By Barr. Mela Claude Ake

In my opinion, the SIBAN kerfuffle is as political as it is legal. We cannot divorce the two — but the legal aspect is far weightier.

Barr. Mela Claude Ake

On the political side is a power-grab. A small group of individuals who think they should be the lords and masters of Nigeria’s crypto space are fighting for control. They want control of SIBAN and they want control of the SIBAN presidency. Essentially a shadow administration that runs the show from behind the scenes. For this to happen, the president has to be a puppet. What they fail to understand is that being a pioneer of a vision doesn’t necessarily mean that you must control it in perpetuity. Succession-planning is a vital part of corporate governance. Across the world, several major organizations abound, whether they be companies, political parties, associations and even nations where the founders of these visions are alive but do not call the shots anymore and quite frankly, that’s okay.

Coming to the issue of registering SIBAN with the Corporate Affairs Commission, the detractors are doing themselves a huge disservice. It’s both ridiculous and risky that an unincorporated body was carrying on and presenting itself as it did. I mean think about it; how do you hold high-level meetings and organise national industry conversations involving the SEC, NITDA etcetera as an unregistered body? Legally speaking, the implications are better imagined.

How does a group present itself as the foremost industry association for the blockchain sector in Nigeria and by extension Africa but is not registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission? Whose bank account were the dues being paid to? How do you woo foreign investors? How? Do you show them your WhatsApp group? Because that’s essentially what SIBAN was reduced to. A mere Whatsapp group. Can you imagine the Nigeria Bar Association not being registered with the CAC? The excuse about organizations with words such as “Blockchain” or “Crypto” not being accepted for registration by the CAC is weak because there are records of such organizations having been allowed to be registered by the CAC even as far back as 2018. The records are out there.

Now that the detractors are wailing, kicking and screaming can they prove by law that SIBAN has not been properly incorporated by this board of trustees? Can they prove that this incorporation exercise did not satisfy the extant corporate laws and regulations of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? If they have a good case, they should go to court and remember to sue the Corporate Affairs Commission as well. However if they know they cannot prove it, then they should be quiet because what they are doing is simply inviting more trouble than necessary with all this brouhaha. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

It should be on record that I was invited by the president to join this board and when he extended the invitation, I was shocked, to say the least, to find out that SIBAN was yet unincorporated. I was invited because he believes I will bring some value to the association and I will.

As a lawyer and a compliance and consumer rights advocate I am personally concerned about the several sharp practices that have been happening in the blockchain sector, that have caused unwitting investors to lose millions and in turn making the entire sector appear less trustworthy. My mission as a member of the SIBAN Board of Trustees is to help us tighten the loose ends and remove the permissive environment that has hitherto allowed sleazy fellows and shady schemes to thrive unchecked. Personally, I believe that if any crypto practitioner wilfully puts investor funds or public funds at risk, the practitioner shouldn’t only be banned for life, they should be locked up.

SIBAN has what it takes to accelerate prosperity through blockchain and I think Obinna Iwuno and this BOT as currently constituted have the requisite skills, passion and grit to make that happen.

– Barr. Mela Claude Ake. Member, SIBAN Board Of Trustees

A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit by Dr Bright Echefu, managing director/chief executive officer, Telcom Satellite Television Service (TSTV), with which he had sought to stop the Inspector General of Police (IGP) from investigating the allegation of N2 billion fraud against him.

Dr Bright Echefu, MD/CEO, TSTV

Kabiru Turaki (SAN), former minister of Special Duties, had, in a petition to the police, alleged among others , that his N2 billion investment in TSTV had been fraudulently diverted.

Upon being invited by the police for questioning, Echefu filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/234/2024, praying that the IGP and his agents be restrained from conducting investigation into the case.

It was Echefu’s contention that the ex-Minister’s N2 billion investment was a civil transaction and the police have no power under any known laws to investigate such transactions.

He argued that the police cannot act as debt recovery agent for the normal complainant (Turaki).

In his judgment, Justice Inyang Ekwo held that the suit by Echefu was frivolous and lacking in merit.

Justice Ekwo held that it was wrong of the plaintiff to seek the court’s protection from being investigated over a petition against him on alleged stealing and misappropriation of N2bn investment in TSTV.

The judge was of the view that the allegations against Echefu related to stealing and misappropriating N2bn investment and not debt recovery drive as he erroneously claimed.

He held that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim that the N2b was in relation to civil transaction when the petition before the police alleged stealing and misappropriation of the fund invested in TSTV for its expansion.

Justice Ekwo faulted Echefu argument that the police have no power to investigate such petition against him.

He added that when a petition has the colour of stealing and misappropriating, the police are empowered under Section 4 of Police Act to inquire into such allegations.

The judge said: “The plaintiff (Echefu) has not denied being given the several sums of money by the 4th defendant (Kabiru Turaki) as investment in the companies mentioned in the averments in this case.

” The case made against the plaintiff (Echefu) is that of stealing and misappropriation. For the plaintiff to assert and actually sustain the assertion that this matter is contractual and that police cannot be involved, the onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate with concrete evidence that there was no stealing and misappropriation.

“This is so because the mere claim that a relationship between the parties was and is contractual in nature is not a magic wand that will indiscriminately shield a person from being investigated on the allegations of criminal act arising from civil transaction”.

“To allow a plaintiff to coast home with the treasures of his loot on the grounds that such was contractual matter, will enhance a judicial victory for the undeserved.

“A citizen who is a victim of any act of crime, has right to make a report of same to the police and in the Nigerian system of administration of justice, when a crime is committed, it is the Nigerian police that moves in to investigate it.

“On the whole, the plaintiff has not given me any cogent ground to interfere in the exercise of the statutory power of the 1st and 2nd defendants (Police) on the petition by the 4th defendant (Turaki) that his investment has been stolen and misappropriated by the plaintiff.

“On this ground, I find that this action lacks merit and ought to be dismissed. I therefore make an order dismissing this case on those grounds,” he said.

Listed as defendants in the suit are the Nigeria Police Force, the IGP, the DIG Force Investigation Bureau, Turaki and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), who name the judge struck in the earlier part of the judgment as not being a necessary party.

MultiChoice and Canal+ have given details of the next steps in Canal’s mandatory takeover of the South African pay-TV company.

In a Combined Circular setting out the terms and conditions of the offer, it is confirmed Canal will acquire all the issued ordinary shares in MultiChoice it doesn’t already own, excluding treasury shares, from MultiChoice Shareholders for ZAR125.00 per share, payable in cash.

Canal+ and MultiChoice have now made a joint merger control filing to Competition Commission and are also engaging with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) and other regulatory authorities.

Under the South Africa competition law, the transaction is classified as a ‘larger merger’, which requires approval by the Competition Tribunal.

MultiChoice officially accepted the offer from the Vivendi unit in June.

The combined company will have a presence in both the French and English-speaking markets. While Canal naturally has a hold over French-speaking African nations, MultiChoice has a stronger presence in English-speaking countries, including South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya.