An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Ichire Imoh Okim, serves as the counsel for Effi community in Okuni, Ikom Local Government Area, Cross River State. In this candid interview with Primetime News, Okim sheds light on the contentious issues surrounding the establishment of a wood particles production factory on Effi community land, addressing the ongoing debates and revealing insights into other related matters. Here are excerpts from the discussion.
Primetime News: There is an allegation of massive wood logging described by those who are against your relationship with an illegal Chinese firm whose name has remained secretive. Can you give us some insight?
Barr. Okim: I think this is clearly misinformation. There is no massive logging by any Chinese firm, whether legal or illegal, in Effi community. There is nothing like that, whether massive or less than that.
There is no secrecy either. The person who started that rumour was Mr. Odey Oyama, and that is because he refused to attend the town hall meeting when negotiations with the chiefs and the firm were ongoing. The name of the company and every other detail was laid bare on the floor of the house during the town hall meeting.
Even after that, nothing stopped him from going to the chiefs to ask whatever he wanted. Unfortunately, he never did that, probably because he had an issue with the chiefs. From what the chiefs told me, they had information that since Odey failed in using his boys to halt the firm from kicking off, he had hatched another plan of using his international connections to mount pressure on the company to stop work. I think that’s the reason why everything is centred on the name of the company.
Primetime News: So why did you not release the name of the company to him? Don’t you think there was something you were hiding?
Barr. Okim: It was difficult for me to do so because of his character. Why did he refuse to attend the community meeting when it was convened by the community chiefs and elders?
Is he bigger than his community? Can a man be bigger than his community? Besides, the name of the company is in the agreement. Again, because of the fear that Oyama is out to use his international connections to mount pressure on the community, I think that’s the reason why the name was not mentioned.
Primetime News: Can you mention the company’s name now?
Barr. Okim: It is not my place to do so because I have finished with the task I was given to execute as a community lawyer. Let me tell you, as a lawyer, after an assignment, you are barred from discussing details of the brief you were given. Let them go and meet the chiefs.
What any rational person would have done is to go to the chiefs and probably tell them, “Chiefs, good morning. What is this or that?” I assure you they would give you whatever explanation you are seeking. But if you decide to become confrontational like what they are doing, the chiefs have a choice to close their doors. There is nothing wrong with approaching them with respect.
Primetime News: Why did you not disclose the content of the agreement with the wood particles production firm to the protesters?
Barr. Okim: When a lawyer is acting on behalf of a group of people, a delegation is created from that group to interface with the lawyer on the brief. An ordinary member of the group or anybody in the group cannot bypass that delegation and go to the lawyer to scoop information.
Once the lawyer gives all the information to the delegation, his job ends there, and he owes no one any liability, be it his wife, father, or friend. Know that he is acting in an official capacity as a lawyer.
He is not entitled to divulge any piece of information to anyone. It’s a strong spirit of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client. This also extends to an agent of a disclosed principal.
There’s a procedure for doing things in our villages. As a youth, whenever one is not pleased with any issue of public interest that is perhaps ongoing in the village, what the individual is expected to do is to go to the chiefs first, appreciate them for the work they’ve been doing, and thereafter proceed to ask them what you intend to know. You will discover that they will provide you with the answers you’ve been looking for without any hitch. Unfortunately, the reverse is the case in Effi community. People will stay around and be looking for me, who lives in Abuja, to find out certain issues.
Primetime News: Why does the Chinese firm not mount a signpost on their factory?
Barr. Okim: I am not holding a brief for the company. What I know generally is that they are still doing construction work, they’re installing their machines and equipment, and they have not yet commenced full operation. Besides, I do not see any law that says one must put up a signpost before a business can kick-start. It’s just a matter of choice. A signpost is like an advertisement; if you do not advertise your business, so be it.
Primetime News: We have heard tales of factory workers being flogged at will by their Chinese employers in their own village. Isn’t that ridiculous and criminal in the 21st century?
Barr. Okim: I am not aware of this. To be frank, I have never been told that someone had been flogged. There’s a big lacuna, and I want the public to know this: a particular group refuses to recognise the chiefs. The agreement has a clause that there will be a joint management committee between the community and the Chinese men. If these people had gone to meet the chiefs, they would have set up that management committee that would have supervised this thing.
Let me inform you that the role of the committee is that once in a while, the Chinese company will throw open their doors, and they will take the community all around the activities in the company to ensure that they’re not doing illegal things in the yard and to ensure that there is no maltreatment of any indigene or workers doing work for them. That’s the role to be played by the management committee.
The committee chairman ought to be an indigene to make sure that no Chinese nationals slap anybody. In the event of any issue, the first point of call would be the chiefs. If the chiefs cannot handle the matter, they would then go to the police to lodge a complaint. If I may ask, have they done any petition to the police regarding any of these issues that they claim have spurred the protest? Have they even whispered to anybody that someone was flogged? They just make up those cases. I have not heard of any case of engaging underage children to work in the factory.
On the issue of corporate social responsibility (CSR), these are the same people claiming that there was no agreement, yet they are the ones seeking to see the terms of the agreement. Does that not sound funny?
There’s no place in the agreement where it states that the company would put up streetlights. What we provided in the agreement was that there would be corporate social responsibility, which would come in two forms. One is that the company will commence a project and build it from start to finish without relying on the community, and the second community development project will be contributory. We also provided that there would be a scholarship programme for the indigents. This agreement is supposed to take off when the company starts production. They’re still building, and some equipment has not even arrived. The allegation that the firm lacked Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) registration is ridiculous. Do not think that because the chiefs are illiterate, they don’t know what they are doing. They cannot do without a lawyer. I cannot make an agreement at my level of practice with any company that is not registered with the CAC.
I laugh because I know it is all out of malice that all these things are happening.
On the issue of one of the workers having some of his fingers chopped off and another having hot water burns, let me announce to you that the agreement we had with the Chinese investors was sensitively pre-emptive because of the stories I have heard about Chinese companies. I loaded the agreement with several clauses pertaining to rules of engagement in addition to the agreement because there are two things: either you have an agreement or you have a solid law. For this purpose, we have the agreement. On that law, the issue is that after writing the law, people go to sleep. I would have prepared how to activate those laws in the agreement.
It would have been that the joint committee would ensure that no Chinese man raises his finger against a black man, that no Chinese man would allow a black man to get injured without proper attention, and that if there was any controversy, the first point of call should be the council of chiefs. Thereafter, you would now go to the police or the court. Unfortunately, out of malice, they undermined the chiefs, and because of all this confusion, they have prevented us from constituting that management committee that should have taken care of all of that.
Our community is not so large that someone cannot trace the chiefs. If one person gets injured, even the chiefs will hear. My question now is, did the boy who sustained injuries go to the chiefs to complain? Again, who did he report to, that he had to go to the faction that holds the traditional rulers’ council in contempt? Those are civil cases that if you don’t want to go to the chiefs, you go to the police or get a lawyer to sue and claim damages for you. Besides, nobody knows if the boy himself was negligent and refused to speak out.
For me, they’re creating a situation of lawlessness because the youths did not enter into an agreement with this company; they should have gone to report to their chiefs. A house divided against itself—can it stand? The answer is no.
All these issues wouldn’t have been a problem if they had respect and were working with the chiefs.
Malice is very bad because it will not allow you to see beyond your nose. How can you say a document that was signed by the chiefs is now illegal, and you, a young boy somewhere, will now
