assess and give prizes, aside from being an academic student, you also have to engage in extra-curricular activities. It could be participation in Moot/Mock, playing football for your school, and so on. Maybe I was too much of a straight back in the days.
Your opinion on the witnesses.
They did beautifully. The forensic pathologist, her evidence was kind of consistent so we accepted it because at the end of the day the court will decide whether or not the person is considered to be an expert. But she did not lay enough foundation to be an expert, they ought to have taken her through her credentials more.
Also, defence counsels asked questions on cross examination and they let go. Prosecution counsels would ask and be-labour the court, but they were making one mistake. Sometimes there are certain things you just leave, you do not argue them in court. If a witness did not lay proper foundation, like give his credentials, let the witness go. He has said he is an expert. At address stage you then hammer on it, bring authorities to say "this person does not qualify as an expert", "he did not give the proper qualifications to show he is an expert", "on what basis do we say he is an expert?". There are questions too that prosecution would ask or do, it is not everything you need to cross examine on. You do not need for the witness to accept or deny the way you want it be, that is where they [prosecution] were mostly getting it wrong. If they say something and they leave it hanging, it is not the duty of counsel to ask the question and get the correct answer; because for instance when you press on for instance the qualification of a forensic scientist, you will end up helping the forensic expert do the needful; when they are still pressing on qualification the forensic expert will end up on cross examination, giving the qualifications that he had hitherto not produced.
That is one of the things we wanted to let you guys know. You do not need to ask all questions, that is why you have provisions for no case submissions. If they have not been able to make a prima facie case against you, your client goes free. That is if they have not established a case, you say you are making a 'no case submission' because there is nothing that actually ties your client to the charge.
Still on Prosecuting counsels; I do not know, maybe it is the difference between Moot and Mock, I do not understand yet, but now that I have been called to serve, I will also investigate it myself to fit out what the difference actually is; you cannot force things on witnesses. Even if the Judge thinks that is the scenario, the Judge may have a preconceived notion as regarding the scenario. But it is only facts that come from the witnesses the Court can work with. Even if you have facts on paper, if you are not able to make the witnesses admit such facts either by omission or by commission, then you cannot say that is the fact. Because you are a counsel. You cannot be telling the court "this is the fact". It is from the evidence before the court that will determine what the fact. So that was one area prosecution kept harming themselves. You are trying to force the witness to say this, the witness does not want to, you cannot insist the witness say it exactly; because you can even have a witness who is lying even under oath.
Somehow, we were eager and excited when we heard that we were going to be privileged to have the likes of You, Mrs Aigbe and Mrs Juliet to be Judges. We were also hoping that because of your presence, we would get access to the Jural Court as it has been long since we used Jural Court, but somehow surprisingly, it was not used.
The deal is, the trial occurred during the accreditation, that made the whole scenario tense. Reaching the Dean on a good day is not so easy, but within the accreditation period it would have [even been more] difficult for us to go distract him. However after the trial he [Prof Richard Idubor] did call the 3 of us, and said when he came into the hall [during the competition] he did not notice we were there. He thought it was all students. He commended us for assisting you guys and keeping you busy, and said something about the venue being new and he did not know we were using it, [sincerely] I was under the impression that someone in authority knew. Well I explained to him the difficulty of approaching him because of the accreditation and he told us not to worry, that next time he would make it available. So I have reason to believe that next time if you are going to have another one, and you speak to me or Mrs Aigbe or Mrs Aimienrovbiye, we will be able reach the Dean and get the key for you.
Thank you very much Ma'am. The whole Faculty was tense in January, everybody was very cautious because of the 'Accreditation' thing. The truth is majority of the students do not know, all we have are assumptions about what accreditation is about, but generally we do not know. And also, we heard rumour about some schools that did not get accreditation or some schools that got partial accreditation; do we [UNIBEN Law Faculty] know our verdict?
I am not in a position to say what the verdict is.
Okay. But Ma'am, what is the process about and what are the implications of not being accredited?
Accreditation is a very wide area. To be accredited you need to have facilities on ground, they need to see the students' population to at least see that they are really being trained and they are comported as Law students.
It also has to do with the academic constitution. Do we have enough Lecturers on ground? Even the Lecturers that we have enough Professors to take care of the size of students?
And at the end of the day, the accreditation, partial or non-accreditation affect the populace of the school. In the sense that if we lose accreditation, that means we do not have the capacity to admit students or even actually lecture you. So it might mean that we do not graduate people until we get accreditation. Also it will determine the number of Law school forms we get, we are able to assess, and so on.
But at the moment I cannot categorically say whether or not it has been approved or it has not been approved, more so as the panel just left. Normally the panel makes suggestions to the Nigerian Universities Commission (NUC) and then they eventually decide.
So Accreditation is from NUC and not the Council of Legal Education?
I think they work together but they are two parts of it. There is the NUC part and there is the Council of Legal Education part.
Interview by gafar, Daniel Odigwe, Joshua Ogbeide and Franklin Ikechukwu.
No comments:
Post a Comment