Infringement of broadcasts is often treated as a crime. The Nigerian Constitution guarantees that no-one can be prosecuted for any act that is not prescribed in a written law. Section 20 of Nigeria's Copyright Act only criminalizes dealing with infringing copies. A “copy” is defined in terms of material form. An infringing broadcast therefore connotes a recorded broadcast or a copy of a broadcast. This article argues that, statutorily, not every act that gives rise to civil liability for broadcast copyright infringement constitutes a crime. The article reviews the first broadcast copyright prosecution Court of Appeal decision in Eno v Nigerian Copyright Commission. Eno was unlawfully prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. The article seeks to stem the wave of prosecutions on the type of charges used in Eno. In the absence of law reform, the prosecutions based on the line of charges in Eno constitute a fracturing of constitutional rights.

To enhance good corporate governance practices, companies, as well as countries, have adopted and promulgated regulations and codes of best practices. To implement these regulations and practices, regulators adopt various approaches which can be broadly classified into voluntary, mandatory, and hybrid. This study examined the aforementioned approaches with particular attention to their strengths and weaknesses. The study employed a qualitative methodology using the doctrinal research method. The doctrinal method relied on primary and secondary sources. The primary sources included legislations and corporate governance codes while the secondary sources included books, e-books, journals, and articles. This methodology was deployed in appraising, interpreting, and applying these various sources of material used in the study. The study found that there are different variations and modifications to the approaches to the application of corporate governance regulations and practices. To facilitate a more efficient and effective corporate governance regime, a combination of the rule-based and principle-based approaches to the application of corporate governance is required.

No abstract

Despite Nigeria's treaty obligations, Nigerian courts have, in the last quarter of a century, consistently but erroneously held that the Nigerian copyright statute does not protect copyright works of foreign persons. The purport of the decisions is that foreign persons cannot sue to protect their copyright in Nigeria. Given that the decisions of three trial courts and a Court of Appeal decision were never appealed to the Supreme Court, they arguably remain good precedent. The decisions suggest that foreign direct investors who need copyright protection are exposed in Nigeria. Relying on two of these cases, a leading intellectual property law text echoed this erroneous position. This article demonstrates that the decisions were reached in ignorance of applicable statute. As such, the decisions should not be followed by trial courts irrespective of the rule of binding judicial precedent. The article outlines various mechanisms within the copyright statute that extend the protection of the Nigerian copyright statute to foreign works. This article goes further than previous works. Unlike earlier works, this article suggests the path trial courts should tread, despite the rule of precedent, in distinguishing this line of cases to hold that foreign corporations incorporated in many treaty countries and foreign works emanating from many treaty countries are protected in Nigeria. Unlike earlier works, this article demonstrates that lower courts may refer this issue to higher courts for interpretation and guidance under the case stated procedure. Whilst other works made passing references to the Copyright (Reciprocal Extension) Order 1972 (the 1972 Order), that arguably extends copyright to foreign works under the Copyright Act 1970, none cited judicial authority that held that the 1972 Order made under the repealed Copyright Act 1970 is still valid under the current Copyright Act. None referred to the Interpretation Act that supports this judicial authority. Unlike previous work, this article reveals that if the Microsoft case that is the most significant of these cases is appealed to the Nigerian Supreme Court, the court will extend the time within which the Microsoft Corporation can appeal and reverse Microsoft and the line of cases identified in this article.

This article reviews, from a Nigerian law perspective, the judgment of the English court and the majority arbitral award in Process & Industrial Developments Ltd. (PID) v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN). The arbitral tribunal awarded record-breaking damages, totalling over USD 9 billion, inclusive of interest. The award relates to an alleged breach by the FRN of a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) to a facility that was never constructed by PID. The signatory of the GSPA, PID, was a British Virgin Island corporation. Although PID had incorporated a local PID Corporation in Nigeria (PIDNigeria), it never executed the GSPA. This article is divided into three sections. Section 1 features the introduction and a general commentary. Section 2 focuses on the second leg of the FRN’s objection: ‘Whether or not the Claimant failed to comply with the provisions of section 54 of the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 1990 as alleged, and if so whether the GSPA is void, and/or affected by illegality, as a result’. This article does not discuss the first leg of the FRN’s objection, namely, the capacity of theMinistry of Petroleum Resources to contract on behalf of the FRN. Section 3 examines the consequences of the order issued by the Federal High Court of Nigeria (FHC) on FRN’s application, restraining the parties from proceeding with the arbitral hearing, which the tribunal ignored. It considers whether the order can bind members of the tribunal who were not parties to the FHCaction; if it was proper for the tribunal to ignore the order; and the consequences of the order on the FRN. It analyses whether the principle of fair hearing was breached when the tribunal reached a determination on the issue of the seat of arbitration without taking further submissions from the parties. Fair Hearing, Arbitral Award, Tribunal, Arbitration, Expert Opinion, Foreign Companies, Illegality, Employment, Jurisdiction, Enforcement