INTRODUCTION
The Federal High Court (the "FHC") sitting in Abuja (FCT) on Friday, 19th July 2024, delivered judgment in the case between Abu Arome v. Central Bank of Nigeria & 3 Ors.1 The most momentous case pitted a Legal Practitioner, Abu Arome (the "Applicant" or "Mr. Arome"), against the Central Bank of Nigeria (the "CBN"), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (the "EFCC"), Guarantee Trust Bank ("GTB") and the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation (the "HAGF"), as parties, and challenged the constitutionality of some of the most controversial sections of the Money Laundry (Prevention and Prohibition) Act2 (the "MLA"), as it relates to Legal Practitioners, including the provisions of sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 30 of the Act, which purported to re-include Legal Practitioners and Notary Publics as designated non-financial businesses and professions ("DNFBP'') mandated, to register with the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering ("SCUML") and obligated to report suspicious transactions, lodgments and fund transfers within the specified threshold to the SCUML.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS
Sometime in 2022, the Bank account operated by the Applicant's law Firm was restricted pursuant to a circular by the CBN. The CBN circular was issued in compliance with the attendant provisions of the MLA. Efforts to get the restriction on the account lifted/removed yielded no result, prompting the Applicant to take out an Originating Summons at the FHC, Abuja in January 2023, challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of the MLA pursuant to which the circular restricting the Applicant's Firm's/Client's account was issued. The Applicant's grievance was hinged on the provisions of section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria3 (the "Constitution"), section 192 of the Evidence Act4 (the "EA"), sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Practitioners Act5 (the "LPA") and the Court of Appeal's decision in Central Bank of Nigeria v. The Registered Trustees of the NBA6. Amongst the three (3) issues submitted by the Applicant for the Court to determine and the seven (7) reliefs sought by him, the Applicant also prayed the Court to declare that the re-inclusion of Legal Practitioners and Notary Publics as DNFBP undermines the obligation of confidentiality Legal Practitioners owe their Clients under sections 192 of the EA and 20 & 21 of LPA.
JUDGMENT SUMMARY.
The FHC, in a well-considered judgment found in favour of the Applicant and granted all the reliefs the Applicant sought. Essentially, the Court in applying the blue pencil rule, held that the provisions of sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 30 of the MLA as it relates to Legal Practitioners, pursuant to which the circular restricting the Applicant's Firm's account was issued, were unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever as they are in contravention of the existing laws including section 37 of the Constitution, section 192 of the EA, sections 20 and 21 of the LPA and the Court of Appeal's decision in Central Bank of Nigeria v. The Registered Trustees of the NBA.7 Accordingly, the Court also granted the Applicant's prayer, declaring that the inclusion of Legal Practitioners and Notary Publics as DNFBP in the MLA 2022 undermines the confidentiality obligation Legal Practitioners owe their Client under section 192 of the EA.
THE LEGAL EFFECT.
We opine that the Court's judgment is well founded and in line with time-honored doctrines of law, including but not limited to the doctrine of supremacy of the constitution (section 37 recognizes and protects the privacy of citizens, which the voided sections of the MLA 2022 unduly threatened); the principle of stare decisis which demonstrates that decisions of Courts validly made and not appealed against, upturned or set aside must be allowed to stand. See Okozie Ikpeazu v. Alex Otti & ORS.8 It also bears noting that the position of the FHC on the subject sections of the MLA 2022 is consistent with earlier judicial decisions like FRN v. Ozekhome9 and CBN v Registered Trustees of the NBA.10
Notably, the decision of the FHC represents an electrifying liberation of the duty of confidentiality owed by lawyers to Clients, which duty is protected by sections 192 of the Evidence Act,11 20 and 21 of the LPA12 and other relevant statutes like the Nigeria Constitution. It is expedient to note that the practice of law is founded on the independence of the legal practitioner and his courage to advocate on behalf of his client to the best of his ability. That oath, conviction, and courage stand threatened when the doctrine of confidentiality and lawyer/client privilege is eroded by controversial and overreaching provisions like the voided sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 30 of the MLA 2022. Thankfully, the Court in Abu Arome v. Central Bank of Nigeria & 3 Ors will restore Clients' confidence in their lawyers and the sacred legal duty of Client confidentiality.
CONCLUSION
The euphoria with which the Court's decision in the case in focus is being greeted is deserved. This is even more so that the decision not only reinforces the position taken by the Court of Appeal in CBN v. Registered Trustees of the NBA13 by upholding the paramountcy of the duty of confidentiality owed by lawyers to their clients against the overreaching provisions of MLA which effectively purported to abolish professional privileges and client confidentiality in relation to transactions touching on the purchase or sale of property, the purchase or sale of any business, the management of client's money, securities, or other assets, the creation, operation, or management of trust, companies, or similar structures, but also saves the practice of law from the illegal inhibitions and unjustified harassment of SCUML and other law enforcement, thus, worthy of every rousing welcome the judgment has been greeted with and, we dare say, deserving of more.
Footnotes
1. FHC/ABJ/CS/25/2023
2. 2022
3. 1999 (as amended)
4. 2011 (as amended)
5. 1962, LFN 2004
6. (2021) 5 NWLR PT. 1769 @ 268 (CA) This decision earlier voided similar provisions in the MLA, 2011.
7. supra
8. (2016) LPELR-40055(SC)
9. (2021) LPELR-54666(CA)
10. supra
11. 2023
12. supra
13. supra
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.