More Troubles For Governor Fayose As EFCC is Set To Invite His Wife.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is set to invite Mrs. Feyisetan Fayose, the wife of Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, for receiving N100m through an account which is operated by her and her husband.

According to the EFCC, the money, which emanated from the account of the Office of the National Security Adviser, was paid into the Zenith Bank account of Spotless Investment Limited on June 17, 2014, less than a week to the June 21 governorship election in Ekiti State.

The money was paid into the company’s account with bank teller number 0540997 by Abiodun Agbele, an associate of the governor. The two signatories to Spotless Investment Limited’s account are Fayose and his wife.An EFCC detective told one of our correspondents, “N100m was paid into the Spotless Investment Limited account with number 1010170969 at Zenith Bank. The two signatories are Fayose, with Bank Verification Number 22338867502, and his wife, Helen Olayemi, with BVN 22298990256.”

The account has since been frozen by the anti-graft agency.As a sitting governor, Fayose cannot be prosecuted or arrested because he enjoys immunity.“His wife, however, has no immunity,” the source added.The PUNCH had reported on Wednesday that N1,219,490,000 was flown to Akure Airport on June 12, 2014, by a former Minister of State for Defence, Musiliu Obanikoro, ahead of the June 21, 2014 governorship election in Ekiti State. 

The money was said to have been part of the N4.7bn, which was paid into the Diamond Bank account of Sylvan McNamara by the Office of the National Security Adviser. Sylvan McNamara is a company in which Obanikoro’s sons are signatories.A large chunk of the N1,219,490,000 was said to have been paid into Fayose’s private and company accounts, including the N100m, which was paid into the account of Spotless Investment Limited. Source: Punch.

Opinion: Pay back time. Not yet over for Fayose's family. There is nothing wrong calling his wife to account for movement of illegal funds in her bank accounts. Hoping that EFCC should do same to both sitting and ex Governors. Glad that EFCC can bite now.

C.V.Akuta Media UK.

Watch How Young Nigerians Spend Money in UK.

Yoruba, Hausa military officers planning to overthrow Buhari – Niger Delta militants.

Niger Delta militants group under the aegis, Joint Niger Delta Liberation Force, JNDLF, has alleged that some senior military officers from the Yoruba and Hausa extractions are planning to overthrow the President Muhammadu Buhari’s government through a coup d’état.

The group alleged that the coup plotters intend to achieve their plan through civil unrest and the continuous attack on oil installations in the Niger Delta region.

JNDLF, which recently threatened to launch a missile attack, in a statement said it was contacted to execute the sinister plan, but it refused.

The statement was signed by persons who identified themselves as ‘General’ Torunanaowei Latei (Creek Network Coordinator); ‘General’ Agbakakuro Owei-Tauro (Pipeline Bleeding Expert); ‘General’ Akotebe Darikoro (Commander, General Duties) and ‘General’ Pulokiri Ebikade (Intelligence Bureau).

The statement reads, “We are constraint to let the cat out of the bag today that President Mohammadu Buhari should be wary about the security of this country as some military men are making move to remove him from power by instigating civil unrest in the country.

“Some top military men through their civil agents approached us to cause and continue the vandalization of the oil and gas pipelines in the Niger delta region so as to use as an excuse to take over the government from democracy to military rule in the country.

“We said no as such plan will not work and not in conformity with our genuine desire of agitation.The military want to disgrace him now and let him quickly look into the issues and make pronouncement for his administration to be in peace.

“We received several calls unknown to persuade us to continue the bombing and that when succeeded in overthrowing the government we will be placed on a better position, we said capital NO!
“When asked of their names they are above Major General’s level. They refused to disclose their names but their intonations seem like yoruba and Hausa. Our agitation is not for selfish interest but for the overall benefit of the Niger delta region.

“We’ll not kidnap any person, kill or hostage taking of any expatriate in the country but will continue our agitation with clear determination to actualize our course in Nigeria.
“We believe their sinister plan because there is ceasefire in the region for dialogue, but since then, the attitude and actions of the service chiefs show that such plan could work for them.” Source: http://dailypost.ng

Opinion: This is at best a conspiracy theory. The militants should have mentioned the names of these officers. They are basing their claim on intonations. What if these intonations were faked? The militants might be trying to appear relevant or they want to enjoy headline fame.

C.V.Akuta Media UK.

An Analysis of The Constitutional Validity of Freezing Governor Fayose's Bank Account.

An Analysis Of The Constitutional Validity Of Freezing Governor Fayose's Bank Account By Inibehe Effiong

 Monday 20th June 2016 the Governor of Ekiti State, Ayodele Peter Fayose, alerted the nation that his personal bank account domiciled with Zenith Bank of Nigeria Plc has been frozen by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Mr. Fayose excoriated the anti-graft agency and the Federal Government of Nigeria for taking such "illegal" and "criminal" action without reference or regard to the immunity clause in the Constitution which protects him during the currency and subsistence of his tenure as the Executive Governor of Ekiti State.

In his response, the Spokesman for the EFCC, Wilson Uwujaren told Vanguard Newspaper that the anti-graft agency has the right to investigate any governor whose account is being used to move funds. “Immunity does not prevent EFCC from investigating suspicious accounts of those enjoying immunity, and Fayose cannot be an exception, “Mr. Uwujaren said.

Before delving into the substance of this legal controversy, it should be noted from the beginning that this essay is strictly aimed at dissecting the constitutionality or otherwise of the freezing of the bank account of a sitting governor by the EFCC. The temptation to meddle into any alleged, conceivable or ostensible political undertone in the matter will be resisted. I also need to caution that this piece requires patience and clarity of thoughts, devoid of emotions and sentiments for proper digestion and comprehension. The issue at stake deserves a detailed examination.

In resolving this controversy, I have formulated two relevant questions or issues for determination, namely:

1. Whether the EFCC have the powers under the law to freeze the bank account(s) of persons who are under criminal investigation by the commission?

2. Whether a sitting governor of a State in Nigeria can be investigated for alleged crimes, and his bank account(s) frozen by the EFCC in the course or under the pretext of criminal investigation?

The answer to issue 1 supra (above) is found in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004 (subsequently referred to as the EFCC Act). In recognition of the serious nature of economic and financial crimes, the National Assembly vested the EFCC with far reaching powers to enable the Commission to discharge its mandate of ridding the country of corruption. Among the powers conferred on the Commission as part of its general investigative powers, is the power to freeze the bank account of persons who are subject of an investigation by the commission.

Specifically, Section 34 (1) of the EFCC Act with the heading: "Freezing order on banks or other, other financial institutions", provides as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or law, the Chairman of the Commission or any officer authorised by him may, if satisfied that the money in the account of a person is made through the commission of an offence under this Act and or any of the enactments specified under section 7 (2) (a)-(f) of this Act, apply to the Court ex-parte for power to issue an order as specified in Form B of the Schedule to this Act, addressed to the manager of the bank or any person in control of the financial institution or designated non-financial institution where the account is or believed by him to be or the head office of the bank, other financial institution or designated non-financial institution to freeze the account."

The above provision is self-explanatory. For emphasis, I will elucidate on two principles arising from the provision.

Firstly, the EFCC Chairman or any other officer of the commission authorised by him can order any financial institution (including Zenith Bank of Nigeria Plc where Governor Fayose's account is domiciled) to freeze any account with money which he is satisfied is made through the commission of an offence under the EFCC Act, the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, etc. Satisfaction within the contemplation of this section is entirely a matter of opinion which may be formed based on the existence of certain facts and circumstances that are within the knowledge of the chairman of the commission. The Act has not set out any condition that should guide the chairman in determining which account to freeze. In other words, it is a matter of discretion whether any account should be frozen or not. All that is required of the chairman is for him to be satisfied that the money in the account is a product of crime and corruption.

The second principle that deserves reiteration is that before the chairman of the commission can order a financial institution to freeze any account, he must first apply to the Court ex-parte (without the attendance of the owner of the account or the financial institution in court) for power to issue the order. Simply put, an application to the court for power to freeze an account and the granting of same, are conditions precedent to the issuance of an order to freeze under Section 34 (1) of the EFCC Act. At the risk of repetition, I submit that the EFCC has no power to order any financial institution or designated non-financial institution to freeze any account without obtaining the consent of the Court.

On issue 2, so much has been said about the immunity clause enshrined in Section 308 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (subsequently referred to as the Constitution). For ease of comprehension, the said provisions are reproduced verbatim below:

308. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, but subject to subsection (2) of this section -

(a) no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to whom this section applies during his period of office;

(b) a person to whom this section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise; and

(c) no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued:

Provided that in ascertaining whether any period of limitation has expired for the purposes of any proceedings against a person to whom this section applies, no account shall be taken of his period of office.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to civil proceedings against a person to whom this section applies in his official capacity or to civil or criminal proceedings in which such a person is only a nominal party.

(3) This section applies to a person holding the office of President or Vice President, Governor or Deputy Governor; and the reference in this section to "period of office" is a reference to the period during which the person holding such office is required to perform the functions of the office.

In view of the above constitutional provisions, can Mr. Fayose be investigated by the EFCC for the commission of an offence under the EFCC Act, the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act or any other law that is within the investigative or prosecutorial authority of the commission while he is still the governor of Ekiti State?

This question was answered emphatically in the affirmative by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the celebrated case of Fawehinmi v. Inspector General of Police (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.767) 606. The brief facts were that the late renowned human rights lawyer, Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAM SAN, by a letter dated 21st September, 1999 brought a criminal complaint against the former governor of Lagos State, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, alleging grave criminal infractions and asked the police to investigate the allegations. Following the refusal by the police to accede to his request, Chief Gani filed an originating summons on the 7th of October, 1999 at the Federal High Court, Lagos wherein he sought among others, an order of mandamus compelling the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner of Police Lagos State and the Nigeria Police Force (respondents) to investigate his allegations. The suit was dismissed by the Federal High Court following a preliminary objection by the respondents on the ground that by virtue of the immunity provisions of Section 308 of the Constitution, Tinubu who had assumed office as the governor of Lagos State could not be investigated on the said allegations.

Dissatisfied, the appellant challenged the judgment at the Court of Appeal. In its judgment, the Appeal Court held that Section 308 of the Constitution does not protect a governor and the other persons covered by it from criminal investigation. However, an order of mandamus was refused. Still dissatisfied, Gani approached the Supreme Court on the issue of mandamus. The respondents (the police) on their part filed a cross-appeal on the part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which declared that immunity does not cover investigation.

Delivering the leading judgment of the seven-man panel of the Supreme Court on Friday 10th day of May, 2002 on whether a governor can be investigated, Justice S.O. Uwaifo, J.S.C (as he then was), held inter alia:

"That a person protected under section 308 of the 1999 constitution, going by its provisions, can be investigated by the police for an alleged crime or offence is, in my view, beyond dispute. To hold otherwise is to create a monstrous situation whose manifestation may not be fully appreciated until illustrated. I shall give three possible instances. Suppose it is alleged that a Governor, in the course of driving his personal car, recklessly ran over a man, killing him; he sends the car to a workshop for the repairs of the dented or damaged part or parts. Or that he used a pistol to shoot a man dead and threw the gun into a nearby bush. OR THAT HE STOLE PUBLIC MONEY AND KEPT IT IN A PARTICULAR BANK or used it to acquire property. Now, if the police became aware, could it be suggested in an open and democratic societ like ours that they would be precluded by section 308 from investigating to know the identity of the man killed, the cause of death from autopsy report, the owner of the car taken to the workshop and if there is any evidence from the inspection of the car that it hit an object recently, more particularly a human being; or to take steps to recover the gun and test for ballistic evidence; and generally to take statements from eye witnesses of either incident of killing. OR TO FIND OUT (IF POSSIBLE) ABOUT THE MONEY LODGED IN THE BANK or for acquiring property, AND TO GET PARTICULARS OF THE ACCOUNT AND THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY; or of the property acquired? The police clearly have a duty under section 4 of the Police Act to do all they can to investigate and preserve whatever evidence is available. The evidence or some aspect of it may be the type which might be lost forever if not preserved while it is available..." (Emphasis mine).

In the instant case, does the freezing of the account of Governor Fayose fall within the investigative powers of the EFCC or is it illegal as declared by Fayose?

The Supreme Court had correctly stated the position in Fawehinmi's case supra that "criminal proceedings" as envisaged by Section 308 (1) (a) of the Constitution will only arise when a charge is brought. In rejecting the respondents' argument that investigation was part of criminal proceedings, the Apex Court cited with approval the decision in the American case of Post v. United States (1896) 161. U.S. 583; 16 Court Reporter, page 611 at 613, in which it was held -

"Criminal proceedings cannot be said to be brought or instituted until a formal charge is openly made against the accused, either by indictment presented or information filed in court or at the least, by complaint before a magistrate..."

Since investigating a governor is permissible, does an application to the court for power to freeze the account of a governor under Section 34 (1) of the EFCC Act violate Section 308 (1) (c) of the Constitution which states that "no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued"?

The answer is indisputably in the negative (it is "Capital No"). This is because the law expressly states that the application should be made in the absence of the owner of the account, that is, ex-parte. If the EFCC seeks to freeze the account of a governor, there will be no process requiring or compelling the attendance of the governor since same is ex-parte and not on notice. Therefore, Section 308 (1) (c) is neither applicable nor violated in any way.

Freezing of accounts serves principally two purposes. First, by freezing a suspect's account, the commission prevents the suspect from accessing, operating and drawing money from the account which may ultimately be forfeited to the government if the suspect is eventually prosecuted and convicted. Immunity clause cannot prevent the EFCC from securing and preserving monies found in the account of a governor provided the Chairman of the EFCC is satisfied that the money is proceeds of crime. Second, the money is frozen for preservation and use as evidence during a trial.

From the foregoing, it is clear that there is no provision in Section 308 of the Constitution that is offended by the freezing of the account of a governor. There is no argument about the fact that freezing of bank accounts of persons who are under criminal investigation is merely an interim, precautionary and necessary step preparatory to arraignment and prosecution. Interestingly, an illustration was given by Justice Uwaifo J.S.C. (as he then was) in Fawehinmi's case of an instance where it is alleged that a governor "STOLE PUBLIC MONEY AND KEPT IT IN A PARTICULAR BANK". His Lordship in his prophetic wisdom rightly stated that a "monstrous situation" will be created if the police (in this case the EFCC) is unable "TO FIND OUT (IF POSSIBLE) ABOUT THE MONEY LODGED IN THE BANK" or "AND TO GET PARTICULARS OF THE ACCOUNT AND THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY".

According to an online newspaper, Sahara Reporters, "Sources at Nigeria's premier anti-corruption agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have revealed that a personal account at the Zenith Bank of Nigeria of Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, was frozen in connection with over N1.2billion he took in 2014 from the disgraced National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki, to prosecute his re-election as governor." If this was the basis upon which the EFCC Chairman became satisfied that the money in Fayose's bank account is/was made through the commission of an offence under the EFCC Act or other applicable laws, nobody could question him, except the court.

Governor Fayose has not been invited for interrogation by the EFCC; he has not been arrested or imprisoned; no criminal proceedings has been commenced against him, and clearly no process of a court requiring or compelling his attendance in court has been issued or applied for. These are the only things and actions that Section 308 of the Constitution forbids. The Supreme Court in Fawehinmi's case supra declared that a governor can be investigated in any manner, provided it does not lead to any these limited situations. The Apex Court emphasised that these limited situations must not be extended under the guise of liberal interpretation of the Constitution.

The question then is? Has any of the protections given to Governor Fayose by Section 308 of the Constitution been taken away by the EFCC?

The answer is NO.

However, the EFCC must exhibit an order of the Court that empowered it to freeze Fayose's account. In the absence of such authorisation, the action is illegal, ultra vires, oppressive, undemocratic, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. If the condition precedent was not complied with, the account should be de-freezed immediately without delay with an apology to the governor. Fayose has the right to seek legal redress in the absence of an order of the court. In the case of Mobil v. LASEPA (2003) 104 LRCN 240, the Supreme Court held that failure to comply with a condition precedent is fatal and renders an action a nullity.

One does not need to be a lawyer to know that law enforcement agencies, including the EFCC, in the course of an investigation of crime usually and are legally empowered to take possession of material evidence. Freezing of a suspect's bank account is undoubtedly an integral part of the investigation process and procedure. If it were not so, Section 34 (1) of the EFCC Act would only be invokable when a charge or information has been filed. I submit however that the Court has the supervisory jurisdiction to examine, review and or revoke any freezing order issued by the EFCC chairman depending on the circumstances and the justice of each case. The order itself it interim in nature and not absolute or perpetual.

As a postscript, I further submit that any reference to the immunity clause in Section 308 of the Constitution that is outside the limited protection in the express provisions of that section is legally indefensible and baseless. The President, Vice President, Governors and Deputy Governors only enjoy limited immunity. There is nothing dictatorial, "illegal" or "criminal" in investigating a governor for alleged offences.

Let it be known that immunity is not a license to commit crimes or engage in wanton corruption. Section 308 of the Constitution only offers limited protection. It was never the intention of the framers of the 1999 Constitution for the clause to be exploited as a weapon for impunity, executive lawlessness, and self-enrichment.

Inibehe Effiong is a Legal Practitioner and b Rights Defenders (COHRD) and can be reachedat:inibehe.effiong@gmail.com

Opinion: Results ipso loquito  (truth speaks for itself) on the above matter.

C.V.Akuta media UK.

E-Payment Potentials: Nigeria Grosses Over $100 Billion Annually.

Nigeria grosses over $100 billion through e-payment annually-

Valentine Obi is the Chief Executive Officer of Nigeria’s premiere e-payment solutions provider, eTranzact International Plc. In this interview with Jonah Nwokpoku, he speaks on the evolution of the electronic payment industry in Nigeria, vis-a-vis the growth of his company which was founded in 2003 and got rebranded only last week. He argues that the electronic payment industry has come of age, having grown tremendously over the past decade but says there is still huge potential yet untapped in the industry.

Excerpts eTranzact has just rebranded its identity, what does this mean for the company?

Valentine Obi It shows that we have affirmed our leadership position in the electronic payment industry, not only in Nigeria but all over Africa. If you look at the new ‘e’, it talks about empowerment, its electronic, it talks about ease and also efficiency and that is what we want to reaffirm clearly to the public.

Following the rebranding, what more can customers expect from eTranzact?

From now on, customers are going to be seeing a lot more of eTranzact. Before, we used to be a Business-to-Business, B2B Company whereby our only targets are the banks, so our target was limited. But now we are going into the Business-to-Consumer, B2C segment with other products. So you are going to be seeing a lot more visible eTranzact in the market and not just more visible but with creative and innovative solutions to empower people, make their payments easier, and make it more efficient.

Last year, eTranzact recorded over 110 million transactions valued at about $30 billion, what do you expect this year?

This year, our plan is to double it and to make sure that our users have better experience using the platform than before. If you look at the $30 billion we made, it is about 30 per cent of e-payments made in Nigeria or a little bit more, so it just tells me that the market has come of age because, I remember that in first two years, our total transaction was less than $100,000. In the first year, it was actually N35 million only, for the whole year. So if you look at how the transaction has grown, it has shown indeed that there are a lot of people coming onboard, there is traction, and people are beginning to see that this really is working. The fear that people used to have before seems to have diminished, compared to before.

If you benchmark your business and the volume, and in comparison with other e-payment providers, what do you think is the volume of transactions in a year across several platforms within the industry?

If we say that what we are doing is about 25 to 30 per cent of the e-payment industry. That gives you an understanding that we are doing over $100 billion in terms of transaction value in the market. But you know, all of us put together have not even scratched the surface, because there is still a lot of potential, there are still a lot of people that are not even in the system and this is what the CBN is trying to do, to see how we can get as many people as possible.

Why did they register so many mobile money operators?

It is because they know that one or two operators cannot do it. They want to give a lot of opportunities so that we can see how we can garner more people into that space and reduce money in the unbanked sector and get them into the banking system.

Do you have any plans on adjusting your cost of transactions in order to bring in more people and increase volume of transaction?

Always, our cost of transaction has been the lowest in the industry. This is because of our belief that we need to incentivize people to come onto the platform. But not only us, even the CBN has also helped to see how we can bring costs down all in efforts to encourage more people to use electronic system. We are doing that already, we are even enabling some free services. Before now, we used to charge for some Application Programme Interface, APIs before you can do e-commerce but these days, we even give it to some of them for free of charge, just to encourage more people. We are also trying to get more schools, especially the universities that run computer programmes to get their students, what we call the young developers programme, all in effort to see how we can make this more affordable and available to the people. This is because, the bigger the cake is, the better for everybody. So we are looking at how we can make it bigger to let more people come in.

What are you doing to get the unbanked banked?

That is what the whole of our mobile money product, the PocketMoni is doing. For example, what we have decided is that, first, there must be used cases. You cannot just give people a product without telling them what they will do with it. So, there must be used cases and we have done that. Secondly, there is a need to be in the face of the people, go down to the market women and show them how to use the product and we have started that as well. We ran a pilot in Ketu and we have now deployed fully in Ketu market right inside the market. We have an office inside so we can show the people how to use it and it has been growing. We have another one in Kano and another one in Abeokuta, Ogun State. So the idea is to go down to the masses themselves and try as much as possible to remove the fear that there is some voodoo in e-payment, and you know Nigerians, the moment you can show that the money could be moved with ease and is secure, they will latch onto it.

VenueHero named official partner of 2016 Event Safety Summit By Jonah Nwokpoku Nigeria’s online venue booking platform, VenueHero.co has been appointed the official partner of this year’s Event Safety Summit scheduled to hold on July 5th and 6th  at the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry building in Lagos.

VenueHero.co provides simple venue booking solution online for the general public, event planners and venue owners. It is a web-based application for venue discovery, bookings and reservations. The Event Safety Summit which is packaged by Event Basics Nigeria and Event Safety Alliance Nigeria in Partnership with Event Safety Alliance, USA, is aimed at domesticating the knowledge gained from the annual Event Safety Summit in the US.

Mike Lord of Alliance Safety Management, South Africa representing ESA, USA will be the keynote speaker while the Director General, Lagos State Safety Commission, Mr. Fouad Alade-Oki is expected to use the opportunity to present The Lagos Event Safety Policy. Speaking on the partnership, Founder, VenueHero, Uche Aniche said: “VenueHero.co take the stress off organising events by eliminating one of the biggest pain points for organisers. People can book and pay for venues instantly and facility managers and owner gets useful metrics to grow and improve their service in real time.

We are happy to partner for this event as it will provide us the opportunity to do what we know how to do best and provide the needed strategic logistics support to boost the event’s profile.” Also speaking, Founder, Event Basics, Tenidade Eboda, said: “The whole point of hosting/attending an event is to create fun and positive lasting memories. If we do not make efforts to identify and plan for the risks associated with the activities, we end up achieving quite the opposite.   The event will allow stakeholders to interact and compare notes. We are so excited to have VenueHero on board as a strategic partner.”Source: vanguardngr.com

Opinion: Nigeria is an emerging market, so the potentials are awesome. More investments are needed on this sector.

C.V.Akuta Media UK.

Financial Crime: EFCCC Arrest Jide Omokore.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has rearrested oil magnate, Jide Omokore, and will most likely slam money laundering charges on him today (Monday).

An official briefed on the matter said the businessman would be arraigned alongside Andrew Yakubu, a former Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, who has also been picked up.

Our sources said the duo would be charged before Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja on a four-count charge of money laundering.

According to EFCC insiders, other defendants in the case are Victor Briggs, Abiye Memnere, David Mbanefo, Atlantic Energy Brass Development Limited and Atlantic Energy Drilling Concepts Limited. Source: Premium Times.

Opinion: Time to face the music and clear your names.

C.V.Akuta Media UK.

Brexit: Britain is Not Leaving EU,Even If People Votes For it.

There is an incredible theory that a Brexit won't actually happen even if the public votes for it

A really crucial detail about the upcoming EU referendum has gone virtually unmentioned and it is probably themost crucial detail:Parliament doesn't actually have to bring Britain out of the EU if the public votes for it.

That is because the result of June 23 referendum on Britain's EU membership is not legally binding. Instead, it is merely advisory, and, in theory, could be totally ignored by UK government.

This incredible detail is explained in a new blog post by Financial Times columnist and legal expert David Allen Green.

Green says that no legal provision was included in the EU referendum legislation that requires UK Parliament to act in accordance with the outcome of the referendum.

This is unlike the last referendum held across Britain, the Alternative Vote referendum held in 2011, where the outcome had a legal trigger and had to be acted on by the government of the time.

Instead, what will happen next if the public votes for a Brexit will be purely a matter of parliamentary politics.

The government could decide to put the matter to parliament and then hope to win the vote, Green says. In the scenario of Britain's EU membership being put to a Westminster vote, barring no dramatic change in allegiances, it is likely that MPs would vote to keep the country in the 28-nation bloc.

This is because the vast majority of the 650 MPs identify as Europhiles and would likely support a motion position to protect Britain's place in the EU.

Pro-EU MPs could even argue, ironically, that ignoring the public's will would be parliamentary sovereignty in practice - something that Leave campaigners argue has been conceded to Brussels.

Alternatively, ministers could attempt to negotiate an updated EU membership deal and put it to another referendum. Finally, the government could just choose to totally ignore the will of the public.

Business Insider's live chart below shows how public opinion is shifting towards voting for a Brexit. Source: http://uk.businessinsider.com

Opinion: There are a lot of uncertainties about leaving. No one knows what will happen to the UK economy etc. The fear factor is enormous. Going by the above information, it seems Britain is not leaving the EU.

C.V.Akuta Media UK.