Chief Denis C. Osadebay V. The Attorney-general Of Bendel State (1991)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BELLO, C.J.N. 

The plaintiff is a renowned public officer and from 1964 to 1966 was the Premier of the then Mid-Western Nigeria, now Bendel State. In January, 1966 the Military overthrew the Federal and Regional Governments and established a Military Regime in which a Military Governor was appointed to administer the Mid-Western Nigeria and to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Region in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 1966.

In June 1966, the National Military Government enacted the Public Officers (Investigation of Assets) Decree, 1966 which inter alia under section 5 empowered the Military Governor of a Region to appoint a tribunal of inquiry to enquire whether or not specified public officers had corruptly or improperly enriched themselves or any person by virtue of their offices or by abuse of their offices. The Decree further empowered the Military Governor to forfeit to the State where the tribunal found a public officer had acquired assets for himself or in the name of any other person in the manner aforestated.

In exercise of the powers under the Decree, the Military Governor of Mid-Western Nigeria enacted Public Officers (Tribunal of Inquiry) Edict No. 6 of 1967 as amended by the Public Officers (Tribunal of Inquiry)(Amendment) Edict No. 7 of 1968 and the Public Officers (Tribunal of Inquiry) (Amendment) (No.2) Edict No.12 of 1968 wherein the Tribunal of Enquiry, known as Justice Begho Tribunal, was established to investigate the assets of the persons named therein, including the Plaintiff and to ascertain the extent to which such persons had corruptly enriched themselves or any other persons.

The Tribunal held the inquiry and submitted its Report dated 5th February, 1968 to the Military Governor. In respect of the plaintiff, the Tribunal found that:

(1) from his bank accounts, he had corruptly or improperly enriched himself by virtue of and in abuse of his office in the sum of 72,198 pounds; and

(2) he had an unbanked illgotten gain of 32,000.00 pounds

which the Tribunal recommended that he be made to disgorge the two amounts. The trial court found that the total amount the Tribunal had recommended the plaintiff should refund was 104,198 pounds, which he had corruptly acquired. After having considered the Report, the Mid-Western

Government accepted the Tribunal’s recommendations and each public officer was given the choice to refund his ill-gotten gains within a reasonable time or to accept the forfeiture of specified real properties belonging to him or to face the ignominy of being declared a public debtor.

It is pertinent to refer to the Investigation of Assets (Public Officers and Other Persons) Decree No. 37 of 1968 promulgated on 29th July 1968. In section 14 and the Schedule 2 to it, the Decree repealed aforesaid Decree No. 51 of 1966. Edict No. 6 of 1967, No. 7 of 1968 and No. 37 of 1968 and declared in section 14(2) as follows:

“(2) It is hereby declared that-

(a) the repeal of any enactment or law by this Decree shall not affect any order, notice or other document made or thing whatsoever done under the provisions of any enactment or law hereby repealed, and every such order, notice or other document or thing so far as it is subsisting or in force at the time of the repeal shall continue or have effect by virtue of this Decree;

(b) any tribunal of inquiry established under any enactment or law repealed by this Decree and in being immediately before the making of this Decree shall on its promulgation by any means thereafter, continue as if constituted by or under and for the purposes of this Decree, and matters uncompleted before any such tribunal or pursuant to any enactment or law hereby repealed, prepared and intended for presentation thereto shall, where necessary be continued or completed, either by the same or any other tribunal accordingly by virtue of this Decree.

(c) the repeal of any enactment or law by this Decree shall not in any way affect the appointment, power or function of any person appointed or exercising any power or function by or under any such repealed enactment or law, and the appointment of such person and the exercise of such power or function shall continue and be deemed accordingly to have been made or, as the case may be, to be exercisable by virtue of this Decree, and subject to the foregoing paragraphs, the Interpretation Act 1964 shall have effect.”