The Nigerian Bar Association has won a suit challenging the enforcement of some aspects
of the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 dealing with legal
practitioners.
The suit was instituted before the Federal High Court in Abuja against the Attorney-
General of the Federation and the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Justice Gabriel Kolawole in his judgment declared as invalid, unconstitutional and illegal
the directive by the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering that lawyers should
report to it certain transactions relating to their clients.
The directive was said to be hinged on the provisions of Section 5 of the Money
Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011.
The defendants in the suit are the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Central Bank
of Nigeria.
The court held its in judgment that sections 5 and 25 of the MLA sought to impose
sanctions on legal practitioners, who flouted the provisions contrary to the provisions of
the Legal Practitioners Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, and
Section 192 of the Evidence Act.
In an originating summons dated March 15, 2013, the plaintiff had asked the court to
delete legal practitioners from the definition of Designated Non-Financial Institutions as
contained in Section 25 MLA.
The plaintiff had also sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the CBN from
seeking to implement its circular reference FPR/CIR/GEN/VOL.1/028 dated August 2, 2012
in relation to legal practitioners.
It had also sought an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government,
acting through Special Control Unit against Money Laundering, the National Financial
Intelligence Unit, the EFCC or otherwise howsoever from seeking to enforce the provisions
of Section 5 of the MLA in relation to legal practitioners.
Justice Kolawole agreed with the NBA that the SCUML was not a juristic person, being the
creation of the Ministry of Trade and Commerce.
He added that even the Ministry of Trade and Commerce was also not a body known to
law, adding that the Federal Executive Council could not by a resolution confer on SCUML
a juristic personality.
He noted that there was no connection between the SCUML and legal practitioners, adding
that it was improper for the SCUML to seek to exercise oversight powers over the plaintiffs.
He further held that even if any oversight powers were to be conferred on any ministry, it
ought to have been the Ministry of Justice.
Justice Kolawole observed that the sanctions sought to be imposed on lawyers had
already made provisions for the manner in which a legal practitioner could be disciplined
where his conduct fell below the prescribed standards of the rules guiding the profession.
The court held that since the Minister of Trade and Commerce neither issued the Call to
Bar certificate nor entered the name of any legal practitioner in the Roll, he had no right to
disqualify any legal practitioner.
He also held that legal practitioners could not be categorised “traders” because they never
had “customers.”
The disputed Section 5 (1) of the MLA 2011 had read, “A Designated Non-Financial
Institution whose business involves the one of cash transaction shall (b) prior to any
transaction involving a sum exceeding US$1,000 or its equivalent, identify the customer by
requiring him to fill a standard data form and present his international passport, driving
licence, national identity card or such other document bearing his photograph as may be
prescribed by the ministry.”
Section 5(1)(c) directs all such DNFIs to “record all transactions under this section in
chronological order, indicating each customers surname, forenames and address in a
register numbered and forward to the ministry.”
The Central Bank of Nigeria had also in its Circular No. FPR/CIR/GEN/VOL.1/028 of 2nd
August, 2012, classified legal practitioners as DNFIs in line with the MLA.
The SCUML is an agency currently under the Federal Ministry of Trade and Investment with
operational linkages to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
The defendants had argued that the objective of the MLA and the SCUML was not to
monitor the legal practitioner but to monitor their clients who might have the potential to
commit crimes.
Copyright PUNCH.All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this
website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole
or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.
Contact: editor@punchng.com