ABUAD vs Babcock Showdown | Who really knows Nigerian Law | What does the law say

Added: 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]argue for that Nigeria should legal like cryptocurrency. First of all, I would like to point that out about 22 million Nigerians are currently using cryptocurrency and it will only pay Nigeria to make it a legal tender because why it encourage foreign investors to come and invest in Nigeria.

[00:00:14]They don't have to switch to our currency and start changing from their currency to to Nigerian currency. If they have the mind to invest and they have cryptocurrency that they can easily do transaction with, they'll be free to invest in our country and thereby creating more jobs. Cryptocurrency is known for its heightened susceptibility to fraud and crime, money laundering. If we are heightening the use of cryptocurrency within our nation, what exactly are we promoting? We're promoting fraud.

[00:00:39]>> Currently, cryptocurrency is um regulated by K. There's KYC regulations.

[00:00:43]SE is also regulating it as well. What we just need is more laws to be able to enforce it and be able to protect people to introduce things like insurance to introduce things like dispute settlement as well. The point that my lead speaker made was that there's no mechanism for dispute resolution, not no mechanism for regulating cryptocurrency. We're aware of the circles and the rules of the ISA.

[00:01:01]Secondly, he mentioned that wide usage that he mentioned wide use. But I'd like to know that wide use does not equal accessability. The moment we adopt cryptocurrency as our legal tender, we also give we constitutionalize the loss of our own monetary control. Meaning that the CBN cannot regulate.

[00:01:18]>> Time up. I almost >> Hi guys, I am Timmy Abbaj. Welcome to your favorite game show. What does the law say?

[00:01:31]On this show, we educate you about the laws that govern you while we also entertain you. And the rules are simple, winner takes all. Today I have neon babies from one of the leading universities. In fact, two of the leading universities in this country.

[00:01:44]the first school >> after Baba University >> and the second school >> backup university.

[00:01:50]>> If you miss a question, I will take one bundle back into the box. But if you get the question correctly, your bundle remains with you. At the end of the episode, whoever has the higher points or higher bundles wins all. WINNER TAKES ALL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, let us play.

[00:02:05]What does the law say? Are you ready?

[00:02:09]>> ARE YOU READY?

[00:02:11]>> YES. YES, >> PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

[00:02:14]>> OKAY, I'm David Sheta, also known as SP and I'm a recent graduate of AF Baba University.

[00:02:21]>> I'm Elizabeth Monro, best graduate to THE COLLEGE OF LAW.

[00:02:25]>> HEY, BEST graduating student BGS meaning to say in how many were you in your class?

[00:02:31]>> 255 >> out of 255 she get pass.

[00:02:37]>> Back to you. I am Had Ali Abiso representing Babcock University, the best private university in Nigeria. Any other private university having B and A, their name is a counterfeit.

[00:02:49]>> They have B and A.

[00:02:51]>> Other has B and A in their name is a counterfeit. Babcock has B and A. Abad has A and B. Okay, my lady.

[00:03:00]>> I'll first start by saying this. H God.

[00:03:08]Hi, my name is Silaya from Bangkok University as well.

[00:03:12]>> Summer.

[00:03:14]>> They didn't bring their BJS. So, >> oh, they didn't make their BJ.

[00:03:17]>> They didn't bring their B.

[00:03:18]>> No. Sometimes the best, the king of your village might be a ser that country.

[00:03:24]>> But we see we find out.

[00:03:28]>> Hey, what do you say that?

[00:03:31]>> Don't worry. It's okay. It's okay. It's okay. It's okay. All right, let us play.

[00:03:35]Question one. Use your slides. Femi threat team to beat baller over an argument. The threat constitute a battery b ass assault c nuisance d malicious damage. Your time starts now.

[00:03:55]>> It's okay.

[00:03:59]>> Time up. Show your answers.

[00:04:05]Drop your answers. What's your problem?

[00:04:07]How can your option have pregnancy?

[00:04:09]What's this? No, no, no. What's going on? Is Please, this is the first time I ever Is this What is this?

[00:04:17]>> No, no, no. B, what is it? Please hold it up again to the camera. What is this?

[00:04:22]Because your name is Abuad. You not just It's okay. Abad, why is what is your answer and why? Um, well, we picked assault because assault refers to when you're threatening to do something to someone, not necessarily when you're actually doing it to someone. So, threatening violence is assault. Babco, what was your answer on why?

[00:04:44]>> Initially, I wanted to pick battery, but then I remembered that assault is the intent to batter. So, decided to pick assault.

[00:04:54]>> And the answer is B. Assault.

[00:04:59]All right. I like the fact that everybody's mouth is moving like that right at the beginning. I hope it will continue like that. Question two. Choses in action a are similar to real properties in terms of enforcability, possession and assignability.

[00:05:14]B are different from real properties in terms of assignability and enforcability. C are similar to real properties in terms of assignability. D are different from or to real properties in terms of assignability.

[00:05:29]Come on.

[00:05:34]Time up.

[00:05:38]>> Please hold on. You are designing you design mag.

[00:05:48]>> What's your answer? You like you in love with B. What's your answer and why?

[00:05:53]Why? What is the answer?

[00:05:55]>> Okay.

[00:05:58]I chose B because it chose in a it chose in action is an action over um intangible.

[00:06:07]>> You are so intelligent. That means your BDS was not a fluke. You didn't see it.

[00:06:11]You heard it. I'm listening to you. I'm a spirit.

[00:06:13]>> A chosen action is an action brought over um intangible properties such as like a right in a contract. So I chose B because like a right in a contract is not a real property. And so if in terms of enforcability of such rights it will be different from when you're dealing with attangible properties and then the assignability part mostly guess work.

[00:06:40]>> Okay I'll be back to you. What's your answer and why choice in action are generally um actions that are not on real properties. their action in the sense that real property um is similar to real property in terms of enforcability in the sense that for instance um um power of attorney is a chosen action which can be enforced on behalf of the owner of the property. If you give me a power of attorney to help you to sell the property, it must be written that power of attorney that you intend that I sell your property. So if it is written there, that power of attorney is a chosen action.

[00:07:15]>> In terms of possession, it is it is it is it is distinct >> in terms of possession? Yeah, >> if you give me a power of attorney to help you to chase a tenant out of the property, I can help you regain your possession by chasing a tenant. That a power of attorney can be given to me to help you to litigate.

[00:07:29]>> Still go for >> possession over real property.

[00:07:32]>> Same thing as well. I was thinking >> it's different though.

[00:07:35]>> Do you want different >> I don't know but I don't agree honestly.

[00:07:40]>> First things first, I am proud of the fact that the two of them are even familiar with the word chosen action.

[00:07:47]You made a point that I love. You said the two of them are similar by enforcability. That is very correct. If the court wants to enforce for instance the difference in enforcing intangible actions, actions over intangible properties and time party will not be different. You are very correct on that.

[00:08:03]However, however, your explanation on possession was selfindicting.

[00:08:10]The the question says what did you pick please? You pick a similar to real properties in terms of exposability, possession and assignability.

[00:08:20]I do not think assignability dear makes that a correct answer. The answer is not C in uh similar to real properties in terms of assignability. The answer is not A becauseability in that place has created a vacuum. The answer is between B and D. I object. Okay.

[00:08:51]chosen in action can be assigned in the sense that if you owe someone money for instance if you owe me money you can give me the power of antonyy to help you to collect your money from someone else in the sense that if I collect the money from someone else then that money belongs to me I take the money does that is that explainable understandable >> you are mistaken you are you are misplacing the act of possession for the word possession they are different And I will give you an example. A tenant is in possession of the house.

[00:09:26]Another person in possession of a document power of attorney does not have right of possession over the house. Is only acting instead of the person that owns the right of ownership. Do you understand what I'm saying? Now let me give you example. Let's broaden the meaning of choice in action. Choice in action can also cover shares. Are you aware of that? can cover debt, copyrights, intellectual property, things that are intangible.

[00:09:52]The way I assign my intellectual property is not similar to the way we assign power or possession of ownership over real property. For example, the way they assign debt or shares, is it the same way they assign ownership and title to lands and houses?

[00:10:08]>> No, >> that's a question. So, you are almost close when you said forability 100% correct. But as signability they are different. The answer is D.

[00:10:20]>> D.

[00:10:23]>> What do you say?

[00:10:23]>> That's what we wrote before.

[00:10:24]>> So you wrote it before. Why did you not change it?

[00:10:27]>> You actually look at this.

[00:10:28]>> If you actually look at this actually looks like D. If you just like see I actually just like this. Yeah. Choose in action.

[00:10:37]Yeah. Choose in action. Choose in action.

[00:10:41]Choose in action my trust. Question three.

[00:10:45]In his dream there was a big fight with a spirit with the face of his neighbor.

[00:10:51]Chidi sprung up from his sleep in a state of disorder enters his neighbor house and strangle life out of him while genuinely believing he was attacking an evil spirit. Ch's best defense is a provocation b self-defense c insanity d intoxication. And your time starts now.

[00:11:22]time.

[00:11:24]Show your answers and why it's invisible.

[00:11:30]We do not agree as a team.

[00:11:34]>> D, drop your answer.

[00:11:36]Eggno, do you agree as a team on this question?

[00:11:40]On this answer first? We don't agree >> BDS. What's your own answer?

[00:11:52]>> Hello. What's your answer? You say you don't agree on the question. Answer.

[00:11:56]What's your answer?

[00:11:57]>> It's tricky.

[00:11:58]>> Which one do you pick?

[00:12:02]>> Criminal responsibility, provocation, self-defense.

[00:12:06]My option is between A and B.

[00:12:07]>> A and B. BB boy. Oh, sorry.

[00:12:10]>> BB boy. BB BGB or I don't want to call you BBC. So let me say BB BBT.

[00:12:15]>> Abad, you pick D. What's your answer and why? What is D and why?

[00:12:19]>> I don't think this falls under provocation because he wasn't provoked.

[00:12:24]I don't think it's self-defense because he was the one that initiated it.

[00:12:28]>> I don't think it's insanity because insanity it requires like a court to assess the person's mental state and then declare him insane. So I just decided it's intoxication.

[00:12:42]>> I like your train of thought. I'm coming back to you. What's your answer and why?

[00:12:47]>> Okay. So if I lawyer, it's very obvious that what he did is not signs of somebody being mad because how will you be sleeping and you are dreaming about somebody? Next thing you know, you go to his house and you strangle him. Anyway, I felt like it couldn't be provocation obviously because what happened to provoke him >> then? It can also not be self-defense because what was the action that made him feel the need to defend himself and he clearly is not intoxication because where is the substance that he used to intoxicate himself. So the only right answer is clearly insanity and I and even if I want to prove it they can easily you know get him to see a psychiatrist to write a report on that that oh he's clearly clinically insane for having dreams like that and taking actions on it. Simple as that.

[00:13:28]>> Also the question included evil spirits.

[00:13:31]This shows that there's supernatural involved in this.

[00:13:34]>> Yes, there supernatural involved.

[00:13:35]>> Be a religious fanatic. For all we know, he on the basis of being a religious fanatic.

[00:13:40]>> So you're saying that religious fanaticism is a son of madness.

[00:13:42]>> I'm not I didn't say that. I'm just saying. I'm just saying by the way.

[00:13:47]>> Okay. If you end up being correct, what do you have to tell these people?

[00:13:51]>> I'll tell you that you need to read the question clearly.

[00:13:54]>> Come again.

[00:13:55]>> Read the question clearly before you pick an answer.

[00:13:57]>> So they should think before they talk or answer. That's not what I said though. I said they should just read the >> If you end up being correct, what's your answer to them?

[00:14:07]>> Game not the lie. That's my answer to >> game li.

[00:14:11]>> This is the game.

[00:14:12]>> This is the game. Okay.

[00:14:16]I really like the fact that you're eloquent to your explanation was beautiful. Beautiful to see. Beauty and brains. Beauty and brains too. Before they come divide my name.

[00:14:26]I love your explanation.

[00:14:30]But you made an assumption that was costly.

[00:14:34]The answer is not a provocation like he rightly said. The answer is not b self-defense like right said because he was the aselant. He was one that initiated the wicked gruesome act.

[00:14:49]But you said something that for him to be able to raise the ps of insanity the court must certify that he's mad. The question says TD's best defense does not mean what the court will approve.

[00:15:04]What is his likely best defense? That question you forgot something in a state of disorder.

[00:15:12]Disorder already means that something is not going right.

[00:15:16]He genuinely believed.

[00:15:19]Why would you genuinely believe that you attacking evil spirits and you're actually taking the life of a normal human being? The answer is C.

[00:15:32]>> That's why I hit the >> Oh, >> let me be let me be sure that >> I thought it was they were trying to throw us off, but I guess I was wrong.

[00:15:45]It was just direct. So I hope he will laugh first will laugh last.

[00:15:51]>> Amen.

[00:15:52]>> Only God will decide.

[00:15:54]>> Question four.

[00:15:57]Which of the following is not a legally recognized defense to the rule in Ryland versus Fletcher? A trespass of the victim. B act of God. C act of a stranger. D consent of the victim. And your time starts now.

[00:16:24]Time up. Show your answers and why?

[00:16:28]>> What's your answer and why? Babcock H.

[00:16:32]The question says, which of the following is not a legally recognized defense in the rule of Ryland versus Flesher? To the rule of Ryland versus Flesher. The rule of Rland versus Flesher is about um street liability.

[00:16:46]No, is it >> I don't even I don't >> it's about I think it's about street liability or something like that. So if something happen that is not what you intend to happen if something natural happen is a is a defense to street liability that the person will not be liable of God is a natural occurrence.

[00:17:06]If a volcano happens now it is not human being that should be responsible for that. So I feel like B is the right answer because the act of should be defense. H >> what's your answer and why?

[00:17:19]>> So the rule in Rand versus Fletcher says that if you have something dangerous within your land you must prevent it >> from getting to your >> from getting to your neighbor's land or someone else's land. So a trespass of the victim that's a defense already.

[00:17:35]>> B act of God.

[00:17:37]>> God mess some people up sometimes. It's very possible at times. And it's nobody's fault. Act of a stranger is not a defense. Act of a stranger is not a defense whatsoever. Then consent of the victim. If the victim consents >> to the thing happening to him, then it's a defense. So the answer is act of a stranger.

[00:17:56]>> Can you consent to something happening to him?

[00:17:58]>> Come again, please speak louder.

[00:17:59]>> I'm so sorry. How can you consent to something in the case of Fletcher? Was it not the case of the gorilla escaping? No, no, no, no, no. Rand versus fletcher.

[00:18:10]>> You want to make a point on particular if you consent to an injury. You cannot later bring an action um challenging that injury or asking for remedy for that injury you consented to.

[00:18:23]>> I don't know who crowned you BGS. You deserve it. You know your onions. In fact, you know your cutlery utenses and kitchen. I appreciate the fact that you're able to give me violent nonfeit in Julia. That is to say if you have consented or willingly agreed despite having knowledge and information before committing the act you can now pull out.

[00:18:42]So for example you ordered a cab to your house but you know that that your friend or the person that want to drive that car is fully intoxicated. You still agreed despite knowing that and enter the car. The man drove anyhow. You now got some injuries. Now come and say why will you drive anyhow and cause me injury. But you knew that I was intoxicated. Why did you put your life in the hands of an unsafe person? Oh my god you're so intelligent.

[00:19:05]Ah we praise you seek God.

[00:19:07]>> What did you say?

[00:19:08]>> This praise is not so much me. I'm feeling somehow.

[00:19:11]>> Are you a jealous person?

[00:19:12]>> I know I'm just feeling some I don't know.

[00:19:15]>> I am responsible for my actions not for your interpretation. Back to the question.

[00:19:22]Sometimes where you are going is not far but where you will branch is a lot.

[00:19:28]explanation over here. They know the rule in Rand versus Fletcher.

[00:19:35]Inspiration over here they understand the rule in Rand versus Fletcher or what he's trying to achieve.

[00:19:43]Now they miss something. The question say which is not a legally recognized defense.

[00:19:52]ruling says anybody who puts a thing or animal whatever on their land they will be strictly liable for any mischief caused by that thing of animal to a third party. Now the question says which is not a legally recognized act of God.

[00:20:15]For example, earthquake happen and your boot dog escaped from your house or where you kept it. You cannot be liable for that act of a stranger.

[00:20:27]Somebody went to open the cage and forget to lock it back. You are not responsible because you have taken precautionary measures to protect that thing. Now he say consent of the victim does not exist because a victim most time does not consent. So it's not even legally it's not even a topic or defense on its own. The answer is not be act of god because act of god is legally recognized. Don't you agree?

[00:20:54]>> You agree now?

[00:20:55]>> So what you didn't read the question very well?

[00:20:57]>> Yeah >> I didn't agree with >> okay you didn't agree with it. Oh you leave him now.

[00:21:03]>> Women.

[00:21:04]>> Women. Oh I will not be PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. Now the answer is not D.

[00:21:10]The answer is between C and A. The answer is A.

[00:21:15]I will not forget. I will not forget.

[00:21:18]Bar says forgive and forget.

[00:21:19]>> That's justice.

[00:21:21]>> That's for you and the court of law.

[00:21:23]Question five. The Alakini family is divided into five branches. The family head and the principal members of the family sold a plot of land to DKU without the involvement of the Okiki branch of the family. The sale of land is A valid, B void, C voidable, D conditional. And your time starts now.

[00:21:57]Time up.

[00:21:59]Show your answers.

[00:22:02]H.

[00:22:04]>> What's your answer?

[00:22:07]>> What's this?

[00:22:09]>> What is this?

[00:22:11]>> A.

[00:22:11]>> Yeah, it's a >> Can you please write a like? What is What is going on? You first design your board. Now you didn't design. You are signing your answer.

[00:22:19]Show your answers, please.

[00:22:22]Thank you. Please drop it. What was your answer?

[00:22:25]>> Why why do you pick it?

[00:22:26]>> A why a under landlord those this question is under family property. So under land law people that are entitled to sell family property are the family head and principal members. If those person signs every other person is legally binding to follow that contract.

[00:22:45]So the agreement is a valid because the family head and principal members are signed regardless of whosoever remain.

[00:22:52]If the family head and principal member have signed the agreement is valid. The the answer is not void because the family head and principal member have signed. So therefore it is not void. C is is not voidable because the principal member have signed. If it is only the family head that signed then it becomes voidable because the principal member did not sign. But if the principal member sign and the family head sign, it is not voidable. It is it is valid. And see it is not it is not D because it's not conditional. The principal PIP member and family head have signed. So it's a value contract. Do you agree with him?

[00:23:24]>> Mro, I agree is >> you agree is my people. My guy, my guy, David, right?

[00:23:35]>> Yes.

[00:23:35]>> David and >> Elizabeth.

[00:23:37]>> Elizabeth. Do you what is your answer and why?

[00:23:41]>> Okay. I chose C or we chose C voidable because um under land law the sale of land requires the um signing of the head of the family as I mentioned the principal members of the family as well as the consent of the members of the family. Now it is not void because um the family head signed the sale of the land. It is not whatever conditional is is not conditional but and it is not valid because yes how okay it is not valid because they saw the plot of land without the involvement of a part of the family. So let's say let's say this um what's the name family is made up of myself him and you you are a branch. So I sell the land um just with the concept of me the family head him as a principal member and without your um what is it called >> consent right then that makes the sale voidable it is not like totally invalid but like it makes it voidable on the condition that you did not give get the consent of the member of all like branches of member of the family >> why are you the family head and I'm the one that did not consent >> come again >> why are you the one that is the family head I'm the one that I'm sorry. Oh yeah, you're the family head.

[00:25:04]>> I love her explanation. I love the confidence behind your explanation. But you are forgetting a pivotal part of that question. Again, it says the family is divided into five branches. Exactly.

[00:25:18]>> The head of the family and the principal members they s without the consent and involvement of one of the branches at the instance of that family branch because they also principal members of that family. It is voidable. It's not invalid. It is not is not void. But at their instance they can say we are part of the five branches. We are part of people that are porter to that transaction and you excuse us. You either pay us our money or we know they sell and we not agree to RA. So the answer is voidable.

[00:25:56]>> You don't need it.

[00:25:59]>> That's what he said.

[00:26:02]>> I'm still very sure that if the principal member and the family head have signed the contract is valid. I'm still very very sure. I'm 100%. I'm not changing my mind. You can Google search it. All right. Question six. A certificate of occupancy is a best proof of title to land. B absolute proof of title to land. C is only issued for land in urban areas. D a perma fascia proof of title to land. Your time start now.

[00:26:38]>> It's a proof. It's one of the titles.

[00:26:40]It's no problem for >> What's your answer?

[00:26:42]>> Time up. Show your answers. And why?

[00:26:48]>> What's your answer? Show your answers.

[00:26:51]They argue.

[00:26:51]>> Show your answers.

[00:26:55]>> Do you want to change your answer? I can give you this chance.

[00:26:57]>> No, I'm not changing. I'm not changing it.

[00:26:58]>> Do you agree with her?

[00:26:59]>> No.

[00:27:00]>> What's your own answer?

[00:27:01]>> My answer is C.

[00:27:03]>> C. Now >> only issue for land areas. Your answer is D.

[00:27:08]>> Yeah. I want to give you a chance. Do you want to change your answer?

[00:27:12]>> I'm not changing it.

[00:27:13]>> Urban areas. Drop a like issued for >> 5 seconds. 1 >> five.

[00:27:28]What's your answer? Show your answers now.

[00:27:32]I allowed you to change your answer voluntarily. Do you want to go back to your initial answer or this is your final answer? Say >> this is your final answer.

[00:27:39]>> Is this your final answer?

[00:27:41]>> Is this your final answer?

[00:27:43]>> Yes.

[00:27:43]>> Are you sure you want to change your answer?

[00:27:45]>> Are you sure you want to change your answer? Are you sure change your answer?

[00:27:49]>> All right. I will not waste time on this because this is very very known to everybody that knows landlord. The answer is not a best proof of title to land. The answer is not b absolute proof of title to land because cu also has his own questions on it. The answer between C and D and the answer is C.

[00:28:11]For me, for me the ground for me. What do you want to say?

[00:28:17]>> Like the >> save YOUR ENERGY. YOU'RE CORRECT. IT'S a >> I told you you customary certificate of occupancy is what they issue for customary land. say you let me leave >> actually told him that was not the right answer but he was headstrong so I'm just going to collect the money back from him when I miss him >> you remind me of a songless >> sharp sharp sharp you >> wait it's not a pre >> let me let me tell you one me I was thinking there are different titles to land like certificate of occupancy is primar on the first glance on the first instance okay IT PROVES GOD BLESS THIS LADY fashion means AS IT IS FIRST SEEN on first glance on first generation what title do you have this land I have a sea of o at that point it's a primary f proof of title you can go further to go and investigate the root of title know if it's a bad title or a good title but the point of that oh my god hold on >> you return the money back >> what do you say >> what do you say question seven >> I think you are the one that answer state government had a land boundary dispute with OU state government. The attorney general of Lagos intends to file an action in court. Which court is the most appropriate? A federal high court, Lagos or division. B Supreme Court of Nigeria. C. High Court of Lagos state. D I high court of AU state. E court of appeal. And your time starts now.

[00:29:51]because I feel like something land >> we apologize.

[00:30:04]>> I have already said it before that anybody that does not write the answer before the gave will miss it. So please clean your board.

[00:30:12]>> Don't apologize for stand by the law.

[00:30:14]The law is the law. Respect of no man.

[00:30:16]Please show your board. Show your board.

[00:30:19]Show your board.

[00:30:21]Please drop your board. Why is your board empty?

[00:30:25]>> Cuz we changed our minds last minute.

[00:30:27]>> You changed your mind last minute.

[00:30:29]Sometimes you need to stay with your conviction. What was your mind initially?

[00:30:32]>> It was B.

[00:30:33]>> B.

[00:30:34]>> Yes.

[00:30:34]>> So why did you clean it?

[00:30:36]>> You said we should.

[00:30:37]>> Oh, no. No. You What did you write before you clean it?

[00:30:39]>> Oh, we wrote A before.

[00:30:41]>> A. So at last minute, you wanted to write B. Badcock.

[00:30:46]My lady, what's your name?

[00:30:47]>> Tiwa.

[00:30:47]>> Tiwa and >> Abiso.

[00:30:49]>> Tiwa and Abiso. What's your answer and why?

[00:30:52]>> Okay, so I picked B. I don't really know much. I can't remember much about hierarchy of court, but I feel like because it's something involving big people like the AG and it's on boundary discrete again. It's a serious matter.

[00:31:02]So it should go to the highest court in the land. So Supreme Court.

[00:31:08]Ah >> you want us to state the reason for our >> what's your reason? Um because actions between two states are instituted in the Supreme Court.

[00:31:18]>> I don't know who gave you the BTS but you deserve a UN by the B of S. Ah my god by the v of section 232 of the 99 constitution. He says that when there's a matter between two government, two states, the only court that can listen and educate on them is Supreme Court.

[00:31:35]>> But unfortunately, >> don't say that's it.

[00:31:38]>> Sometimes you have good intention, but the the spirit is willing and is weak.

[00:31:44]That means your hands.

[00:31:45]>> I'M >> THE answer is B. Supreme Court.

[00:31:52]I be Oh, for being honest. For being honest, you can have it. Thank >> we knew the answer, but we just had this moment of doubt and it cost us some few dollars.

[00:32:06]>> Question eight.

[00:32:09]Musa, a student union activist, slapped Mr. Munu, a lecturer, for having the guts to conduct lectures during lecture boycott. He was immediately expelled from the university without being given the opportunity to defend himself due to the gravity of his offense. The principle of law and justice at play here is a university code of conduct for students. B assert and battery c threat to life dutarian.

[00:32:37]Your time starts now.

[00:32:48]>> Time up. Show your answers.

[00:32:52]Show your answers.

[00:32:55]Drop your boat. What was your answer and why?

[00:32:58]>> Um you see >> under the principle of fear hearing we have two basic principles audio and judas. So the principle of audio basically says that here the other party for there to be justice the other party that is being accused must be heard. And in this case the student here was not heard and they can't be said to be justice in that matter.

[00:33:19]>> I want to add something to you. Sorry.

[00:33:21]The ending here says the principle of law and justice at play here. So we can call the alteranm a principle of law and justice as well. So >> do you agree with him or her?

[00:33:32]>> Yeah. The answer is no university code of conduct for student because by virtue of section 36 of constitution says that any tribunal set up or any hearing that is set up in a way that means that you deprive a citizen of the country their right to fair hearing shall be ah let me not go there the answer is the order question nine the attorney general and minister of justice of the federal Federation enter no prosecute before the federal high court in a matter of alleged fraud involving the former attorney general minister of justice of the federation.

[00:34:12]The act of the attorney general minister of justice is a constitutional b unconstitutional c discretional d none of the above. Your time starts now.

[00:34:30]former constitution.

[00:34:34]>> Time up. Show your boss. You are you wrote your answer after the gave. Clean it.

[00:34:40]>> I was already writing it.

[00:34:41]>> Unfortunately, you wrote your answer after the G. I saw you. He was even telling you to write it. Clean it. I'm sorry. The rules are the rule. Once you say G time up, you cannot do anything anymore. I feel for you. I'm sorry.

[00:34:53]>> Show your answers and why.

[00:34:57]I feel so bad.

[00:34:59]Please, what's your what would have been your answer and why?

[00:35:02]>> Yeah, you can. I'll take it.

[00:35:06]>> My answer would have been here. Why?

[00:35:09]>> Because the attorney general has the power to enter newly prosecute in any proceedings instituted in the state.

[00:35:16]>> Are you sure it's not a discretionary power?

[00:35:19]>> It is at his discretion, but then it is constitutional.

[00:35:25]discretionary or constitutional which one are you standing by?

[00:35:29]>> The question says that he can enter newly prosecutor.

[00:35:33]>> You have not answered my question. What was your answer and why?

[00:35:36]>> Um I picked discretional because it is at his discret discretion to continue or discontinue proceedings or prosecution against an accused. So that's like a bit higher is both constitutional and discretionary. The question says the act of the attorney general minister of justice that means what was his act he enter newly prosecute that act is it originating from discretion or from the constitution >> if he enters it he's performing his conal power >> the answer is not d none of the above because there's an answer there and you will see for yourself with your glasses the answer is not B uncon constitutional. The answer is A constitutional.

[00:36:28]Very very simple. Even though he has the discretion to exercise that power, it is a power vested on him by the conitution of the land and by the v of section one of he said the conition shall be supreme even over your discretion.

[00:36:45]Hello my dear.

[00:36:52]Ladies and gentlemen, final question for this episode. Question 10. This episode has tested not just the knowledge of the law. It has tested applicability, interpretation, also understanding and being able TO ANSWER QUESTION UNDER PRESSURE and time.

[00:37:09]Mock trial. Should Nigeria legalize cryptocurrency as leg tender? Bangkok argues for AB argues against your time starts now.

[00:37:18]>> Good day ladies and gentlemen. I remain Ali Abis argue for that Nigeria should legalize cryptocurrency. First of all I would like to point out about 22 million Nigerians are currently using cryptocurrency and it is it will only pay Nigeria to make it a legal tender because why it encourage foreign investors to come and invest in Nigeria. They don't have to switch to our currency and start changing from their currency to to Nigerian currency. If they have the mind to invest and they have cryptocurrency that they can easily do transaction with. They will be they free they free they will be free to invest in our country and thereby creating more jobs.

[00:37:51]Secondly, it makes Nigeria a leading country. If Nigeria becomes the first country to legalize to make cryptocurrency a legal tender in in in West Africa, it will make Nigeria the first country to regularize cryptocurrency in Africa in West Africa and thereby making Nigeria a leading country instead of putting Nigeria in the in the African map and not only making us world African giants also world giants. Therefore, this will help boost our um public view. Thank you.

[00:38:17]>> Time up.

[00:38:18]>> Abad, your time starts now.

[00:38:21]>> Good morning everyone. My name is David Peter and I'm here to oppose the motion which states Nigeria should legalize cryptocurrency. Now what what do we understand legal tender to be? Legal tender is a currency which has the status for the exchange of goods and services. Now cryptocurrency is notoriously known for being a volatile mechanism for the transfer of goods and services. If we build our entire economy upon a volatile mechanism, what exactly are we going to do? Furthermore, cryptocurrency is known for its heightened susceptibility to fraud and crime, money laundering. So if we have um heightening the use of cryptocurrency within our nation, what exactly are we promoting? We are promoting fraud. We are promoting money laundering as well.

[00:39:07]Furthermore, there is no dispute resolution mechanism within Nigeria currently to handle cryptocurrency disputes. So it is completely untested.

[00:39:15]Your position has no response to this and I believe cryptocurrency should not be legalized within Nigeria. Thank you.

[00:39:22]>> Time up. 30 seconds reporter.

[00:39:24]>> You mentioned that there's no law regulating um cryptocurrency. Me I'm saying that that's exactly what we are saying. We want that we want it to be a legal tender because if it's a legal tender then there will be laws to protect people and if there are laws to protect people then there'll be nothing like fraud in the first place. And you said that it's volatile as well. C currently cryptocurrency is um regulated by K there's KYC regulations SE is also regulating it as well what we just need is more laws to be able to enforce it and be able to protect people to introduce things like insurance to introduce things like dispute settlement as well and yeah basically we just need >> sorry I almost got carried away >> good day I'm Elizabeth Monro in terms of um dispute resolution the point that my lead speaker made was that there's no mechanism for dispute resolution not no mechanism for regulating cryptocurrency.

[00:40:14]We're aware of the circles and the rules of the ISA. Secondly, he mentioned that wide usage that he mentioned wide usage.

[00:40:21]But like to note that wide usage does not equal acitability. The moment we adopt cryptocurrency as our legal tender, we also give we constitutionalize the loss of our own monetary control. Meaning that the CBN cannot regulate. It's not time. Why did you raise your hand? I had one second.

[00:40:39]>> Time up.

[00:40:40]>> Time up. He misled my what?

[00:40:43]>> He misled my Sorry. Sorry.

[00:40:44]>> Oh, yeah. Finish up that last statement.

[00:40:46]>> Oh, I said the CBN cannot regulate what they do not issue.

[00:40:51]>> Time up.

[00:40:55]>> Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly love this particular session of the mock trial.

[00:41:05]Without bias and all fairness, who do you think won this mock trial?

[00:41:10]one.

[00:41:11]>> Who do you think won this montra?

[00:41:12]>> Us. Obviously.

[00:41:14]>> Obviously. I forgot my glasses.

[00:41:18]>> Ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I want to advocate on this book trial. You forgot a pivotal thing in your argument which is the investment and securities act which is ISA. You did not mention it. I even saw your partner scribble it.

[00:41:35]But it's not my business to gossip or if drop.

[00:41:39]Also, you are forgetting that the Nigerian tax law 2025 has opened a section that covers digital assets.

[00:41:46]>> That means gradually regulation is already touching and covering parts of cryptocurrency.

[00:41:51]>> I said this also regulated by SE.

[00:41:53]>> I understand that SE who is going to enforce the ISC >> I know that >> you're expecting me helping you complete your statement.

[00:42:02]>> 30 seconds. Oh, I don't I should I should have known better. No problem.

[00:42:08]Abuad is the winner of this particular mock trial.

[00:42:15]>> This is what they >> and by the virtue of the rules of this game, winner takes all.

[00:42:25]Upward.

[00:42:27]1 2 3 4 and five.

[00:42:40]>> Babcock.

[00:42:40]>> Babcock.

[00:42:42]One, two, three, and four. And by the virtue of this game, winner takes all. Adward is the winner of this session.

[00:42:57]Thank you very much. I'll be stepping aside. Please loot the treasure of your opponent.

[00:43:06]>> All right. Thanks. I beg you.

[00:43:08]>> So you you wanted to have with what does not belong to you. That could be like you said earlier. You have to prove me.

[00:43:14]>> You have to what?

[00:43:15]>> Prove me.

[00:43:16]>> I had to prove men of money that I saw you carrying after you lost.

[00:43:20]>> There was no intention. It followed me.

[00:43:22]>> Oh, the money followed you. Yes, >> the money is not a snake that follows you.

[00:43:27]>> Don't forget to leave a comment, share this video, subscribe and know that this show is primarily to educate people, you and I, about the laws that govern us.

[00:43:36]It's a learning process for everybody including myself. Till you come away again, I am Timmy Abaji and this is what does the law say. God bless you.

[00:43:42]>> I feel so elated and happy that my team won. I mean, we are abad. We nurture the best talents. We bring the vision to life.

[00:43:55]Every daddy I don't even know.