2 Apr 2009 11:20 Africa/Lagos
New financial boost for businesses in developing countries from the UK Government
London, 2 April/GNN/ --
DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT News Release (G20) issued by COI
News Distribution Service on 2 April 2009
Businesses in developing countries are struggling to survive due to the
economic downturn and need urgent financial support, said Secretary of State
for International Development Douglas Alexander.
At the London Summit, world leaders are working to stabilise financial markets
and help families and businesses across the world to get through the recession.
And the UK Government today (THURS) intends to take practical action to
support firms across the globe, helping stimulate trade in developing
countries and ensuring sustainable growth.
This will be done through the World Bank's new initiative called the Global
Trade Liquidity Programme (GTLP) set up to support small and medium businesses
by helping address the trade finance shortage in developing countries through
international banks.
The UK Government, through its development finance institution CDC, intends
to make a contribution of up to £300m to the GTLP.
Secretary of State for International Development Douglas Alexander said:
"Private sector businesses are an essential engine of growth and play a vital
role in stimulating global trade, which provides a lifeline to millions of
people across the globe.
"People in developing countries have been disproportionately hard-hit by the
economic crisis. This money will help firms keep going during the difficult
climate and help to protect and create jobs.
"This is not an initiative to help make commercial banks richer.
Participating banks must all commit to using the money to support trade in
developing countries. In the first phase, this will include Kenya, Angola,
Ghana, Nigeria, Mauritius, Malawi, Mozambique, Seychelles and Zambia." The
proposed sum alone could help fund beween £2bn and £3bn of trade over the next
two years, helping small and medium firms to import and export products. The
UK money will be invested in the GTLP on a loan basis.
The shortage in trade finance, due to the current economic crisis, is a
significant threat to world trade - already projected to decline by about
nine per cent this year. The World Trade Organisation has suggested there
could be a global shortfall of between $100bn and $300bn.
Notes to Editors:
1. The GTLP, which is due to become operational May, will provide capital to
international banks specialising in trade finance in the developing world
over a period of two, may be three years. The programme raises funds from
development finance institutions, governments, and works through global
and regional banks to extend trade finance to importers and exporters in
developing countries.
The GTLP will be based on a commitment of $1bn from IFC, a member of the
World Bank Group. The IFC is seeking a further $3bn to $4bn from donors. It
is expected to support up to $50bn of trade over three years.
2. CDC is the UK Government's development finance institution. CDC's mission
is to generate wealth by providing capital for investment in sustainable and
responsibly managed private sector businesses. It uses its own balance sheet
to invest in private equity funds focused on the emerging markets of south
Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. For further information visit www.cdcgroup.com
For more information call the DFID press office on 0207 023 0600.
DFID, the Department for International Development: leading the British
government's fight against world poverty. One in five people in the world
today, over 1 billion people, live in poverty on less than one dollar a
day. Information Department 1 Palace Street, London SW1E 5HE.
Website: www.dfid.gov.uk
Press enquiries 020 7023 0600 (overseas +44 20 7023 0600)
Public enquiries 0845 300 4100 (overseas +44 1355 84 3132)
Source: Department for International Development
Releases displayed in Africa/Lagos time
2 Apr 2009
15:40
Florida Energy Magnate Guma Aguiar Provides Major Funding for Chabad's Passover Seders Worldwide
11:20
New financial boost for businesses in developing countries from the UK Government
31 Mar 2009
18:00
Health Care Innovations and Opportunities Attract Attendees from 40 Countries and Delegations from 12 to 6th Annual World Health Care Congress
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Video: New AFB Video Portrays Difficulties Faced by Cell Phone Users with Vision Loss
This video is for the benefit of the over 65 million users of GSM phones in Nigeria and other millions in other places in the world.
AFB Urges Action by Wireless Industry to Ensure People with Vision Loss Have Access to Cell Phones
New York, NY (April 2, 2009) /PRNewswire/ — Ever wonder what it would be like to use a cell phone without being able to see the display screen or keypad? Would you be able to dial calls, send a text message, or even get help in an emergency situation? This is often the reality for people with vision loss because the majority of cell phones do not offer talking menus and magnification options, and those that do cost much more.
To improve the accessibility of cell phones for the more than 20 million Americans with vision loss, the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) is urging cell phone manufacturers and providers to focus on cell phone accessibility as they gather at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) conference in Las Vegas this week.
As part of its cell phone accessibility efforts, AFB has launched a new video illustrating the challenges people with vision loss face when trying to purchase a usable and affordable cell phone. The video, which is available on YouTube and AFB's web site, is audio described and captioned to make it accessible to all people with disabilities. AFB is also urging the Obama administration and the new leadership at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take immediate action to ensure that cell phones and phone services are made accessible for people with disabilities, as required by Section 255 of the Communications Act (http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=4&TopicID=327&DocumentID=3574).
"While we applaud the leadership shown by AT&T and Verizon, who are providing software at a discount to make some of their phones accessible for consumers with vision loss, the reality is that the majority of cell phones still do not incorporate key features like speech output and magnification of information displayed on the screen," said Paul Schroeder, Vice President, Programs and Policy Group at AFB. "Cell phones are an essential part of modern life, and it's time manufacturers and carriers start providing phones that work for everyone, including the millions of us who do not have perfect eyesight."
For more information on cell phone accessibility, visit www.afb.org/cellphones.
The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) is a national nonprofit that expands possibilities for people with vision loss. AFB's priorities include broadening access to technology; elevating the quality of information and tools for the professionals who serve people with vision loss; and promoting independent and healthy living for people with vision loss by providing them and their families with relevant and timely resources. AFB is also proud to house the Helen Keller Archives and honor the more than forty years that Helen Keller worked tirelessly with AFB. For more information visit us online at www.afb.org
Press Contacts:
Caitlin McFeely
AFB Communications
(212) 502-7674
cmcfeely@afb.net
Adrianna Montague-Gray
AFB Communications
212.502.7675
amontaguegray@afb.net
AFB Urges Action by Wireless Industry to Ensure People with Vision Loss Have Access to Cell Phones
New York, NY (April 2, 2009) /PRNewswire/ — Ever wonder what it would be like to use a cell phone without being able to see the display screen or keypad? Would you be able to dial calls, send a text message, or even get help in an emergency situation? This is often the reality for people with vision loss because the majority of cell phones do not offer talking menus and magnification options, and those that do cost much more.
To improve the accessibility of cell phones for the more than 20 million Americans with vision loss, the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) is urging cell phone manufacturers and providers to focus on cell phone accessibility as they gather at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) conference in Las Vegas this week.
As part of its cell phone accessibility efforts, AFB has launched a new video illustrating the challenges people with vision loss face when trying to purchase a usable and affordable cell phone. The video, which is available on YouTube and AFB's web site, is audio described and captioned to make it accessible to all people with disabilities. AFB is also urging the Obama administration and the new leadership at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take immediate action to ensure that cell phones and phone services are made accessible for people with disabilities, as required by Section 255 of the Communications Act (http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=4&TopicID=327&DocumentID=3574).
"While we applaud the leadership shown by AT&T and Verizon, who are providing software at a discount to make some of their phones accessible for consumers with vision loss, the reality is that the majority of cell phones still do not incorporate key features like speech output and magnification of information displayed on the screen," said Paul Schroeder, Vice President, Programs and Policy Group at AFB. "Cell phones are an essential part of modern life, and it's time manufacturers and carriers start providing phones that work for everyone, including the millions of us who do not have perfect eyesight."
For more information on cell phone accessibility, visit www.afb.org/cellphones.
The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) is a national nonprofit that expands possibilities for people with vision loss. AFB's priorities include broadening access to technology; elevating the quality of information and tools for the professionals who serve people with vision loss; and promoting independent and healthy living for people with vision loss by providing them and their families with relevant and timely resources. AFB is also proud to house the Helen Keller Archives and honor the more than forty years that Helen Keller worked tirelessly with AFB. For more information visit us online at www.afb.org
Press Contacts:
Caitlin McFeely
AFB Communications
(212) 502-7674
cmcfeely@afb.net
Adrianna Montague-Gray
AFB Communications
212.502.7675
amontaguegray@afb.net
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
A.G. Olisaemeka Cleared By Investments and Securities Tribunal
A.G. Olisaemeka Cleared By Investments and Securities Tribunal
Download MP3
A.G. Olisaemeka Vs Securities and Exchange Commission (2007)
Nigerian Investments and Securities Law Report (2NISLR) at Page 177
Particularly at pages 196-197, paragraphs B-B
THE COMPLETE REPORT OF THE CASE OF A.G. OLISAEMEKA VERSUS THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
A. G. OLISAEMEKA
AND
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
INVESTMENT & SECURITIES TRIBUNAL
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
Dr. Nnenna A. Orji Hon. Chairman
Sola Ephraim-Oluwanuga, Esq. Hon. Member
Sam Chukwunyere, Esq. Hon. Member
Alhaji Aminu Dangana Hon. Member
Mr. George D. N. Feyi Hon. Member
26th day of January 2005
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY – Power of SEC to sanction erring operators
COURT – Course of justice – Duty of court to pursue
DAMAGES – Whether can be raised on appeal – How
FAIR HEARING – What amounts it entails constitutes
FAIR HEARING – Effect of violation of party’s right to
AIR HEARING – Essence of
FAIR HEARING – Natural justice – Effect of failure to comply with.
PRACTICE AND – Appeal – what is procedure of
PROCEDURE
PRACTICE AND – Parties to suit – category of
PROCEDURE
PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – Raising fresh issue on appeal-whether leave required.
TORT – Vicarious Liability – when applicable to a disclosed principal.
Issues:
(1) Whether the Applicant was given fair hearing, and;
(2) Whether or not the Applicant is entitled to general damages.
Facts:
The Applicant was a stock broken in the employment of Apex Securities Limited. Following investigations into a report of large scale fraud involving U.A.C. shares, the firm was invited for questioning at the Lion Building of the Nigeria Police Force, Lagos sometime in November 2002.
On July 13, 2004, the Managing Director of Apex Securities Limited informed the Appellant of a letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspending him from trading on the floor of the Nigeria Stock Exchange (NSE). The Appellant claimed not to have been officially communicated of the suspension and thereafter wrote a protect letter on July 21, 2004 to the Director-General of SEC. The letter was however, not replied to. He did not get any response.
On July 26, 2004, The Appellant’s attention was drawn to a letter written to the Apex Securities Limited inviting the firm to the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) of Sec on August 4, 2004. He was asked by the Managing Director to represent the interest of the firm at the APC. The Appellant was not invited as a separate party to the proceedings at APC nor was he informed of the issue in dispute at the proceedings. The Appellant claimed he was only asked questions about himself and his involvement in the UAC share scam as well as the alleged falsification of the signature of the Managing Director of the firm. The Appellant was consequently found guilty of complicity of fraudulent dealing in the capital market. He was banned from business in the capital market by the SEC and handed over to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for further investigation and prosecution on the UAC share scam.
The Appellant, aggrieved with the decision of APC appealed to the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST) for a review of the decisions.
HELD (allowing the appeal in part)
(1) On power of SEC to sanction erring operators –
SEC as the apex regulator in the capital market is vested with statutory authority to conduct investigation to ascertain whether there has been a violation of the Investments and Securities Act. APC of SEC derived its powers from Section 259 of the Investments and Securities Act, 1999 and the Rules and Regulation made thereunder. The Commission has power to regulate the capital market against abuse. It acted appropriately when it invited the parties involved in the share scam to APC in order to uncover the causes and perpetrators of the fraud. The ISA 1999 enumerated sanctions that the Commission is empowered to apply against offenders, which include reprimand, suspension, bar or imposition of fines or penalties on the erring broker, dealer or stock exchange. (PP. 197-98, paras D-A)
(2) On what constitute proper procedure for filing appeal at the Tribunal-
The proper procedure for the Appellant’s claim in this regard was to file Notice of Appeal instead of an Originating Application as he has done. Section 236(1) of the Investment and Securities Act 1999 provides as follows:
“A person aggrieved by any action or decision of the commission under this Decree, may institute an action in the Tribunal or appeal against such decision within the period stipulated under this Decree” (P. 191, para C)
(3) On whether an irregularity may affect a suit before the Tribunal –
Rule 85(1) of the Investments and Securities Tribunal Procedure Rule 2003 states that: “Any irregularity resulting from failure to comply with any provision of these Rules or of any direction of the Tribunal before the Tribunal has reached its decision shall not of itself render the proceedings void” And Rules 85 (2) sates that “where any such irregularity comes to the attention of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may give any directions it thinks just before reaching its decision to cure or waive the irregularities”
This irregularity in this suit has not in any way affected the materiality or merit of the case. There is no likelihood that any of the parties is likely to suffer any defect or that there will be miscarriage of justice by curing the irregularity. [NALSA & TEAM ASSOCIATES V. NNPC (1996) 3 NWLR pt 49 pg 621, Maja Vs Samouris (2002) NWLR pt 765, 78] (PP. 191-192, paras D-A)
(4) On duty of court to pursue the courser of justice –
The Tribunal pursues the course of substantial justice between parties rather than hiding under the cloak of technicalities. The Tribunal in the interest of justice and in view of its overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly, which includes using its special expertise effectively to deal with cases in proportion to the complexity of the issues and the resources of the party deems this case an APPEAL and it shall be so treated. (P. 192, para B)
(5) On the need for a court, tribunal or administrative body to comply with the rules of natural justice –
Rule 4(1) of the APC Rules of Procedure provides: “All actions brought before the committee shall be brought in the true names of the real parties who have interest in the matter”.
These Rules are in consonance with the Rules of natural justice. It is so vital that any rule of court, tribunal or administrative body that does not comply with the provision of antural justice is a nullity. [Internationally Polymera System Limited Vs Glover & 1 Or (2002)7 NWLR pt 765 pg 124 at 129, ratio 4] (P. 193, para B-C)
(6) On what amounts to denial of fair hearing –
The right to fair hearing is constitutional. Two rules inherent in the principle are audi alteram partem, that is, the parties must be heard and Nemo judex in causa sua, that is, one should not be a judge in ones own cause, these principles if not adhered to at any given time in any administrative inquiry, judicial or quasi-judicial process, would amount to denial of fair hearing (P. 193, para E)
(7) On the essence of fair hearing –
At the two previous sittings of APC there was no evidence that the Appellant was invited to defend himself. The overwhelming evidence is that the Appellant was not invited to the APC proceedings. It is deductive that it was at these previous proceedings which the Appellant was not invited to or heard that the Respondent imposed suspension order on the Appellant. The resort to fair hearing is to avail a party to the dispute of the opportunity to present his case without intimidation, equal access to facilities to conduct his case, the right to call evidence, to examine or cross-examine witnesses called and the opportunity to conduct his own case as his abilities permit. The party would also be in position to hear and know all the evidence against him. [Agbahomovo Vs Eduyegbe (1999) 3 NWLR pt 594, 170] (PP. 193-194, paras F-A)
(8) What fair hearing entails –
The Rules of natural justice envisages that the applicant should be informed of the charges made against him as well as be given adequate time to prepare his defence. The Rule further envisages that the party must be informed promptly of the nature of the violation/offence in the language that he understands. (P. 195, para A)
(9) On who is a party to a suit –
Party to a proceeding transcends those present in the proceeding and includes those who have direct interest in the subject matter and had opportunity to make representations at the proceedings and to be joined as a party to the suit. Parties to a suit are further categorized as proper parties, desirable parties and necessary parties. Proper parties are those who for some good reasons are necessary for the determination for the suit. Desirable parties are those who have direct interest or maybe affected by the result. Necessary parties are those whoa re not only interested in the subject matter but also in whose absence the proceeding could not be fairly dealt with. [Inyang Vs Ebong (2002) 4NWLR pt751, 284] (PP. 195-196, paras C-A)
(10) On the effect of an order made against a non-party to a suit—
“…The Appellant in all material respect was not a party to the suit. The effect of the order made against a party who has not been heard in our legal jurisprudence is very clear. An order made against a party who was not informed or given any opportunity to defend himself or to be represented at the hearing of the suit, this amounts to denial of fair hearing. See Ndulue V. Ibezim [2002] 12 NWLR [Pt 780] 139 at 151, ratio 12 (P. 196, para A)
(11) On the effect of the violation of a party’s right to fair hearing –
The effect of the violation of the right of the Appellant to fair hearing is that such decision is rendered null and void. The outcome of the APC proceedings in question and its decision therefore cannot stand. (P. 197, para A)
(12) On the need to seek leave before raising a fresh issue on appeal—
The procedure for raising fresh issues on appeal is very clear. The Appellant needs to seek the leave of the Tribunal to raise fresh issues on appeal. It is trite that an issue not raised at trial cannot except with the leave of the court be raised on appeal. In the instant case the Appellant failed to raise the issue of damages at the APC. In NEPA V. Adesoji, (2002), 17 NWLR, (Pt 797), 578 at 589 ratio 16 where the Court of Appeal held inter alia that a point not at the trial court could with the leave of the court be raised at the Court of Appeal if the point is of fundamental importance which could have been taken on the face of the record without further evidence. (PP. 198-199, paras C—A).
(13) On when vicarious liability applies to a principal –
On the liability of the Appellant, in FIS Securities Limited Vs. SEC (supra), the Tribunal enumerated circumstances in which a master is responsible for the act of the servant to include:
i. if the action is incidental to the employment of the servant
ii. if the employee at the time of committing the tort was engaged in his employer’s business
iii. if employee acted on his own initiatives
iv. employee’s theft
v. fraud of the employees, and;
vi. the surrounding circumstances. (P. 198, para B)
Cases considered:
Agbahomovo V. Eduyegbe (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt 594) 170.
Asafa Foods Factory Limited V. Alraine Nig. Ltd. (2002) FWLR (Pt 125).
Barmo V. State (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt 641) pg 2420000
FIS Securities Limited V.SEC (2004) ISTJR 145.
Idakwo V. Ejiga (2002) 13 NWLR (pt 783) pg 156
International Polymera System Ltd V Glover & 1Or (2002) 7 NWLR (pt 765) pg 124
Inyang V Ebong (2002) 4 NWLR (pt 751) pg 284
Maja V Samouris (2002) 7 NWLR (pt 765) pg 78
Murphy Shipping Line (Nig.) Ltd V National Maritime Authority (2000) 9 NWLR (pt 672) pg 391
NEPA V Adesaaji (2002) 17 NWLR (pt 797) pg 578
NALSA & Team Associates V NNPC (1996) 3 NWLR (pt 439) pg 621
Ndulue V. Ibezim (2002) 12 NWLR (pt 780) pg 139
Statutes considered:
APC Rules of Procedure
Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree No. 59 of 1991
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
Investments and Securities Act 1999
Rules of Court Considered:
Investments and Securities Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2003
Abbreviation:
APC - Administrative Proceedings Committee
FWLR - Federation Weekly Law Report
ISA - Investments and Securities Act
ISTJR - Investments and Securities Tribunal Judgments and Rulings
NWLR - Nigerian Weekly Law Report
SEC - Securities and Exchange Commission
COUNSEL
U. M. Yamah, esq. for the Appellant
J. G. Taidi, esq. for the Respondent.
DR. (MRS.) NNENNA A. ORJI, Honourable Chairman, (delivering the judgment): The Appellant was a staff of Apex Securities Limited where he worked as a stockbroker for 11 years. Sometime in November 2002, the firm was invited for questioning at the Lion Building of Nigerian Police Force, Lagos in respect of the investigation of large-scale fraud involving U.A.C. Plc shares. On July 13, 2004, the Managing Director of Apex Securities Limited, informed the Appellant that there was letter from SEC suspending him from the trading floor of the NSE, of which the Appellant claimed he has not been officially communicated. The Appellant promptly protested the suspension through a letter dated July 21, 2004 addressed to the Director General of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The aforestated letter was not replied.
On 26th July 2004, his attention was drawn to another letter from SEC to the firm inviting the firm to the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) of SEC on August 4th, 2004. The Appellant was informed by the Managing Director of Apex Securities Limited that he was invited to represent the interest of the company. The Appellant was not invited as a party to the proceedings and was not informed of the subject matter of the proceedings. At the APC the Appellant alleged that he was queried about both personal matters and his involvement in the U.A.C. share scam, as well as the alleged falsification of the signature of the Managing Director of his firm. The Appellant was found guilty of complicity to perpetrate fraud in the capital market. Her was banned from the capital market by Securities and Exchange Commission. The Appellant was handed over to EFCC for investigation and prosecution on the said share scam.
The Appellant claimed as follows:
1. An order setting aside the decision of the APC in case No. APC/5/2003 as same was reached in contravention of the rights of the Appellant as guaranteed in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
2. An order of the Tribunal restoring all the rights and privileges of the Appellant in the capital market.
3. General damages of N95,000.00 against the Respondent for unduly subjecting the Appellant to emotional, psychological and mental trauma, loss of goodwill and business reputation.
The Appellant formulated five issues for determination by the Tribunal.
These are:
1) Whether the Appellant not being a party to the proceedings in case No APC/5/2003 could have been indicted and punished in the same proceedings.
2) Whether taking cognizance of the entire circumstances surrounding the proceedings leading to the indictment of the Appellant, it can be said that the Appellant was given a fair hearing. If the above is answered in the negative whether APC proceeding is not liable to be set aside.
3) Whether Appellant is personally liable for the Acts of his employer.
4) Whether the onus of proof in a civil case where crime is imputed was discharged by the Respondent in Case No. APC/5/2003 considering the evidence adduced at the APC. Further, whether the Respondent has the competence to adjudicate and punish for a crime.
5) Whether the Appellant is not entitled to damages.
The Respondent formulated three (3) issues to be determined by the Tribunal. The issues were;
1) Whether the Rules of fair hearing were observed by the APC of SEC in case of No APC/5/2003
2) Whether the acrimony between the Appellant and the Managing Director of Apex Securities denied the Appellant fair hearing.
3) Whether the Appellant is entitled to any damages.
We shall take the arguments of the counsel on the above issues for determination.
On issue no. 1, the Appellant argued that the charge sheet and the record of proceedings admitted as Exhibit E and Exhibit 1 respectively did not mention the Appellant’s name as a party to the proceedings. He submitted that even the Respondent’s witness under cross-examination admitted throughout the proceedings that only Apex Securities Limited was invited and it was represented by the Managing Director. He noted that the letter dated July 26th, 2004 admitted as Exhibit D was addressed with particular reference to the Appellant.
He submitted that since the Appellant was not a party to the proceedings before APC in case No./APC/5/2003, he could not have been properly indicted and punished in the said proceedings. He relied on the case of Kokoro-Owo Vs. Lagos State Government, (2001), 5 MJSC, page 166 (1) 169 ratio 2.
On issue no. 2, counsel submitted that Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C especially Exhibit A show that on 13th July 2004, the Appellant had already been suspended before his invitation to APC of SEC. He argued further that after due investigation, it was discovered that the fraud was committed by Mr. Adegbusi with the connivance of (1) Apex Securities Limited (2) Molten Trust Limited (3) Newdevco Finance Service Co. Limited. The Appellant’s name was not mentioned or included in the list of those who connived to commit the alleged offence. He argued that there were two previous sittings of APC of SEC in which Apex Securities Limited was represented by The Managing Director and the Appellant was not invited. In view of the aforesaid, he submitted that the Appellant had no knowledge of the nature of the evidence adduced against him nor had the opportunity to cross-examine those who testified against him. He relief on the decision of the Supreme Court in Denloye Vs Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, (2003), 44 WRN, 115 @ 117, ratio 2.
The Appellant also deposed to the fact that he never saw nor was confronted with Exhibit Apex A1-A20 at the APC’s proceedings which is reflected in the record of proceedings of APC as documents forged by Appellant. The Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to contradict or challenge the evidence raised at the APC proceedings. He submitted that the proceedings wherein the APC relied on documents that were brought to its knowledge without equal and fair opportunity to challenge its propriety amounts to denial of fair hearing. He relied on the case of Adepoju Vs. Hon. JUSTICE Ige & Others, (2003), FWLR, page 69 at 89 on the propriety of being invited as a party. He cited the case of Garba Vs University of MAIDUGURI< (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 550 (1) 578; Adeniyi Vs Governing Council of Yaba College of Technology, (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt 300) 426 @ 467 per Olatawura JSC; Nigeria Teaching Hospital Management Board V Nnoli, (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt 363) 376 @ 407-408; Adedeji v Police Service Commission, (1968) NMLR 102; Section 26 (1) constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Iroko v Uka, (2002), 14 NWLR, (Pt 786), 195 @ 206, ratio 9; and Ogboh V. F.R.N., (2002), 10 NWLR (Pt. 774), 21 at 26, ratio 4. Arguing he stated that assuming but not conceding that the Appellant was invited to the proceedings of the Respondent via Exhibit D, the notice was inadequate to give the Appellant notice to defend himself of any wrongdoing. He relied in Adepoju v Justice Ige & Others (supra). Furthermore, the Appellant argued that he had no time at all to prepare for his defence in person or through his counsel as the entire proceedings were conducted with the speed of light. He relied on Ogboh v FRN, supra. He urged the Tribunal to hold that the proceedings at SEC contravenes the rule of natural justice. For this position, he relied on Adeniyi v Yaba College of Technology, supra. On issue No. 3, he submitted that liability in this respect is vicarious where it is established. He relied on FIS Securities V Securities and Exchange Commission, 2004, ISTJR, of page 145 at 149, ratio 3-4 On issue No. 4 He contended that it is trite that where a crime is imputed in a civil proceeding the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to section 138 (1) Evidence Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and the Court of Appeal decision in Maure v Abdul, (2001), 4 NWLR. (Pt 702), 92 @ 99, ratio 2-3. He submitted that the Respondent did not discharge the onus. In addition, relying on he cases of Garba Vs University of Maiduguri (supra), Adeniyi Vs Governing Council of Yaba College of Technology (supra), Denloye Vs Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (supra), he submitted that an administrative body did not have power to punish for an alleged criminal offence where such an offence has not been established by a competent court of law. On issue no. 5. The counsel premised his argument on the fact that award of cost follows events. The events, he enumerated include incarceration at EFCC cell and denial of access to the capital market since July 13, 2004 translated into a huge loss for the Appellant. He claimed for the cost of prosecuting the appeal. He urged the court to award the sum of N95,000.00 which he submitted is conservative. He prayed the Tribunal to restore all the rights and privileges of the Appellant in the capital market. We shall now take the argument of the Respondent. On issue no. 1, he submitted that the Appellant had reasonable opportunity to defend himself of the allegation brought against him. He relied on Exhibit D, the hearing notice, and the witness statement Exhibit K and argued, that the hearing notice was marked “Attention Mr. Olisaemeka”. He cited Dantata & Sawoe Construction Co. Limited Vs Angulu Ibrahim, 2003, 31 WRN, 80 @ 88. He contended that the Appellant who attended the APC proceedings could not deny that he was given fair hearing. He submitted that the proceedings were fair and transparent. He relied on Rule 9 (11) of the APC Rules of procedure. He submitted that the Appellant had notice of the proceedings and took a further step by appearing at the proceedings. He cited African Continental Bank Plc and Another Vs Emostrade Limited, (2002) 2 SCNJ 299 at 306 and submitted that the Appellant had failed to adduce evidence to show that he was denied fair hearing. On issue no. 2 He submitted that the APC proceedings were conducted in a transparent manner. He referred to the Appellant’s testimony as contained in Exhibit 1. He submitted that the Appellant was not intimidated but given fair opportunity to present his case. Issue No. 3 He argued that the Appellant is not entitled to special damages because the particulars of the damages were not stated by the Appellant. In addition, he argued that since the issue involved is the suspension of the Appellant because of fraudulent dealing in the market, he was not entitled to any relief of damages. The Respondent therefore urged the Tribunal to refuse the Appellant’s prayers. In its reply brief, the Respondent in reply to whether the Appellant was a party to the proceedings, relied on the case of John Akinwoye Bamigboye and 3 others Vs Chief James Awoyinka and Another, 2000, FWLR, (Pt 113), 396 at 406 in which the Court held that a person who takes part in a legal transaction or proceedings is said to be a party to it. He submitted that since the Appellant took part in the proceedings, he was a party to the suit. He also submitted that the Appellant’s evidence was inconsistent with his pleading, he relied on Okhuaroba and 20 Others Vs Chief Aigbe, (2002), FWLR, (Pt 116), 885, paras E-F and Egbesimbea Vs Onusuruike, (2002) FWLR pt 128 at 1386 at 1432 paras D-F. On the issue of the vicarious liability raised by the Appellant, he referred to Rule 110(1) (d) of the SEC Rule and section 86 (c) ISA. He submitted that the law envisaged individual responsibility regardless of agency status. He referred to Murphy Shipping Line Nigeria Limited Vs National Maritime Authority, (2002), 9 NWLR, (Pt. 672), 391; Ashaffa Goods Factory Limited Vs Alraine Nigeria Limited, 2002, FWLR, (Pt 125). He submitted that the liability for the violation which the Appellant is alleged to have committed is personal. In reply to issue no. 4 raised by the Appellant, the Respondent relied on the case of University of Ilorin Vs Tosin Akinrogunde, (2002), FWLR (Pt 98), 1006 @ 1016, paragraph E-F that due to the nature of securities transactions, the Respondent has power to suspend or even ban a broker from the capital market even where crime is imputed. The imperative of this action was to protect the investing public and integrity of the capital market. JUDGMENT
A. Having considered the submission of the counsel, the Tribunal hereby formulates 2 issues to guide the Members in the determination of the suit.
1) Whether the Appellant was given fair hearing.
2) Whether or not the Appellant is entitled to general damages.
B. Irregularity
It is apt to first comment on the procedure adopted by the Appellant in prosecuting the case. The APC of SEC found inter alia that the Apex Securities Ltd failed to exercise proper supervision over the activities of its staff, Mr. A. G. Olisaemeka, the Lagos Branch Manager of the company (the Appellant herein) who acted in connivance with one Michael Adegbusi (the 1st Respondent in the case before APC) to perpetrate the alleged fraud. Based on the above findings, the Appellant was banned from all capital market activities by the SEC.
C. Essentially, a decision was reached at APC of SEC concerning further participation of the Appellant in capital market activities. The Appellant was aggrieved by this decision hence the filing of this action at the Tribunal. In other words, this case strictly sensu is an appeal against the decision of APC. The proper procedure for the Appellant’s claim in this regard was to file Notice of Appeal instead of an Originating Application as he has done. Section 236 (1) of the Investments And Securities Act 1999 provides as follows:
“A person aggrieved by any action or decision of the commission under this Decree, may institute an action in the Tribunal or appeal against such decision within the period stipulated under this Decree”
The Tribunal, however, views this as an irregularity and Rule 85 (1) of the Investments and Securities Tribunal Procedure Rule 2003 states that: “Any irregularity resulting from failure to comply with any provision of these Rules or of any direction of the Tribunal before the Tribunal has reached its decision shall not itself render the proceeding void.”
D. And Rule 85 (2) states that “where any such irregularity comes to the attention of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may give any directions it thinks just before reaching its decision to cure or waive the irregularities”
E. The irregularity in this suit has not in any way affected the materiality or merit of this case. There is no likelihood any of the parties is likely to suffer any defect or that there will be miscarriage of justice by curing the irregularity. NALSA & Team Associates Vs NNPC, (1996), 3 NWLR, (Pt 439) 621 and Maja V. Samouris, (2002), 7 NWLR, (Pt 765), 78 at 88. The Supreme Court in Maja’s case held that the courts now pursue the course of substantial justice between parties instead of taking refuge in unnecessary legal technicalities.
F. The Tribunal pursue the course of substantial justice between parties rather than hide under the cloak of technicalities. The Tribunal in the interest of justice and in view of its overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly, which includes using its special expertise effectively to deal with cases in proportion to the complexity of the issues and the resources of the party deems this case an APPEAL and it shall be so treated.
G. Denial of Fair Hearing
The Appellant and the Respondent agree that the issue of fair hearing is very crucial and the touchstone of this appeal. SEC carried out targeted inspection of UAC registrars department wherein it discovered that there was a fraud in the transaction of UAC shares. The alleged fraud was perpetrated by Assistant Registrar, Mr. Michael Adegbusi in connivance with other stock broking firms such as Apex Securities Limited. The matter was referred to APC of SEC for determination. The Committee issued its hearing notices dated March 16, 2004 and July 12, 2004 inviting Apex Securities Limited to explain its roles in the transaction. It was established that in the two previous meetings, the Appellant was not invited to defend his alleged complicity in the share scam. The Appellant was seriously aggrieved that he was not invited to defend himself and that a verdict of suspension was handed to him. It is pertinent at this juncture to examine whether the principle of fair hearing was adhered to in this respect.
H. The rights to fair hearing in consonance with the Constitution was clearly stated in section 29(7) of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 which provides that “The Commission, by order, suspend or cancel a certificate of registration in such manner as may be prescribed but no order under this subsection shall be made unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard”. The APC which is a fact finding body functioning in the capital market derived its powers from section 259 of the Investments and Securities Act, 1999 and the Rules and Regulation made thereunder. The Committee is governed by the provisions of the Investments and Securities Act and the rules and regulations which enshrine fair hearing in the dispensation of justice. Rule 9(11) of the APC Rules of Procedure provides that:
“A party to the proceedings before the committee may appear in person or be represented by a legal practitioner acting as a counsel provided that the committee may order the person to appear in person if it is of the opinion that in the interest of justice and the protection of investors it is necessary to do so.”
I. Rule 4 (1) of the APC Rules of Procedure also provides:
“All actions brought before the Committee shall be brought in the true names of the real parties who have interest in the matter”
J. These rules are in consonance with the rules of natural justice. It is so vital that any rule of court, tribunal or administrative body that does not comply with the provision of natural justice is a nullity. In International Polymera System Limited Vs Glover and I Other, (2002), 7 NWLR, (Pt 765), 124 @ 129, ratio 4, the Court of Appeal held inter alia that any non-compliance with rules of court is prima facie an irregularity and not a ground for nullity. But a non-compliance which amounts to a denial of fair hearing may amount to a nullity.
K. Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution states that “in the determination of his civil right and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other Tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure independence and impartiality”.
L. The right to fair hearing is constitutional. Two rules inherent in the principle are audi alteram partern, that is, the parties must be heard and Nemo Judex in causa sua, that is, one should not be a judge in ones cause, these principles if not adhered to at any given time in any administrative inquiry, judicial or quasi judicial process, it would amount to denial of fair hearing.
M. At the two previous sittings of APC there was no evidence that the Appellant was invited to defend himself. The overwhelming evidence is that the Appellant was not invited to the APC proceeding. It is deductive that it was at these previous proceedings which the Appellant was not invited to or heard that the Respondent imposed suspension order on the Appellant. The resort to fair hearing is to avail a party to the dispute opportunity to present his case without intimidation, equal access to facilities to conduct his case, the right to call evidence, to examine or cross-examine witnesses called and the opportunity to conduct his own case as his abilities permit. The party would also be a in position to hear and know all the evidences against him. In Agbahomovo V. Eduyegbe, (1999), 3 NWLR, (Pt 594), Page 170 at 184, ratios 7-8 the Supreme Court held inter alia that:
7. A hearing can only be fair when all the parties to the dispute are given a hearing or an opportunity of a hearing. If one of the parties is refused a hearing or not given opportunity to be heard, the hearing cannot qualify as a fair hearing.
8. The right to a fair hearing does not stop with the parties being present in court. It is a right to be heard at any material stage of the proceedings.
N. Onu JSC at page 184 stated that:
“it is conceded that it is a fundamental principle and requirement of law that parties are entitled to be heard on the cases put forward by them before the court”
O. We find that the previous two sittings of the APC in march and July 2004 in which evidence was taken against the Appellant failed to adhere to the principles of fair hearing.
P. In addition to the foregoing, the Appellant though invited by letter dated July 26th 2004 to the APC proceedings was not charged for the violation of any law or rules made pursuant to a law. Section 36(2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution “provides for an opportunity for the person whose rights and obligation may be affected to make representations to the administering authority before the authority makes decision affecting that person.”
Q. Furthermore, Exhibit G indicates the parties to the proceedings which does not include Appellant. The APC violated section 36(2) of the Constitution when it failed to give opportunity to the Appellant to make representations before making its decision that affected him.
R. The rule of natural justice envisages that the applicant should be informed of the charges made against him as well as be given adequate time to prepare his defence. The rule further envisages that the party must be informed promptly of the nature of the violation/offence in the language that he understands. The Appellant evidence that he was directed by the Managing Director of the Apex Securities Ltd to represent the company at the APC of SEC has not been denied or refused by the Respondent. In Barmo V. State (2000), 1 NWLR, Page 424 at 426, the court held that the constitutional right of a citizen of Nigeria to fair hearing includes the right to know and hear what charges are being preferred against a citizen who otherwise is deemed innocent. When the accused person has been told by the court the charges proffered against him, he will be able to prepare whatever defence he has to the charge which defence includes the decision to take a counsel and the instruction to be given to a counsel for defence. A close examination of Exhibit D relied upon by the Respondent does not indicate charges against the Appellant and as at that time the APC had commenced proceeding in Case No. APC/5/2003.
S. The issue of the Appellant not being a party was strongly canvassed by the Appellant in his brief which the Respondent failed to rebut it in its reply. We will reproduce the response of the Respondent in paragraphs 6 – 7 of its statement of evidence:
6. The APC issued hearing notices dated March 16th 2004 and July 12th 2004 inviting respondents including Apex Securities Limited to explain their rules in the transaction.
7. The Applicant, Mr. A. G. Olisaemeka appeared before the APC on behalf of Apex Securities Limited in addition to the Managing Director of Apex Securities Limited.
T. The Respondent argued vehemently that the appellant having participated in the proceedings that qualified him to be a party. Party to a proceedings and includes those who have direct interest in the subject matter and had opportunity to make representations at the proceedings and to be joined as a party to the suit. Parties to a suit are further categorized as proper parties. Proper parties are those who for some good reasons are necessary for the determination of the suit. Desirable parties are those who have direct interest or may be affected by the result.
U. Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter but also in whose absence the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. The Court of Appeal in Inyang V. Ebong, (2002), 4 NWLR, (Pt. 751), Page 284 at 340 per Edozie JCA that “in legal proceeding generally speaking parties are persons whose names appear on the records as plaintiff or defendant. A plaintiff who conceives that he has a cause of action against a particular defendant is entitled to pursue his remedy against that defendant only and should not be compelled to proceed against other person whom he has no desire and no intention to sue.” The relevant consideration in determining a party had been whether the entry of a particular person will help the court to unravel the truth. The Appellant was not in contemplation when the Respondent concluded its charges and commenced trial at APC. From the charges and trial, the Respondent intended to proceed against Apex Securities Limited. It is proper and legitimate that in corporate practice, the Appellant be beckoned to appear or represent the firm. If the Respondent desired to proceed against the Appellant it would have been evidenced on Exhibit D. If the Respondent was desirous of joining the Appellant as a party, it would have been most proper to follow Rule 4 (1) of the APC Rules of Procedure. The Appellant in all material respects was not a party to the suit. The effect of the order made against a party who has not been heard in our legal jurisprudence is very clear. Where a party was not informed or given notice of the suit and thus was not heard or accorded any opportunity to defend himself or to be represented at the hearing of the suit, this amount to denial of fair hearing. See Ndulue V Ibezim, (2002), 12 NWLR, (Pt. 780), page 139 at 151, ratio 12.
V. The law is clear on the procedure for third parties in any proceedings. Exhibit D relied upon by the Respondent to prove that the Appellant was fully involved in the APC proceeding is an after thought. The said exhibit placed side by side with Exhibit A, letter suspending the Appellant from the capital market indicated that the APC was already prejudiced against the Appellant. The APC meeting scheduled to hold on August 4 2004 was a mere window dressing as the rights and obligations of the Appellant had already been decided without an opportunity to make representations. In Agbahomovo V Eduyegbe supra, the Supreme Court stated that the right to a fair hearing does not stop with the parties being present in court. It is a right o be heard at any material stage of the proceedings. The subsequent invitation of the Appellant to the APC cannot in any way undo the wrong and injustice already meted out of the Appellant.
W. The effect of the violation of the right of the Appellant to fair hearing is that such decision is rendered null and void. The outcome of the APC proceedings in question and its decision therefore cannot stand. In Idakwo V. Ejiga, (2002), 13 NWLR, Pt. 783, 156 the Supreme Court held that a finding that there is no fair hearing implies in itself a prejudice to the party who lost and is tantamount o a finding of a contravention of his right to fair hearing guaranteed by the Constitution. He does not need to have suffered any particular injury for him to be entitled to have a decision against him, obtained unfairly, set aside. In line with the foregoing, the consequence of the breach of the rule of fair hearing is that the entire proceeding is null and void.
X. The Tribunal therefore holds that the SEC letter suspending the Appellant from the capital market was not issued in accordance with section 29(7) of the Investments and Securities Act and was contrary to the rule of law. Accordingly, the letter of suspension and the subsequent ban of the Appellant from the capital market are hereby set aside. Consequently, the rights and privileges of the Appellant in the capital market are hereby restored provided that he is in compliance with all necessary requirements for operation in the capital market.
Y. It is imperative to briefly comment on a few worrisome issues raised by the Appellant based on the statutory responsibilities of the Respondent Section 8 of the Investment and Securities Act spelt out the functions of SEC.
8(m) protect the integrity of the securities market against the abuse arising from the practice of insider trading.
8(u) prevents fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to the securities market.
Z. SEC as the apex regulator in the capital market is vested with statutory authority to conduct investigation to ascertain whether there has been a violation of the Investments and Securities Act. APC derived its powers from section 259 of the Investments and Securities Act, 1999 and the Rules and Regulations made there under. The Commission has power to regulate the capital market against abuses. It acted appropriately when it invited the parties involved in the share scam to APC in order to uncover the causes and perpetrators of the fraud. The ISA 1999 enumerated sanctions that the Commission is empowered to apply against offenders which include reprimand, suspension, ban or imposition of fines or penalties on the erring broker, dealer or stock exchange.
AA. On the liability of the Appellant, in FIS Securities Limited V. SEC, supra, the Tribunal enumerated circumstances in which a master is responsible for the act of the servant o include: if the action is incidental to the employment of the servant (ii) if the employee at the time of committing the tort was engaged in his employer’s business (iii) if employees acted on his own initiatives (iv) employee theft (v) fraud of the employees and (vi) the surrounding circumstances. The cases cited by Respondent on the liability of the Appellant to wit: Murphy Shipping Line (Nig.) Ltd. V National Maritime Authority (supra) and Asafa Foods Factory Limited V. Alraine Nig. Ltd. (supra) dealt with the Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree No. 59 of 1991. Section 16(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree imposed personal liability on an agent for the acts or omission of his disclosed principal. This principle of law which recognizes the liability of an agent to a disclosed principal is only applicable in Admiralty matters. Nonetheless, in ordinary contract relationship or tort, the general principle is that the act of an agent or servant of a company is the act of the company. Once the servant is acting in the course of his employment in respect of the master’s business the master is held liable notwithstanding that the act was expressly forbidden by the master’s corporation constitution. The issue of vicarious liability of the Appellant is not germane to the determination of this suit due to the breach of his constitutional right to fair hearing which is the crux of the appeal.
BB. Damages
On the issue of damages, that the Appellant claimed general damages in the sum of N95,000.00 against the Respondent for unduly subjecting the Appellant to emotional, psychological and mental trauma, loss of goodwill and business reputation. We note that the issue of damages was not canvassed at the APC of SEC and therefore is a fresh issue. The procedure for raising fresh issues on appeal is very clear. The Appellant needs to seek the leave of the Tribunal to raise fresh issues on appeal. It is trite that an issue not raised at trial cannot except with the leave of the court be raised on appeal. In the instant case the Appellant failed to raise the issue of damages at the APC. In NEPA V. Adesoji, (2002), 17 NWLR, (Pt 797), 578 at 589 ratio 16 where the Court of Appeal held inter alia that a point not raised at the trial court could with the leave of the court with the leave of the court be raised at the Court of Appeal if the point is of fundamental importance which could have been taken on the face of the record without further evidence.
CC. This claim ought properly to have been brought under the headings of general and special damages respectively. It is trite that special damages must be pleaded and proved. Apart from the foregoing, the Appellant cannot claim damages on appeal as an appellant court can only review damages; and as earlier noted if the Appellant desired to raise the issue of damages as a fresh point, he ought to have sought and obtained the leave of the Tribunal to do so.
DD. The Appellant’s prayer for damages is hereby struck out.
EE. In conclusion, we are mindful to add that the Tribunal is a new judicial institution whose rules of procedure need to be carefully studied. In this vein, counsel are kindly advised to ensure that their processes comply with the rules and procedure of the Tribunal. The caution is necessary to avoid the procedural problem posed by this case. The Tribunal’s Registry is ever prepared to render assistance to counsel and litigants.
We make no order as to costs.
N.B:
Nigerians Report has posted this report to correct the misleading information on this case as posted on the website of SEC since 2007 to date. It is wrong and illegal for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to publish an erroneous report to malign Mr. A.G. Olisaemeka without publishing the verdict of the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST), thereby misinforming and misleading the general public on the character of Mr. Olisaemeka who has since been cleared of any wrongdoing or fraudulent practice and his suspension lifted since 10th of May 2005.
In a letter dated 10th May 2005, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) addressed the CASE NO. IST/OA/02/04 OLISAEMEKA VS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, and stated that:
Download MP3
A.G. Olisaemeka Vs Securities and Exchange Commission (2007)
Nigerian Investments and Securities Law Report (2NISLR) at Page 177
Particularly at pages 196-197, paragraphs B-B
THE COMPLETE REPORT OF THE CASE OF A.G. OLISAEMEKA VERSUS THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
A. G. OLISAEMEKA
AND
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
INVESTMENT & SECURITIES TRIBUNAL
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
Dr. Nnenna A. Orji Hon. Chairman
Sola Ephraim-Oluwanuga, Esq. Hon. Member
Sam Chukwunyere, Esq. Hon. Member
Alhaji Aminu Dangana Hon. Member
Mr. George D. N. Feyi Hon. Member
26th day of January 2005
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY – Power of SEC to sanction erring operators
COURT – Course of justice – Duty of court to pursue
DAMAGES – Whether can be raised on appeal – How
FAIR HEARING – What amounts it entails constitutes
FAIR HEARING – Effect of violation of party’s right to
AIR HEARING – Essence of
FAIR HEARING – Natural justice – Effect of failure to comply with.
PRACTICE AND – Appeal – what is procedure of
PROCEDURE
PRACTICE AND – Parties to suit – category of
PROCEDURE
PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – Raising fresh issue on appeal-whether leave required.
TORT – Vicarious Liability – when applicable to a disclosed principal.
Issues:
(1) Whether the Applicant was given fair hearing, and;
(2) Whether or not the Applicant is entitled to general damages.
Facts:
The Applicant was a stock broken in the employment of Apex Securities Limited. Following investigations into a report of large scale fraud involving U.A.C. shares, the firm was invited for questioning at the Lion Building of the Nigeria Police Force, Lagos sometime in November 2002.
On July 13, 2004, the Managing Director of Apex Securities Limited informed the Appellant of a letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspending him from trading on the floor of the Nigeria Stock Exchange (NSE). The Appellant claimed not to have been officially communicated of the suspension and thereafter wrote a protect letter on July 21, 2004 to the Director-General of SEC. The letter was however, not replied to. He did not get any response.
On July 26, 2004, The Appellant’s attention was drawn to a letter written to the Apex Securities Limited inviting the firm to the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) of Sec on August 4, 2004. He was asked by the Managing Director to represent the interest of the firm at the APC. The Appellant was not invited as a separate party to the proceedings at APC nor was he informed of the issue in dispute at the proceedings. The Appellant claimed he was only asked questions about himself and his involvement in the UAC share scam as well as the alleged falsification of the signature of the Managing Director of the firm. The Appellant was consequently found guilty of complicity of fraudulent dealing in the capital market. He was banned from business in the capital market by the SEC and handed over to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for further investigation and prosecution on the UAC share scam.
The Appellant, aggrieved with the decision of APC appealed to the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST) for a review of the decisions.
HELD (allowing the appeal in part)
(1) On power of SEC to sanction erring operators –
SEC as the apex regulator in the capital market is vested with statutory authority to conduct investigation to ascertain whether there has been a violation of the Investments and Securities Act. APC of SEC derived its powers from Section 259 of the Investments and Securities Act, 1999 and the Rules and Regulation made thereunder. The Commission has power to regulate the capital market against abuse. It acted appropriately when it invited the parties involved in the share scam to APC in order to uncover the causes and perpetrators of the fraud. The ISA 1999 enumerated sanctions that the Commission is empowered to apply against offenders, which include reprimand, suspension, bar or imposition of fines or penalties on the erring broker, dealer or stock exchange. (PP. 197-98, paras D-A)
(2) On what constitute proper procedure for filing appeal at the Tribunal-
The proper procedure for the Appellant’s claim in this regard was to file Notice of Appeal instead of an Originating Application as he has done. Section 236(1) of the Investment and Securities Act 1999 provides as follows:
“A person aggrieved by any action or decision of the commission under this Decree, may institute an action in the Tribunal or appeal against such decision within the period stipulated under this Decree” (P. 191, para C)
(3) On whether an irregularity may affect a suit before the Tribunal –
Rule 85(1) of the Investments and Securities Tribunal Procedure Rule 2003 states that: “Any irregularity resulting from failure to comply with any provision of these Rules or of any direction of the Tribunal before the Tribunal has reached its decision shall not of itself render the proceedings void” And Rules 85 (2) sates that “where any such irregularity comes to the attention of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may give any directions it thinks just before reaching its decision to cure or waive the irregularities”
This irregularity in this suit has not in any way affected the materiality or merit of the case. There is no likelihood that any of the parties is likely to suffer any defect or that there will be miscarriage of justice by curing the irregularity. [NALSA & TEAM ASSOCIATES V. NNPC (1996) 3 NWLR pt 49 pg 621, Maja Vs Samouris (2002) NWLR pt 765, 78] (PP. 191-192, paras D-A)
(4) On duty of court to pursue the courser of justice –
The Tribunal pursues the course of substantial justice between parties rather than hiding under the cloak of technicalities. The Tribunal in the interest of justice and in view of its overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly, which includes using its special expertise effectively to deal with cases in proportion to the complexity of the issues and the resources of the party deems this case an APPEAL and it shall be so treated. (P. 192, para B)
(5) On the need for a court, tribunal or administrative body to comply with the rules of natural justice –
Rule 4(1) of the APC Rules of Procedure provides: “All actions brought before the committee shall be brought in the true names of the real parties who have interest in the matter”.
These Rules are in consonance with the Rules of natural justice. It is so vital that any rule of court, tribunal or administrative body that does not comply with the provision of antural justice is a nullity. [Internationally Polymera System Limited Vs Glover & 1 Or (2002)7 NWLR pt 765 pg 124 at 129, ratio 4] (P. 193, para B-C)
(6) On what amounts to denial of fair hearing –
The right to fair hearing is constitutional. Two rules inherent in the principle are audi alteram partem, that is, the parties must be heard and Nemo judex in causa sua, that is, one should not be a judge in ones own cause, these principles if not adhered to at any given time in any administrative inquiry, judicial or quasi-judicial process, would amount to denial of fair hearing (P. 193, para E)
(7) On the essence of fair hearing –
At the two previous sittings of APC there was no evidence that the Appellant was invited to defend himself. The overwhelming evidence is that the Appellant was not invited to the APC proceedings. It is deductive that it was at these previous proceedings which the Appellant was not invited to or heard that the Respondent imposed suspension order on the Appellant. The resort to fair hearing is to avail a party to the dispute of the opportunity to present his case without intimidation, equal access to facilities to conduct his case, the right to call evidence, to examine or cross-examine witnesses called and the opportunity to conduct his own case as his abilities permit. The party would also be in position to hear and know all the evidence against him. [Agbahomovo Vs Eduyegbe (1999) 3 NWLR pt 594, 170] (PP. 193-194, paras F-A)
(8) What fair hearing entails –
The Rules of natural justice envisages that the applicant should be informed of the charges made against him as well as be given adequate time to prepare his defence. The Rule further envisages that the party must be informed promptly of the nature of the violation/offence in the language that he understands. (P. 195, para A)
(9) On who is a party to a suit –
Party to a proceeding transcends those present in the proceeding and includes those who have direct interest in the subject matter and had opportunity to make representations at the proceedings and to be joined as a party to the suit. Parties to a suit are further categorized as proper parties, desirable parties and necessary parties. Proper parties are those who for some good reasons are necessary for the determination for the suit. Desirable parties are those who have direct interest or maybe affected by the result. Necessary parties are those whoa re not only interested in the subject matter but also in whose absence the proceeding could not be fairly dealt with. [Inyang Vs Ebong (2002) 4NWLR pt751, 284] (PP. 195-196, paras C-A)
(10) On the effect of an order made against a non-party to a suit—
“…The Appellant in all material respect was not a party to the suit. The effect of the order made against a party who has not been heard in our legal jurisprudence is very clear. An order made against a party who was not informed or given any opportunity to defend himself or to be represented at the hearing of the suit, this amounts to denial of fair hearing. See Ndulue V. Ibezim [2002] 12 NWLR [Pt 780] 139 at 151, ratio 12 (P. 196, para A)
(11) On the effect of the violation of a party’s right to fair hearing –
The effect of the violation of the right of the Appellant to fair hearing is that such decision is rendered null and void. The outcome of the APC proceedings in question and its decision therefore cannot stand. (P. 197, para A)
(12) On the need to seek leave before raising a fresh issue on appeal—
The procedure for raising fresh issues on appeal is very clear. The Appellant needs to seek the leave of the Tribunal to raise fresh issues on appeal. It is trite that an issue not raised at trial cannot except with the leave of the court be raised on appeal. In the instant case the Appellant failed to raise the issue of damages at the APC. In NEPA V. Adesoji, (2002), 17 NWLR, (Pt 797), 578 at 589 ratio 16 where the Court of Appeal held inter alia that a point not at the trial court could with the leave of the court be raised at the Court of Appeal if the point is of fundamental importance which could have been taken on the face of the record without further evidence. (PP. 198-199, paras C—A).
(13) On when vicarious liability applies to a principal –
On the liability of the Appellant, in FIS Securities Limited Vs. SEC (supra), the Tribunal enumerated circumstances in which a master is responsible for the act of the servant to include:
i. if the action is incidental to the employment of the servant
ii. if the employee at the time of committing the tort was engaged in his employer’s business
iii. if employee acted on his own initiatives
iv. employee’s theft
v. fraud of the employees, and;
vi. the surrounding circumstances. (P. 198, para B)
Cases considered:
Agbahomovo V. Eduyegbe (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt 594) 170.
Asafa Foods Factory Limited V. Alraine Nig. Ltd. (2002) FWLR (Pt 125).
Barmo V. State (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt 641) pg 2420000
FIS Securities Limited V.SEC (2004) ISTJR 145.
Idakwo V. Ejiga (2002) 13 NWLR (pt 783) pg 156
International Polymera System Ltd V Glover & 1Or (2002) 7 NWLR (pt 765) pg 124
Inyang V Ebong (2002) 4 NWLR (pt 751) pg 284
Maja V Samouris (2002) 7 NWLR (pt 765) pg 78
Murphy Shipping Line (Nig.) Ltd V National Maritime Authority (2000) 9 NWLR (pt 672) pg 391
NEPA V Adesaaji (2002) 17 NWLR (pt 797) pg 578
NALSA & Team Associates V NNPC (1996) 3 NWLR (pt 439) pg 621
Ndulue V. Ibezim (2002) 12 NWLR (pt 780) pg 139
Statutes considered:
APC Rules of Procedure
Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree No. 59 of 1991
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
Investments and Securities Act 1999
Rules of Court Considered:
Investments and Securities Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2003
Abbreviation:
APC - Administrative Proceedings Committee
FWLR - Federation Weekly Law Report
ISA - Investments and Securities Act
ISTJR - Investments and Securities Tribunal Judgments and Rulings
NWLR - Nigerian Weekly Law Report
SEC - Securities and Exchange Commission
COUNSEL
U. M. Yamah, esq. for the Appellant
J. G. Taidi, esq. for the Respondent.
DR. (MRS.) NNENNA A. ORJI, Honourable Chairman, (delivering the judgment): The Appellant was a staff of Apex Securities Limited where he worked as a stockbroker for 11 years. Sometime in November 2002, the firm was invited for questioning at the Lion Building of Nigerian Police Force, Lagos in respect of the investigation of large-scale fraud involving U.A.C. Plc shares. On July 13, 2004, the Managing Director of Apex Securities Limited, informed the Appellant that there was letter from SEC suspending him from the trading floor of the NSE, of which the Appellant claimed he has not been officially communicated. The Appellant promptly protested the suspension through a letter dated July 21, 2004 addressed to the Director General of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The aforestated letter was not replied.
On 26th July 2004, his attention was drawn to another letter from SEC to the firm inviting the firm to the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) of SEC on August 4th, 2004. The Appellant was informed by the Managing Director of Apex Securities Limited that he was invited to represent the interest of the company. The Appellant was not invited as a party to the proceedings and was not informed of the subject matter of the proceedings. At the APC the Appellant alleged that he was queried about both personal matters and his involvement in the U.A.C. share scam, as well as the alleged falsification of the signature of the Managing Director of his firm. The Appellant was found guilty of complicity to perpetrate fraud in the capital market. Her was banned from the capital market by Securities and Exchange Commission. The Appellant was handed over to EFCC for investigation and prosecution on the said share scam.
The Appellant claimed as follows:
1. An order setting aside the decision of the APC in case No. APC/5/2003 as same was reached in contravention of the rights of the Appellant as guaranteed in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
2. An order of the Tribunal restoring all the rights and privileges of the Appellant in the capital market.
3. General damages of N95,000.00 against the Respondent for unduly subjecting the Appellant to emotional, psychological and mental trauma, loss of goodwill and business reputation.
The Appellant formulated five issues for determination by the Tribunal.
These are:
1) Whether the Appellant not being a party to the proceedings in case No APC/5/2003 could have been indicted and punished in the same proceedings.
2) Whether taking cognizance of the entire circumstances surrounding the proceedings leading to the indictment of the Appellant, it can be said that the Appellant was given a fair hearing. If the above is answered in the negative whether APC proceeding is not liable to be set aside.
3) Whether Appellant is personally liable for the Acts of his employer.
4) Whether the onus of proof in a civil case where crime is imputed was discharged by the Respondent in Case No. APC/5/2003 considering the evidence adduced at the APC. Further, whether the Respondent has the competence to adjudicate and punish for a crime.
5) Whether the Appellant is not entitled to damages.
The Respondent formulated three (3) issues to be determined by the Tribunal. The issues were;
1) Whether the Rules of fair hearing were observed by the APC of SEC in case of No APC/5/2003
2) Whether the acrimony between the Appellant and the Managing Director of Apex Securities denied the Appellant fair hearing.
3) Whether the Appellant is entitled to any damages.
We shall take the arguments of the counsel on the above issues for determination.
On issue no. 1, the Appellant argued that the charge sheet and the record of proceedings admitted as Exhibit E and Exhibit 1 respectively did not mention the Appellant’s name as a party to the proceedings. He submitted that even the Respondent’s witness under cross-examination admitted throughout the proceedings that only Apex Securities Limited was invited and it was represented by the Managing Director. He noted that the letter dated July 26th, 2004 admitted as Exhibit D was addressed with particular reference to the Appellant.
He submitted that since the Appellant was not a party to the proceedings before APC in case No./APC/5/2003, he could not have been properly indicted and punished in the said proceedings. He relied on the case of Kokoro-Owo Vs. Lagos State Government, (2001), 5 MJSC, page 166 (1) 169 ratio 2.
On issue no. 2, counsel submitted that Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C especially Exhibit A show that on 13th July 2004, the Appellant had already been suspended before his invitation to APC of SEC. He argued further that after due investigation, it was discovered that the fraud was committed by Mr. Adegbusi with the connivance of (1) Apex Securities Limited (2) Molten Trust Limited (3) Newdevco Finance Service Co. Limited. The Appellant’s name was not mentioned or included in the list of those who connived to commit the alleged offence. He argued that there were two previous sittings of APC of SEC in which Apex Securities Limited was represented by The Managing Director and the Appellant was not invited. In view of the aforesaid, he submitted that the Appellant had no knowledge of the nature of the evidence adduced against him nor had the opportunity to cross-examine those who testified against him. He relief on the decision of the Supreme Court in Denloye Vs Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, (2003), 44 WRN, 115 @ 117, ratio 2.
The Appellant also deposed to the fact that he never saw nor was confronted with Exhibit Apex A1-A20 at the APC’s proceedings which is reflected in the record of proceedings of APC as documents forged by Appellant. The Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to contradict or challenge the evidence raised at the APC proceedings. He submitted that the proceedings wherein the APC relied on documents that were brought to its knowledge without equal and fair opportunity to challenge its propriety amounts to denial of fair hearing. He relied on the case of Adepoju Vs. Hon. JUSTICE Ige & Others, (2003), FWLR, page 69 at 89 on the propriety of being invited as a party. He cited the case of Garba Vs University of MAIDUGURI< (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 550 (1) 578; Adeniyi Vs Governing Council of Yaba College of Technology, (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt 300) 426 @ 467 per Olatawura JSC; Nigeria Teaching Hospital Management Board V Nnoli, (1994) 8 NWLR (Pt 363) 376 @ 407-408; Adedeji v Police Service Commission, (1968) NMLR 102; Section 26 (1) constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Iroko v Uka, (2002), 14 NWLR, (Pt 786), 195 @ 206, ratio 9; and Ogboh V. F.R.N., (2002), 10 NWLR (Pt. 774), 21 at 26, ratio 4. Arguing he stated that assuming but not conceding that the Appellant was invited to the proceedings of the Respondent via Exhibit D, the notice was inadequate to give the Appellant notice to defend himself of any wrongdoing. He relied in Adepoju v Justice Ige & Others (supra). Furthermore, the Appellant argued that he had no time at all to prepare for his defence in person or through his counsel as the entire proceedings were conducted with the speed of light. He relied on Ogboh v FRN, supra. He urged the Tribunal to hold that the proceedings at SEC contravenes the rule of natural justice. For this position, he relied on Adeniyi v Yaba College of Technology, supra. On issue No. 3, he submitted that liability in this respect is vicarious where it is established. He relied on FIS Securities V Securities and Exchange Commission, 2004, ISTJR, of page 145 at 149, ratio 3-4 On issue No. 4 He contended that it is trite that where a crime is imputed in a civil proceeding the standard of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to section 138 (1) Evidence Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 and the Court of Appeal decision in Maure v Abdul, (2001), 4 NWLR. (Pt 702), 92 @ 99, ratio 2-3. He submitted that the Respondent did not discharge the onus. In addition, relying on he cases of Garba Vs University of Maiduguri (supra), Adeniyi Vs Governing Council of Yaba College of Technology (supra), Denloye Vs Medical & Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (supra), he submitted that an administrative body did not have power to punish for an alleged criminal offence where such an offence has not been established by a competent court of law. On issue no. 5. The counsel premised his argument on the fact that award of cost follows events. The events, he enumerated include incarceration at EFCC cell and denial of access to the capital market since July 13, 2004 translated into a huge loss for the Appellant. He claimed for the cost of prosecuting the appeal. He urged the court to award the sum of N95,000.00 which he submitted is conservative. He prayed the Tribunal to restore all the rights and privileges of the Appellant in the capital market. We shall now take the argument of the Respondent. On issue no. 1, he submitted that the Appellant had reasonable opportunity to defend himself of the allegation brought against him. He relied on Exhibit D, the hearing notice, and the witness statement Exhibit K and argued, that the hearing notice was marked “Attention Mr. Olisaemeka”. He cited Dantata & Sawoe Construction Co. Limited Vs Angulu Ibrahim, 2003, 31 WRN, 80 @ 88. He contended that the Appellant who attended the APC proceedings could not deny that he was given fair hearing. He submitted that the proceedings were fair and transparent. He relied on Rule 9 (11) of the APC Rules of procedure. He submitted that the Appellant had notice of the proceedings and took a further step by appearing at the proceedings. He cited African Continental Bank Plc and Another Vs Emostrade Limited, (2002) 2 SCNJ 299 at 306 and submitted that the Appellant had failed to adduce evidence to show that he was denied fair hearing. On issue no. 2 He submitted that the APC proceedings were conducted in a transparent manner. He referred to the Appellant’s testimony as contained in Exhibit 1. He submitted that the Appellant was not intimidated but given fair opportunity to present his case. Issue No. 3 He argued that the Appellant is not entitled to special damages because the particulars of the damages were not stated by the Appellant. In addition, he argued that since the issue involved is the suspension of the Appellant because of fraudulent dealing in the market, he was not entitled to any relief of damages. The Respondent therefore urged the Tribunal to refuse the Appellant’s prayers. In its reply brief, the Respondent in reply to whether the Appellant was a party to the proceedings, relied on the case of John Akinwoye Bamigboye and 3 others Vs Chief James Awoyinka and Another, 2000, FWLR, (Pt 113), 396 at 406 in which the Court held that a person who takes part in a legal transaction or proceedings is said to be a party to it. He submitted that since the Appellant took part in the proceedings, he was a party to the suit. He also submitted that the Appellant’s evidence was inconsistent with his pleading, he relied on Okhuaroba and 20 Others Vs Chief Aigbe, (2002), FWLR, (Pt 116), 885, paras E-F and Egbesimbea Vs Onusuruike, (2002) FWLR pt 128 at 1386 at 1432 paras D-F. On the issue of the vicarious liability raised by the Appellant, he referred to Rule 110(1) (d) of the SEC Rule and section 86 (c) ISA. He submitted that the law envisaged individual responsibility regardless of agency status. He referred to Murphy Shipping Line Nigeria Limited Vs National Maritime Authority, (2002), 9 NWLR, (Pt. 672), 391; Ashaffa Goods Factory Limited Vs Alraine Nigeria Limited, 2002, FWLR, (Pt 125). He submitted that the liability for the violation which the Appellant is alleged to have committed is personal. In reply to issue no. 4 raised by the Appellant, the Respondent relied on the case of University of Ilorin Vs Tosin Akinrogunde, (2002), FWLR (Pt 98), 1006 @ 1016, paragraph E-F that due to the nature of securities transactions, the Respondent has power to suspend or even ban a broker from the capital market even where crime is imputed. The imperative of this action was to protect the investing public and integrity of the capital market. JUDGMENT
A. Having considered the submission of the counsel, the Tribunal hereby formulates 2 issues to guide the Members in the determination of the suit.
1) Whether the Appellant was given fair hearing.
2) Whether or not the Appellant is entitled to general damages.
B. Irregularity
It is apt to first comment on the procedure adopted by the Appellant in prosecuting the case. The APC of SEC found inter alia that the Apex Securities Ltd failed to exercise proper supervision over the activities of its staff, Mr. A. G. Olisaemeka, the Lagos Branch Manager of the company (the Appellant herein) who acted in connivance with one Michael Adegbusi (the 1st Respondent in the case before APC) to perpetrate the alleged fraud. Based on the above findings, the Appellant was banned from all capital market activities by the SEC.
C. Essentially, a decision was reached at APC of SEC concerning further participation of the Appellant in capital market activities. The Appellant was aggrieved by this decision hence the filing of this action at the Tribunal. In other words, this case strictly sensu is an appeal against the decision of APC. The proper procedure for the Appellant’s claim in this regard was to file Notice of Appeal instead of an Originating Application as he has done. Section 236 (1) of the Investments And Securities Act 1999 provides as follows:
“A person aggrieved by any action or decision of the commission under this Decree, may institute an action in the Tribunal or appeal against such decision within the period stipulated under this Decree”
The Tribunal, however, views this as an irregularity and Rule 85 (1) of the Investments and Securities Tribunal Procedure Rule 2003 states that: “Any irregularity resulting from failure to comply with any provision of these Rules or of any direction of the Tribunal before the Tribunal has reached its decision shall not itself render the proceeding void.”
D. And Rule 85 (2) states that “where any such irregularity comes to the attention of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may give any directions it thinks just before reaching its decision to cure or waive the irregularities”
E. The irregularity in this suit has not in any way affected the materiality or merit of this case. There is no likelihood any of the parties is likely to suffer any defect or that there will be miscarriage of justice by curing the irregularity. NALSA & Team Associates Vs NNPC, (1996), 3 NWLR, (Pt 439) 621 and Maja V. Samouris, (2002), 7 NWLR, (Pt 765), 78 at 88. The Supreme Court in Maja’s case held that the courts now pursue the course of substantial justice between parties instead of taking refuge in unnecessary legal technicalities.
F. The Tribunal pursue the course of substantial justice between parties rather than hide under the cloak of technicalities. The Tribunal in the interest of justice and in view of its overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly, which includes using its special expertise effectively to deal with cases in proportion to the complexity of the issues and the resources of the party deems this case an APPEAL and it shall be so treated.
G. Denial of Fair Hearing
The Appellant and the Respondent agree that the issue of fair hearing is very crucial and the touchstone of this appeal. SEC carried out targeted inspection of UAC registrars department wherein it discovered that there was a fraud in the transaction of UAC shares. The alleged fraud was perpetrated by Assistant Registrar, Mr. Michael Adegbusi in connivance with other stock broking firms such as Apex Securities Limited. The matter was referred to APC of SEC for determination. The Committee issued its hearing notices dated March 16, 2004 and July 12, 2004 inviting Apex Securities Limited to explain its roles in the transaction. It was established that in the two previous meetings, the Appellant was not invited to defend his alleged complicity in the share scam. The Appellant was seriously aggrieved that he was not invited to defend himself and that a verdict of suspension was handed to him. It is pertinent at this juncture to examine whether the principle of fair hearing was adhered to in this respect.
H. The rights to fair hearing in consonance with the Constitution was clearly stated in section 29(7) of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 which provides that “The Commission, by order, suspend or cancel a certificate of registration in such manner as may be prescribed but no order under this subsection shall be made unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard”. The APC which is a fact finding body functioning in the capital market derived its powers from section 259 of the Investments and Securities Act, 1999 and the Rules and Regulation made thereunder. The Committee is governed by the provisions of the Investments and Securities Act and the rules and regulations which enshrine fair hearing in the dispensation of justice. Rule 9(11) of the APC Rules of Procedure provides that:
“A party to the proceedings before the committee may appear in person or be represented by a legal practitioner acting as a counsel provided that the committee may order the person to appear in person if it is of the opinion that in the interest of justice and the protection of investors it is necessary to do so.”
I. Rule 4 (1) of the APC Rules of Procedure also provides:
“All actions brought before the Committee shall be brought in the true names of the real parties who have interest in the matter”
J. These rules are in consonance with the rules of natural justice. It is so vital that any rule of court, tribunal or administrative body that does not comply with the provision of natural justice is a nullity. In International Polymera System Limited Vs Glover and I Other, (2002), 7 NWLR, (Pt 765), 124 @ 129, ratio 4, the Court of Appeal held inter alia that any non-compliance with rules of court is prima facie an irregularity and not a ground for nullity. But a non-compliance which amounts to a denial of fair hearing may amount to a nullity.
K. Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution states that “in the determination of his civil right and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other Tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure independence and impartiality”.
L. The right to fair hearing is constitutional. Two rules inherent in the principle are audi alteram partern, that is, the parties must be heard and Nemo Judex in causa sua, that is, one should not be a judge in ones cause, these principles if not adhered to at any given time in any administrative inquiry, judicial or quasi judicial process, it would amount to denial of fair hearing.
M. At the two previous sittings of APC there was no evidence that the Appellant was invited to defend himself. The overwhelming evidence is that the Appellant was not invited to the APC proceeding. It is deductive that it was at these previous proceedings which the Appellant was not invited to or heard that the Respondent imposed suspension order on the Appellant. The resort to fair hearing is to avail a party to the dispute opportunity to present his case without intimidation, equal access to facilities to conduct his case, the right to call evidence, to examine or cross-examine witnesses called and the opportunity to conduct his own case as his abilities permit. The party would also be a in position to hear and know all the evidences against him. In Agbahomovo V. Eduyegbe, (1999), 3 NWLR, (Pt 594), Page 170 at 184, ratios 7-8 the Supreme Court held inter alia that:
7. A hearing can only be fair when all the parties to the dispute are given a hearing or an opportunity of a hearing. If one of the parties is refused a hearing or not given opportunity to be heard, the hearing cannot qualify as a fair hearing.
8. The right to a fair hearing does not stop with the parties being present in court. It is a right to be heard at any material stage of the proceedings.
N. Onu JSC at page 184 stated that:
“it is conceded that it is a fundamental principle and requirement of law that parties are entitled to be heard on the cases put forward by them before the court”
O. We find that the previous two sittings of the APC in march and July 2004 in which evidence was taken against the Appellant failed to adhere to the principles of fair hearing.
P. In addition to the foregoing, the Appellant though invited by letter dated July 26th 2004 to the APC proceedings was not charged for the violation of any law or rules made pursuant to a law. Section 36(2) (a) of the 1999 Constitution “provides for an opportunity for the person whose rights and obligation may be affected to make representations to the administering authority before the authority makes decision affecting that person.”
Q. Furthermore, Exhibit G indicates the parties to the proceedings which does not include Appellant. The APC violated section 36(2) of the Constitution when it failed to give opportunity to the Appellant to make representations before making its decision that affected him.
R. The rule of natural justice envisages that the applicant should be informed of the charges made against him as well as be given adequate time to prepare his defence. The rule further envisages that the party must be informed promptly of the nature of the violation/offence in the language that he understands. The Appellant evidence that he was directed by the Managing Director of the Apex Securities Ltd to represent the company at the APC of SEC has not been denied or refused by the Respondent. In Barmo V. State (2000), 1 NWLR, Page 424 at 426, the court held that the constitutional right of a citizen of Nigeria to fair hearing includes the right to know and hear what charges are being preferred against a citizen who otherwise is deemed innocent. When the accused person has been told by the court the charges proffered against him, he will be able to prepare whatever defence he has to the charge which defence includes the decision to take a counsel and the instruction to be given to a counsel for defence. A close examination of Exhibit D relied upon by the Respondent does not indicate charges against the Appellant and as at that time the APC had commenced proceeding in Case No. APC/5/2003.
S. The issue of the Appellant not being a party was strongly canvassed by the Appellant in his brief which the Respondent failed to rebut it in its reply. We will reproduce the response of the Respondent in paragraphs 6 – 7 of its statement of evidence:
6. The APC issued hearing notices dated March 16th 2004 and July 12th 2004 inviting respondents including Apex Securities Limited to explain their rules in the transaction.
7. The Applicant, Mr. A. G. Olisaemeka appeared before the APC on behalf of Apex Securities Limited in addition to the Managing Director of Apex Securities Limited.
T. The Respondent argued vehemently that the appellant having participated in the proceedings that qualified him to be a party. Party to a proceedings and includes those who have direct interest in the subject matter and had opportunity to make representations at the proceedings and to be joined as a party to the suit. Parties to a suit are further categorized as proper parties. Proper parties are those who for some good reasons are necessary for the determination of the suit. Desirable parties are those who have direct interest or may be affected by the result.
U. Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter but also in whose absence the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. The Court of Appeal in Inyang V. Ebong, (2002), 4 NWLR, (Pt. 751), Page 284 at 340 per Edozie JCA that “in legal proceeding generally speaking parties are persons whose names appear on the records as plaintiff or defendant. A plaintiff who conceives that he has a cause of action against a particular defendant is entitled to pursue his remedy against that defendant only and should not be compelled to proceed against other person whom he has no desire and no intention to sue.” The relevant consideration in determining a party had been whether the entry of a particular person will help the court to unravel the truth. The Appellant was not in contemplation when the Respondent concluded its charges and commenced trial at APC. From the charges and trial, the Respondent intended to proceed against Apex Securities Limited. It is proper and legitimate that in corporate practice, the Appellant be beckoned to appear or represent the firm. If the Respondent desired to proceed against the Appellant it would have been evidenced on Exhibit D. If the Respondent was desirous of joining the Appellant as a party, it would have been most proper to follow Rule 4 (1) of the APC Rules of Procedure. The Appellant in all material respects was not a party to the suit. The effect of the order made against a party who has not been heard in our legal jurisprudence is very clear. Where a party was not informed or given notice of the suit and thus was not heard or accorded any opportunity to defend himself or to be represented at the hearing of the suit, this amount to denial of fair hearing. See Ndulue V Ibezim, (2002), 12 NWLR, (Pt. 780), page 139 at 151, ratio 12.
V. The law is clear on the procedure for third parties in any proceedings. Exhibit D relied upon by the Respondent to prove that the Appellant was fully involved in the APC proceeding is an after thought. The said exhibit placed side by side with Exhibit A, letter suspending the Appellant from the capital market indicated that the APC was already prejudiced against the Appellant. The APC meeting scheduled to hold on August 4 2004 was a mere window dressing as the rights and obligations of the Appellant had already been decided without an opportunity to make representations. In Agbahomovo V Eduyegbe supra, the Supreme Court stated that the right to a fair hearing does not stop with the parties being present in court. It is a right o be heard at any material stage of the proceedings. The subsequent invitation of the Appellant to the APC cannot in any way undo the wrong and injustice already meted out of the Appellant.
W. The effect of the violation of the right of the Appellant to fair hearing is that such decision is rendered null and void. The outcome of the APC proceedings in question and its decision therefore cannot stand. In Idakwo V. Ejiga, (2002), 13 NWLR, Pt. 783, 156 the Supreme Court held that a finding that there is no fair hearing implies in itself a prejudice to the party who lost and is tantamount o a finding of a contravention of his right to fair hearing guaranteed by the Constitution. He does not need to have suffered any particular injury for him to be entitled to have a decision against him, obtained unfairly, set aside. In line with the foregoing, the consequence of the breach of the rule of fair hearing is that the entire proceeding is null and void.
X. The Tribunal therefore holds that the SEC letter suspending the Appellant from the capital market was not issued in accordance with section 29(7) of the Investments and Securities Act and was contrary to the rule of law. Accordingly, the letter of suspension and the subsequent ban of the Appellant from the capital market are hereby set aside. Consequently, the rights and privileges of the Appellant in the capital market are hereby restored provided that he is in compliance with all necessary requirements for operation in the capital market.
Y. It is imperative to briefly comment on a few worrisome issues raised by the Appellant based on the statutory responsibilities of the Respondent Section 8 of the Investment and Securities Act spelt out the functions of SEC.
8(m) protect the integrity of the securities market against the abuse arising from the practice of insider trading.
8(u) prevents fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to the securities market.
Z. SEC as the apex regulator in the capital market is vested with statutory authority to conduct investigation to ascertain whether there has been a violation of the Investments and Securities Act. APC derived its powers from section 259 of the Investments and Securities Act, 1999 and the Rules and Regulations made there under. The Commission has power to regulate the capital market against abuses. It acted appropriately when it invited the parties involved in the share scam to APC in order to uncover the causes and perpetrators of the fraud. The ISA 1999 enumerated sanctions that the Commission is empowered to apply against offenders which include reprimand, suspension, ban or imposition of fines or penalties on the erring broker, dealer or stock exchange.
AA. On the liability of the Appellant, in FIS Securities Limited V. SEC, supra, the Tribunal enumerated circumstances in which a master is responsible for the act of the servant o include: if the action is incidental to the employment of the servant (ii) if the employee at the time of committing the tort was engaged in his employer’s business (iii) if employees acted on his own initiatives (iv) employee theft (v) fraud of the employees and (vi) the surrounding circumstances. The cases cited by Respondent on the liability of the Appellant to wit: Murphy Shipping Line (Nig.) Ltd. V National Maritime Authority (supra) and Asafa Foods Factory Limited V. Alraine Nig. Ltd. (supra) dealt with the Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree No. 59 of 1991. Section 16(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree imposed personal liability on an agent for the acts or omission of his disclosed principal. This principle of law which recognizes the liability of an agent to a disclosed principal is only applicable in Admiralty matters. Nonetheless, in ordinary contract relationship or tort, the general principle is that the act of an agent or servant of a company is the act of the company. Once the servant is acting in the course of his employment in respect of the master’s business the master is held liable notwithstanding that the act was expressly forbidden by the master’s corporation constitution. The issue of vicarious liability of the Appellant is not germane to the determination of this suit due to the breach of his constitutional right to fair hearing which is the crux of the appeal.
BB. Damages
On the issue of damages, that the Appellant claimed general damages in the sum of N95,000.00 against the Respondent for unduly subjecting the Appellant to emotional, psychological and mental trauma, loss of goodwill and business reputation. We note that the issue of damages was not canvassed at the APC of SEC and therefore is a fresh issue. The procedure for raising fresh issues on appeal is very clear. The Appellant needs to seek the leave of the Tribunal to raise fresh issues on appeal. It is trite that an issue not raised at trial cannot except with the leave of the court be raised on appeal. In the instant case the Appellant failed to raise the issue of damages at the APC. In NEPA V. Adesoji, (2002), 17 NWLR, (Pt 797), 578 at 589 ratio 16 where the Court of Appeal held inter alia that a point not raised at the trial court could with the leave of the court with the leave of the court be raised at the Court of Appeal if the point is of fundamental importance which could have been taken on the face of the record without further evidence.
CC. This claim ought properly to have been brought under the headings of general and special damages respectively. It is trite that special damages must be pleaded and proved. Apart from the foregoing, the Appellant cannot claim damages on appeal as an appellant court can only review damages; and as earlier noted if the Appellant desired to raise the issue of damages as a fresh point, he ought to have sought and obtained the leave of the Tribunal to do so.
DD. The Appellant’s prayer for damages is hereby struck out.
EE. In conclusion, we are mindful to add that the Tribunal is a new judicial institution whose rules of procedure need to be carefully studied. In this vein, counsel are kindly advised to ensure that their processes comply with the rules and procedure of the Tribunal. The caution is necessary to avoid the procedural problem posed by this case. The Tribunal’s Registry is ever prepared to render assistance to counsel and litigants.
We make no order as to costs.
N.B:
Nigerians Report has posted this report to correct the misleading information on this case as posted on the website of SEC since 2007 to date. It is wrong and illegal for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to publish an erroneous report to malign Mr. A.G. Olisaemeka without publishing the verdict of the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST), thereby misinforming and misleading the general public on the character of Mr. Olisaemeka who has since been cleared of any wrongdoing or fraudulent practice and his suspension lifted since 10th of May 2005.
In a letter dated 10th May 2005, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) addressed the CASE NO. IST/OA/02/04 OLISAEMEKA VS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, and stated that:
The above subject matter refers.
In view of the order of the IST in the above mentioned case, we write to inform you that your suspension from operating in all activities of the capital market in Nigeria is hereby lifted.
Yours faithfully,
K.L. Adejekughele
for: Director-General
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Mobily Awards Motorola an SA435 Million Contract to Expand Its Network in Saudi Arabia
30 Mar 2009 08:00 Africa/Lagos
Mobily Awards Motorola an SA435 Million Contract to Expand Its Network in Saudi Arabia
Latest expansion will provide enhanced communications services for more Saudi residents
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) today announced a contract worth approximately SA435 million ($116 million) with Etihad Etisalat (Mobily). The contract marks the fifth major turnkey GSM network expansion that Mobily has undertaken with Motorola in the past four years. Saudi Arabia's Northwest and Southwest regions will benefit from enhanced GSM coverage and capacity and the contract underscores Motorola's commitment to Saudi Arabia and further reinforces the strong relationship with Mobily.
The turnkey expansion will enable Mobily to expand its network coverage to increase its subscriber base within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Motorola will deliver its GSM infrastructure solutions as well as comprehensive range of services.
"The demand for reliable communications services in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is growing and the Mobily expansion project of our GSM network will help to meet the demands and expectations of new subscribers in the western north and southern north regions," said Khalid Al-Kaf, CEO of Mobily. "Our relationship with Motorola and other international companies began in 2004 and we have achieved tremendous success in making Mobily the most trusted mobile service provider in the Kingdom."
"Motorola is a global leader in GSM and our innovative technologies and solutions provide a reliable and scalable network for Mobily to meet growing customer demands," said Ali Amer, vice president sales, Middle East, Africa & Pakistan, Motorola Home & Networks Mobility. "This turnkey expansion will allow for maximized return on investment, rapid deployment for Mobily and enhanced services for Mobily customers."
A portion of revenue on this contract was recognized in the third and fourth quarters of 2008.
Motorola has won a number of significant GSM network expansion contracts over the past few years. Motorola's GSM is attractive for service providers in both new and mature markets. Some of the recent major contract wins include expansion contracts with VNPT Group in Vietnam, China Mobile in China, and Celtel Nigeria in Nigeria.
About Etihad Etisalat Company (Mobily)
Mobily, the official brand name of Etihad Etisalat, is considered the second mobile service provider in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It acquired its second license to run the mobile service network in KSA in summer 2004 in a SR 12.21 billion bid. Thus, it has become the first Saudi communications company to get an operation license for 3rd generation services and beyond.
In May 2005, Mobily launched its own network to begin with providing its business services. In 2006, the International Mobile Phone Organization described Mobily as the fastest growing company in MENA after it has built the fastest mobile communications network of its kind in the region within 6 months, besides acquiring the biggest number of 3rd generation services subscribers.
In September 2007, Mobily sealed a MOU to acquire the first data company BAYANAT against SA 1.5 billion, which is considered a step towards merging fixed and mobile communications lines.
Mobily had a market share of 40 per cent approximately by the end of Q1 2008.
About Motorola
Motorola is known around the world for innovation in communications and is focused on advancing the way the world connects. From broadband communications infrastructure, enterprise mobility and public safety solutions to high-definition video and mobile devices, Motorola is leading the next wave of innovations that enable people, enterprises and governments to be more connected and more mobile. Motorola (NYSE:MOT) had sales of US $30.1 billion in 2008. For more information, please visit www.motorola.com.
MOTOROLA and the stylized M Logo are registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. All other product or service names are the property of their respective owners. (C) Motorola, Inc. 2009. All rights reserved.
Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20020415/MOTNOTAGLOGO
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20020307/MOTLOGO
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.or/
PRN Photo Desk, photodesk@prnewswire.com
Source: Motorola, Inc.
CONTACT: Gemma Priscott of Motorola Home & Networks Mobility, +44 1256
790 384, gemma.priscott@motorola.com
Web Site: http://www.motorola.com/
Mobily Awards Motorola an SA435 Million Contract to Expand Its Network in Saudi Arabia
Latest expansion will provide enhanced communications services for more Saudi residents
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Motorola, Inc. (NYSE:MOT) today announced a contract worth approximately SA435 million ($116 million) with Etihad Etisalat (Mobily). The contract marks the fifth major turnkey GSM network expansion that Mobily has undertaken with Motorola in the past four years. Saudi Arabia's Northwest and Southwest regions will benefit from enhanced GSM coverage and capacity and the contract underscores Motorola's commitment to Saudi Arabia and further reinforces the strong relationship with Mobily.
The turnkey expansion will enable Mobily to expand its network coverage to increase its subscriber base within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Motorola will deliver its GSM infrastructure solutions as well as comprehensive range of services.
"The demand for reliable communications services in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is growing and the Mobily expansion project of our GSM network will help to meet the demands and expectations of new subscribers in the western north and southern north regions," said Khalid Al-Kaf, CEO of Mobily. "Our relationship with Motorola and other international companies began in 2004 and we have achieved tremendous success in making Mobily the most trusted mobile service provider in the Kingdom."
"Motorola is a global leader in GSM and our innovative technologies and solutions provide a reliable and scalable network for Mobily to meet growing customer demands," said Ali Amer, vice president sales, Middle East, Africa & Pakistan, Motorola Home & Networks Mobility. "This turnkey expansion will allow for maximized return on investment, rapid deployment for Mobily and enhanced services for Mobily customers."
A portion of revenue on this contract was recognized in the third and fourth quarters of 2008.
Motorola has won a number of significant GSM network expansion contracts over the past few years. Motorola's GSM is attractive for service providers in both new and mature markets. Some of the recent major contract wins include expansion contracts with VNPT Group in Vietnam, China Mobile in China, and Celtel Nigeria in Nigeria.
About Etihad Etisalat Company (Mobily)
Mobily, the official brand name of Etihad Etisalat, is considered the second mobile service provider in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It acquired its second license to run the mobile service network in KSA in summer 2004 in a SR 12.21 billion bid. Thus, it has become the first Saudi communications company to get an operation license for 3rd generation services and beyond.
In May 2005, Mobily launched its own network to begin with providing its business services. In 2006, the International Mobile Phone Organization described Mobily as the fastest growing company in MENA after it has built the fastest mobile communications network of its kind in the region within 6 months, besides acquiring the biggest number of 3rd generation services subscribers.
In September 2007, Mobily sealed a MOU to acquire the first data company BAYANAT against SA 1.5 billion, which is considered a step towards merging fixed and mobile communications lines.
Mobily had a market share of 40 per cent approximately by the end of Q1 2008.
About Motorola
Motorola is known around the world for innovation in communications and is focused on advancing the way the world connects. From broadband communications infrastructure, enterprise mobility and public safety solutions to high-definition video and mobile devices, Motorola is leading the next wave of innovations that enable people, enterprises and governments to be more connected and more mobile. Motorola (NYSE:MOT) had sales of US $30.1 billion in 2008. For more information, please visit www.motorola.com.
MOTOROLA and the stylized M Logo are registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. All other product or service names are the property of their respective owners. (C) Motorola, Inc. 2009. All rights reserved.
Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20020415/MOTNOTAGLOGO
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20020307/MOTLOGO
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.or/
PRN Photo Desk, photodesk@prnewswire.com
Source: Motorola, Inc.
CONTACT: Gemma Priscott of Motorola Home & Networks Mobility, +44 1256
790 384, gemma.priscott@motorola.com
Web Site: http://www.motorola.com/
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Paul Krugman Has Emerged as Obama's Toughest Liberal Critic
President Barack Obama thinks he is right, but according to the Newsweek Cover story, the famous economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman thinks Obama is wrong.
What do you think?
Video: Obama defends budget and dollar
(02:06) Report
Mar. 24 - President Barack Obama defended his $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, which most Republicans and even some fellow Democrats have criticized for being too costly.
In his second prime-time White House news conference since he took office, Obama said the U.S. dollar is strong. He also said he is continuing to follow the ongoing violence in Mexico very carefully and is prepared to take additional steps to protect the U.S. border. Jon Decker reports.SOUNDBITE: U.S. President Barack Obama
In the April 6 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands March 30), "Obama is Wrong," Newsweek's Evan Thomas profiles Paul Krugman, who, as the debate over the rescue of the financial system unfolds, has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. Plus: Michael Hirsh on how Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appears to have settled into office; Dan Gross on financial linguistics; a profile of Peter Arnell; Newsweek's Business Roundtable; and the "diva-ization" of kids at a young age. (PRNewsFoto/Newsweek) NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES 03/29/2009
29 Mar 2009 16:17 Africa/Lagos
NEWSWEEK Cover: Obama Is Wrong
Paul Krugman Has Emerged as Obama's Toughest Liberal Critic
What if Krugman's Criticism May be Right?
NEW YORK, March 29 /PRNewswire/ -- As the debate over the rescue of the financial system - which is crucial in stabilizing the economy and returning the country to prosperity - unfolds, Paul Krugman has emerged as President Barack Obama's toughest liberal critic, writes Newsweek Editor-at-Large Evan Thomas in his profile of Krugman in the current issue. Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, a professor at Princeton and a Nobel Prize winner in economics, was a scourge of the Bush administration, but has been critical, if not hostile, to the Obama White House, skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. As the debate continues, there are worries among the establishment that his "despair" over the administration's bailout plan might be right. "Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right?," Thomas writes. "What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize...the banks before they collapse altogether?," he writes in the April 6 Newsweek cover, "Obama Is Wrong" (on newsstands Monday, March 30).
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090329/91457 )
There is little doubt that Krugman has become the voice of the loyal opposition, taking on the president from the left. In his twice-a-week column and his blog, Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a flawed financial system and he portrays Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other top officials as tools of Wall Street. The day Geithner announced the details of the administration's bank-rescue plan, Krugman described his "despair" that Obama "has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they're doing." The administration, naturally does not share Krugman's view, but the Obama White House is also careful not to provoke his wrath any more than necessary.
"Ideologically, Krugman is a European Social Democrat," Thomas writes. "In his published opinions, and perhaps his very being, Paul Krugman is anti- establishment." He hungers for what he calls "a new New Deal," and prides himself on his status as an outsider. Krugman generally applauds Obama's efforts to tax the rich in his budget and try for massive health-care reform. However, on the all-important questions of the financial system, he says he has not given up on the White House's seeing the merits of his argument - that the government must guarantee the liabilities of all the nation's banks and nationalize the big "zombie" banks - and do it fast. "The public wants to trust Obama," Krugman says. "This is still Bush's crisis. But if they wait, Obama will be blamed for a fair share of the problem." The question remains as to whether Krugman is right, which we won't know for a while to come.
(Read cover at www.Newsweek.com)
Cover: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393
Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090329/91457
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.org/
AP PhotoExpress Network: PRN1
PRN Photo Desk, photodesk@prnewswire.com
Source: Newsweek
CONTACT: Katherine Barna, +1-212-445-4859, of Newsweek
Web site: http://www.newsweek.msnbc.com/
.
What do you think?
Video: Obama defends budget and dollar
(02:06) Report
Mar. 24 - President Barack Obama defended his $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, which most Republicans and even some fellow Democrats have criticized for being too costly.
In his second prime-time White House news conference since he took office, Obama said the U.S. dollar is strong. He also said he is continuing to follow the ongoing violence in Mexico very carefully and is prepared to take additional steps to protect the U.S. border. Jon Decker reports.SOUNDBITE: U.S. President Barack Obama
In the April 6 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands March 30), "Obama is Wrong," Newsweek's Evan Thomas profiles Paul Krugman, who, as the debate over the rescue of the financial system unfolds, has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic. Plus: Michael Hirsh on how Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appears to have settled into office; Dan Gross on financial linguistics; a profile of Peter Arnell; Newsweek's Business Roundtable; and the "diva-ization" of kids at a young age. (PRNewsFoto/Newsweek) NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES 03/29/2009
29 Mar 2009 16:17 Africa/Lagos
NEWSWEEK Cover: Obama Is Wrong
Paul Krugman Has Emerged as Obama's Toughest Liberal Critic
What if Krugman's Criticism May be Right?
NEW YORK, March 29 /PRNewswire/ -- As the debate over the rescue of the financial system - which is crucial in stabilizing the economy and returning the country to prosperity - unfolds, Paul Krugman has emerged as President Barack Obama's toughest liberal critic, writes Newsweek Editor-at-Large Evan Thomas in his profile of Krugman in the current issue. Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, a professor at Princeton and a Nobel Prize winner in economics, was a scourge of the Bush administration, but has been critical, if not hostile, to the Obama White House, skeptical of the bank bailout and pessimistic about the economy. As the debate continues, there are worries among the establishment that his "despair" over the administration's bailout plan might be right. "Krugman may be exaggerating the decay of the financial system or the devotion of Obama's team to preserving it. But what if he's right, or part right?," Thomas writes. "What if President Obama is squandering his only chance to step in and nationalize...the banks before they collapse altogether?," he writes in the April 6 Newsweek cover, "Obama Is Wrong" (on newsstands Monday, March 30).
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090329/91457 )
There is little doubt that Krugman has become the voice of the loyal opposition, taking on the president from the left. In his twice-a-week column and his blog, Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a flawed financial system and he portrays Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and other top officials as tools of Wall Street. The day Geithner announced the details of the administration's bank-rescue plan, Krugman described his "despair" that Obama "has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what they're doing." The administration, naturally does not share Krugman's view, but the Obama White House is also careful not to provoke his wrath any more than necessary.
"Ideologically, Krugman is a European Social Democrat," Thomas writes. "In his published opinions, and perhaps his very being, Paul Krugman is anti- establishment." He hungers for what he calls "a new New Deal," and prides himself on his status as an outsider. Krugman generally applauds Obama's efforts to tax the rich in his budget and try for massive health-care reform. However, on the all-important questions of the financial system, he says he has not given up on the White House's seeing the merits of his argument - that the government must guarantee the liabilities of all the nation's banks and nationalize the big "zombie" banks - and do it fast. "The public wants to trust Obama," Krugman says. "This is still Bush's crisis. But if they wait, Obama will be blamed for a fair share of the problem." The question remains as to whether Krugman is right, which we won't know for a while to come.
(Read cover at www.Newsweek.com)
Cover: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393
Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090329/91457
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.org/
AP PhotoExpress Network: PRN1
PRN Photo Desk, photodesk@prnewswire.com
Source: Newsweek
CONTACT: Katherine Barna, +1-212-445-4859, of Newsweek
Web site: http://www.newsweek.msnbc.com/
.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
17:29 Nasir El-Rufai Fights Political Persecution in Nigeria
26 Mar 2009 17:29 Africa/Lagos
Nasir El-Rufai Fights Political Persecution in Nigeria
International legal expert Robert Amsterdam joins Nigerian defense team to challenge accusations against el-Rufai
LONDON, March 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Nasir El-Rufai, a popular Nigerian reformer who has faced nearly two years of investigations from trumped-up, politically-motivated charges has announced the retention of the well-known international lawyer Robert Amsterdam, of Amsterdam & Peroff. Mr. Amsterdam has a broad mandate to mount a vigorous legal defense of El-Rufai's reputation, person and property both in Nigeria and abroad.
Mr. A. U. Mustapha, prominent Nigerian counsel for El-Rufai, stated that, "the increasingly libelous accusations against former Minister El-Rufai and the ferocity of the campaign against him which violate Nigeria's commitments under international law prompted us to look for jurisdictions outside of Nigeria for additional arena for redress."
While serving in government, El-Rufai was recognized as an integral member of a team of bold and innovative reformers who brought real progress, transparency and accountability to Nigeria. During his tenure as Minister of the FCT, El-Rufai's administration was recognized globally as a model of transparency and efficiency, implementing policies and recruiting personnel that enhanced the viability of the federal capital as part of a wider reform agenda.
"The accusations against El-Rufai are politically motivated and intended to destroy the reputation of a Nigerian reformer and a results-oriented technocrat, and hence destroy the very notion of reform," said Amsterdam. "Nigerians deserve better than this." He continued, "These baseless accusations are of grave concern to the international community, particularly those concerned with human rights, democracy and good governance in Africa."
The Bureau of Public Enterprises which El-Rufai headed between 1999 and 2003 provided the then newly-created Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) temporary offices, initial staff and other resources to begin its successful anti-corruption campaign in 2003. The tenacity and effectiveness of the EFCC has prompted political reprisals against El-Rufai and Nuhu Ribadu, who were seen as the driving force behind the Commission's successful prosecutions. Both El-Rufai and Ribadu are now outside of Nigeria for their own safety.
Robert Amsterdam is the founding partner of the Toronto- and London, U.K.-based law firm Amsterdam & Peroff. More information on this case can be found at www.robertamsterdam.com.
Source: Amsterdam & Peroff
CONTACT: James Kimerm, +1-917-355-0717, James.kimer@ksocialmedia.com
Web Site: http://www.robertamsterdam.com/
Releases displayed in Africa/Lagos time
27 Mar 2009
11:10
Fluorspar Prices are Likely to Stabilise as Environmental Pressures Moderate Demand
26 Mar 2009
17:29
Nasir El-Rufai Fights Political Persecution in Nigeria
16:35
FrieslandCampina consigue un buen rendimiento dentro de un año complejo en el sector lácteo
10:20
Gute Leistung von FrieslandCampina in schwierigem Milchwirtschaftsjahr
10:06
FrieslandCampina Delivers Good Performance in Difficult Dairy Year
09:56
Goede prestatie FrieslandCampina in moeilijk zuiveljaar
.
Nasir El-Rufai Fights Political Persecution in Nigeria
International legal expert Robert Amsterdam joins Nigerian defense team to challenge accusations against el-Rufai
LONDON, March 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Nasir El-Rufai, a popular Nigerian reformer who has faced nearly two years of investigations from trumped-up, politically-motivated charges has announced the retention of the well-known international lawyer Robert Amsterdam, of Amsterdam & Peroff. Mr. Amsterdam has a broad mandate to mount a vigorous legal defense of El-Rufai's reputation, person and property both in Nigeria and abroad.
Mr. A. U. Mustapha, prominent Nigerian counsel for El-Rufai, stated that, "the increasingly libelous accusations against former Minister El-Rufai and the ferocity of the campaign against him which violate Nigeria's commitments under international law prompted us to look for jurisdictions outside of Nigeria for additional arena for redress."
While serving in government, El-Rufai was recognized as an integral member of a team of bold and innovative reformers who brought real progress, transparency and accountability to Nigeria. During his tenure as Minister of the FCT, El-Rufai's administration was recognized globally as a model of transparency and efficiency, implementing policies and recruiting personnel that enhanced the viability of the federal capital as part of a wider reform agenda.
"The accusations against El-Rufai are politically motivated and intended to destroy the reputation of a Nigerian reformer and a results-oriented technocrat, and hence destroy the very notion of reform," said Amsterdam. "Nigerians deserve better than this." He continued, "These baseless accusations are of grave concern to the international community, particularly those concerned with human rights, democracy and good governance in Africa."
The Bureau of Public Enterprises which El-Rufai headed between 1999 and 2003 provided the then newly-created Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) temporary offices, initial staff and other resources to begin its successful anti-corruption campaign in 2003. The tenacity and effectiveness of the EFCC has prompted political reprisals against El-Rufai and Nuhu Ribadu, who were seen as the driving force behind the Commission's successful prosecutions. Both El-Rufai and Ribadu are now outside of Nigeria for their own safety.
Robert Amsterdam is the founding partner of the Toronto- and London, U.K.-based law firm Amsterdam & Peroff. More information on this case can be found at www.robertamsterdam.com.
Source: Amsterdam & Peroff
CONTACT: James Kimerm, +1-917-355-0717, James.kimer@ksocialmedia.com
Web Site: http://www.robertamsterdam.com/
Releases displayed in Africa/Lagos time
27 Mar 2009
11:10
Fluorspar Prices are Likely to Stabilise as Environmental Pressures Moderate Demand
26 Mar 2009
17:29
Nasir El-Rufai Fights Political Persecution in Nigeria
16:35
FrieslandCampina consigue un buen rendimiento dentro de un año complejo en el sector lácteo
10:20
Gute Leistung von FrieslandCampina in schwierigem Milchwirtschaftsjahr
10:06
FrieslandCampina Delivers Good Performance in Difficult Dairy Year
09:56
Goede prestatie FrieslandCampina in moeilijk zuiveljaar
.
Nigerian Women Association of Georgia Awards 29 Scholarships
NWAG HAS DONE IT AGAIN!!NWAG will be awarding 29 Scholarships to deserving women in Nigerian Universities from 28 States. It is our intention to cover all 36 states of the federation in 2009! Congratulations to the following 2008 recipients:Full Recipients List
About Nigerian Women Association of Georgia
The Nigerian Women Association of Georgia (NWAG) founded in April 2000, is a non-profit organization based in Atlanta Georgia.
Mission Statement
The mission of NWAG is to serve our local community as well as our country Nigeria, through empowerment, cultural enrichment, and education of women, youth and children, thereby fostering togetherness and excellence in our collective pursuits.
Our Goals and Objectives
To bring all Nigerian Women in Georgia under one National Association.
To create opportunities for networking and information sharing in helping our community.
To promote and integrate our rich and diversified culture among our Youth.
To create a positive awareness of our National heritage within Georgia and the USA.
To work in collaboration with women groups in Georgia and the USA.
NWAG Core Beliefs
We believe in...
The Empowerment of Women, Youth and Children
Selfless Service, Strong Commitment and Teamwork
Mutual Respect, Integrity, and Excellence in our Pursuits
Honest and Open Communication
That Trusting Environment Strengthens and Encourages Its Members
Promoting Nigerian Culture
Friday, March 27, 2009
Let Us Stop the Aliko Dangote Mafia Gang-Up against African Petroleum Plc
Let Us Stop the Aliko Dangote Mafia Gang-Up against African Petroleum Plc
Nigerians Report has decided to address the case of The Unethical Manipulation of AP Shares Leading To a Decline in Value by Nova Finance & Securities Limited and Alhaji Aliko Dangote published on pages 94-95 of The Guardian on Tuesday, March 24, 2009.
It is important that this grievous allegation by the management of African Petroleum Plc against the Nova Finance & Securities Limited and Alhaji Aiko Dangote should be well investigated and the findings should be well circulated for the public knowledge of Nigerians and citizens of other nations, because hundreds of thousands of them are shareholders of these public quoted companies in Nigeria. Any act of economic misconduct or sabotage in Nigeria should be dealt with by the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFFC). The alarm raised by the management of African Petroleum Plc is in the interest of their nearly 200, 000 shareholders and the general public.
If Alhaji Aliko Dangote has personal scores to settle with his business archrival Chief Femi Otedola, he should do so privately and not on the floor of the Nigerian Stock Exchange. Aliko Dangote should not use innocent shareholders as pawns in his desperation to checkmate the advancement of Femi Otedola in the business leadership of Nigeria.
He should not use the shares of AP Plc to learn how to play Chess on the floor of the Nigerian Stock Exchange.
The fact is, without the Yorubas of Femi Otedola’s tribe, Alhaji Aliko Dangote would not have become as rich as he is today, because the majority of his customers or the consumers of his products are Yorubas. His own people the Hausas do not buy as much cement as the Yorubas, because Hausas hardly build houses as the Yoruba landlords who have landed properties from the Western region to the Northern region of the Hausas. Yorubas are the ones who buy most of the products produced and distributed by Aliko Dangote and not the Hausas who hardly indulge in extravagant parties as the popular Yorubas “Owanbe” parties. If the Yorubas should boycott Dangote’s products, the Dangote Group will collapse within 12 months. Imagine what would happen to the conglomerate of Alhaji Aliko Dangote if I make a clarion call to all Southerners from the East and Western states of Nigeria to boycott Dangote’s products and services? The Dangote business empire will crash!
Alhaji Aliko Dangote and his gang of Nova Finance & Securities Limited should stop their mischievous and unethical economic sabotage of “crossing” and devaluation of the shares of African Petroleum Plc at the Nigerian Stock Exchange. Any Dangote Mafia gang-up against Chief Femi Otedola and associates will fail woefully.
The ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) of Nigeria connived with Aliko Dangote to use the Nigerian economy to practice monopoly and Totopoly and he monopolized the importation of cement with the support of the corrupt political mafia of the PDP. But the time has come to stop the greediness of Aliko Dangote and demand for equity and probity in the economic development of Nigeria for the mutual benefit of all the citizens and other stakeholders.
Nigerians Report has decided to address the case of The Unethical Manipulation of AP Shares Leading To a Decline in Value by Nova Finance & Securities Limited and Alhaji Aliko Dangote published on pages 94-95 of The Guardian on Tuesday, March 24, 2009.
It is important that this grievous allegation by the management of African Petroleum Plc against the Nova Finance & Securities Limited and Alhaji Aiko Dangote should be well investigated and the findings should be well circulated for the public knowledge of Nigerians and citizens of other nations, because hundreds of thousands of them are shareholders of these public quoted companies in Nigeria. Any act of economic misconduct or sabotage in Nigeria should be dealt with by the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFFC). The alarm raised by the management of African Petroleum Plc is in the interest of their nearly 200, 000 shareholders and the general public.
If Alhaji Aliko Dangote has personal scores to settle with his business archrival Chief Femi Otedola, he should do so privately and not on the floor of the Nigerian Stock Exchange. Aliko Dangote should not use innocent shareholders as pawns in his desperation to checkmate the advancement of Femi Otedola in the business leadership of Nigeria.
He should not use the shares of AP Plc to learn how to play Chess on the floor of the Nigerian Stock Exchange.
The fact is, without the Yorubas of Femi Otedola’s tribe, Alhaji Aliko Dangote would not have become as rich as he is today, because the majority of his customers or the consumers of his products are Yorubas. His own people the Hausas do not buy as much cement as the Yorubas, because Hausas hardly build houses as the Yoruba landlords who have landed properties from the Western region to the Northern region of the Hausas. Yorubas are the ones who buy most of the products produced and distributed by Aliko Dangote and not the Hausas who hardly indulge in extravagant parties as the popular Yorubas “Owanbe” parties. If the Yorubas should boycott Dangote’s products, the Dangote Group will collapse within 12 months. Imagine what would happen to the conglomerate of Alhaji Aliko Dangote if I make a clarion call to all Southerners from the East and Western states of Nigeria to boycott Dangote’s products and services? The Dangote business empire will crash!
Alhaji Aliko Dangote and his gang of Nova Finance & Securities Limited should stop their mischievous and unethical economic sabotage of “crossing” and devaluation of the shares of African Petroleum Plc at the Nigerian Stock Exchange. Any Dangote Mafia gang-up against Chief Femi Otedola and associates will fail woefully.
The ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) of Nigeria connived with Aliko Dangote to use the Nigerian economy to practice monopoly and Totopoly and he monopolized the importation of cement with the support of the corrupt political mafia of the PDP. But the time has come to stop the greediness of Aliko Dangote and demand for equity and probity in the economic development of Nigeria for the mutual benefit of all the citizens and other stakeholders.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Intelligent Medical Objects Announces ICD-10 Extensions to Terminology Products
25 Mar 2009 14:45 Africa/Lagos
Intelligent Medical Objects Announces ICD-10 Extensions to Terminology Products
Intelligent Medical Objects Adds ICD-10-WHO and ICD-10-CA Extensions to Their Clinical Interface Terminology Products
NORTHBROOK, Ill., March 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Intelligent Medical Objects (IMO(R)) announces the general availability of ICD-10-WHO(1) and ICD-10-CA(2) extensions to their market-leading line of Clinical Interface Terminology products including IMO's Problem (IT). IMO Problem (IT) is a clinical diagnosis and problem terminology that contains over 170,000 user-friendly terms for clinicians, coders, and patients and is used within Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems to document diagnoses, problems, and medical histories.
The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10, called ICD-10-WHO here) is maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO) for morbidity and mortality reporting in many countries. This is the coding classification on which other countries are building their own modifications, such as ICD-10-CA in Canada or ICD-10-CM in the United States. ICD-10-CA is developed and is maintained by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) for morbidity and mortality reporting. The extensions to ICD-10-WHO and ICD-10-CA from IMO's user-friendly clinical interface terminology provide a seamless solution for EHRs that require ICD-10-WHO or ICD-10-CA classifications. The maintenance of these classifications in EHR systems is managed by IMO each time ICD-10 is in turn updated by the WHO and CIHI respectively.
Dr. Amy Y. Wang, IMO Acting Chief Medical Officer, adds, "Integrating ICD-10-WHO and ICD-10-CA into our product suite represents an important step towards meeting the clinical terminology and administrative needs of our international customers. This has laid the foundation and is part of IMO's overall strategy for incorporating ICD-10-CM into IMO Problem (IT) in order to assist our U.S. customers through the upcoming transition to ICD-10-CM."
"As our valued vendor partners expand their reach to international markets, it became imperative to enhance our trusted content offering to match vendor partners new client needs," says Mr. Jose Maldonado, IMO Vocabulary Product Manager. "In addition, this effort has opened several international opportunities for IMO independently of our current EHR/EMR vendor partners."
IMO is also helping to accelerate the international adoption of SNOMED CT(R) by working with the Millennium Villages Project to provide SNOMED CT(R) and ICD-10-WHO maps using IMO Interface Terminology for their Millennium Global Village-Network (MGV-Net) in 10 African countries. "We are grateful for IMO's continued support and contribution. By using IMO's comprehensive Interface terminology in MGV-Net, we can focus on improving care in the villages while the Ministries of Health and MVP's monitoring and evaluation systems use the mapping to ICD-10 WHO and SNOMED CT(R)," said Dr. Paul Pronyk, Director of Monitoring and Evaluation Programs for the Millennium Villages Project.
"IMO's mission for our interface terminology offering is to capture and preserve the clinical intent and allow care providers using an EHR/EMR to focus on delivery of care rather than be bothered by coding compliance," says Dr. Frank Naeymi-Rad, IMO CEO. This is achieved by moving the complexities associated with terminology standards for EHR/EMR vendors' applications to mappings provided and maintained by IMO. "We firmly believe the compliance to standards like ICD-10, ICD-9-CM, SNOMED CT(R), etc. by EHR/EMR vendors should be a seamless process and should not impede the delivery of care," says Dr. Frank Naeymi-Rad, IMO CEO.
ABOUT IMO
Intelligent Medical Objects (IMO) develops, manages, and licenses medical vocabularies and software applications using the medical vocabulary for health care organizations. IMO's Clinical Interface Terminology products, including IMO Problem (IT), provide seamless mapping of diagnostic terminologies to billing codes and medical concepts. IMO provides the tools necessary for health care organizations to authoritatively support uniform labeling of health profiles, services rendered, and outcomes across their enterprise. This intersection of clinical and financial data provides health care organizations with dependable quality information to deliver services, bear risk, and to enable efficient, cost-effective operation and accountability. IMO's products improve physician satisfaction, facilitate physician adoption, speed the coding process, reduce unnecessary physician-coder communication, and result in fewer rejected claims. More information is available here: www.e-imo.com.
ABOUT Millennium Villages
Millennium Villages offer a scalable model for fighting poverty at the village level and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Initiatives are based on the findings of the UN Millennium Project and are implemented by the communities themselves. There are currently 79 Millennium Villages located in 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda. The project is led by the Earth Institute at Columbia University, Millennium Promise, and the United National Development Programme (UNDP). For more information, please see www.millenniumvillages.org.
1. http://who.int/classifications/icd/en/
2. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=codingclass_icd10_e
Source: Intelligent Medical Objects
CONTACT: John Ennis of Intelligent Medical Objects, +1-847-272-1242,
ext. 3612, jennis@e-imo.com
Web Site: http://www.e-imo.com/
Releases displayed in Africa/Lagos time
25 Mar 2009
18:00
Monsanto Company Commits $10 Million to Rice and Wheat Research Program
14:45
Intelligent Medical Objects Announces ICD-10 Extensions to Terminology Products
24 Mar 2009
19:02
Irish Trading Firm and Its Officers Charged in Scheme to Supply Iran With Sensitive U.S. Technology
23 Mar 2009
21:06
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund Releases Monthly Portfolio Update
14:00
Bristow Announces Cost Reduction Initiatives
11:15
UK keeps up aid commitments
Intelligent Medical Objects Announces ICD-10 Extensions to Terminology Products
Intelligent Medical Objects Adds ICD-10-WHO and ICD-10-CA Extensions to Their Clinical Interface Terminology Products
NORTHBROOK, Ill., March 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Intelligent Medical Objects (IMO(R)) announces the general availability of ICD-10-WHO(1) and ICD-10-CA(2) extensions to their market-leading line of Clinical Interface Terminology products including IMO's Problem (IT). IMO Problem (IT) is a clinical diagnosis and problem terminology that contains over 170,000 user-friendly terms for clinicians, coders, and patients and is used within Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems to document diagnoses, problems, and medical histories.
The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10, called ICD-10-WHO here) is maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO) for morbidity and mortality reporting in many countries. This is the coding classification on which other countries are building their own modifications, such as ICD-10-CA in Canada or ICD-10-CM in the United States. ICD-10-CA is developed and is maintained by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) for morbidity and mortality reporting. The extensions to ICD-10-WHO and ICD-10-CA from IMO's user-friendly clinical interface terminology provide a seamless solution for EHRs that require ICD-10-WHO or ICD-10-CA classifications. The maintenance of these classifications in EHR systems is managed by IMO each time ICD-10 is in turn updated by the WHO and CIHI respectively.
Dr. Amy Y. Wang, IMO Acting Chief Medical Officer, adds, "Integrating ICD-10-WHO and ICD-10-CA into our product suite represents an important step towards meeting the clinical terminology and administrative needs of our international customers. This has laid the foundation and is part of IMO's overall strategy for incorporating ICD-10-CM into IMO Problem (IT) in order to assist our U.S. customers through the upcoming transition to ICD-10-CM."
"As our valued vendor partners expand their reach to international markets, it became imperative to enhance our trusted content offering to match vendor partners new client needs," says Mr. Jose Maldonado, IMO Vocabulary Product Manager. "In addition, this effort has opened several international opportunities for IMO independently of our current EHR/EMR vendor partners."
IMO is also helping to accelerate the international adoption of SNOMED CT(R) by working with the Millennium Villages Project to provide SNOMED CT(R) and ICD-10-WHO maps using IMO Interface Terminology for their Millennium Global Village-Network (MGV-Net) in 10 African countries. "We are grateful for IMO's continued support and contribution. By using IMO's comprehensive Interface terminology in MGV-Net, we can focus on improving care in the villages while the Ministries of Health and MVP's monitoring and evaluation systems use the mapping to ICD-10 WHO and SNOMED CT(R)," said Dr. Paul Pronyk, Director of Monitoring and Evaluation Programs for the Millennium Villages Project.
"IMO's mission for our interface terminology offering is to capture and preserve the clinical intent and allow care providers using an EHR/EMR to focus on delivery of care rather than be bothered by coding compliance," says Dr. Frank Naeymi-Rad, IMO CEO. This is achieved by moving the complexities associated with terminology standards for EHR/EMR vendors' applications to mappings provided and maintained by IMO. "We firmly believe the compliance to standards like ICD-10, ICD-9-CM, SNOMED CT(R), etc. by EHR/EMR vendors should be a seamless process and should not impede the delivery of care," says Dr. Frank Naeymi-Rad, IMO CEO.
ABOUT IMO
Intelligent Medical Objects (IMO) develops, manages, and licenses medical vocabularies and software applications using the medical vocabulary for health care organizations. IMO's Clinical Interface Terminology products, including IMO Problem (IT), provide seamless mapping of diagnostic terminologies to billing codes and medical concepts. IMO provides the tools necessary for health care organizations to authoritatively support uniform labeling of health profiles, services rendered, and outcomes across their enterprise. This intersection of clinical and financial data provides health care organizations with dependable quality information to deliver services, bear risk, and to enable efficient, cost-effective operation and accountability. IMO's products improve physician satisfaction, facilitate physician adoption, speed the coding process, reduce unnecessary physician-coder communication, and result in fewer rejected claims. More information is available here: www.e-imo.com.
ABOUT Millennium Villages
Millennium Villages offer a scalable model for fighting poverty at the village level and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Initiatives are based on the findings of the UN Millennium Project and are implemented by the communities themselves. There are currently 79 Millennium Villages located in 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda. The project is led by the Earth Institute at Columbia University, Millennium Promise, and the United National Development Programme (UNDP). For more information, please see www.millenniumvillages.org.
1. http://who.int/classifications/icd/en/
2. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=codingclass_icd10_e
Source: Intelligent Medical Objects
CONTACT: John Ennis of Intelligent Medical Objects, +1-847-272-1242,
ext. 3612, jennis@e-imo.com
Web Site: http://www.e-imo.com/
Releases displayed in Africa/Lagos time
25 Mar 2009
18:00
Monsanto Company Commits $10 Million to Rice and Wheat Research Program
14:45
Intelligent Medical Objects Announces ICD-10 Extensions to Terminology Products
24 Mar 2009
19:02
Irish Trading Firm and Its Officers Charged in Scheme to Supply Iran With Sensitive U.S. Technology
23 Mar 2009
21:06
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund Releases Monthly Portfolio Update
14:00
Bristow Announces Cost Reduction Initiatives
11:15
UK keeps up aid commitments
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund Releases Monthly Portfolio Update
AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund Releases Monthly Portfolio Update
NEW YORK, March 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund, Inc. (NYSE:AWF) (the "Fund") today released its monthly portfolio update as of February 28, 2009. AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund, Inc.
Click here for the full details of the Top 10 Fixed-Income Holdings and the rating on Nigeria
NEW YORK, March 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund, Inc. (NYSE:AWF) (the "Fund") today released its monthly portfolio update as of February 28, 2009. AllianceBernstein Global High Income Fund, Inc.
Click here for the full details of the Top 10 Fixed-Income Holdings and the rating on Nigeria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)