Prince E. Uwa Umoh

Husband. Student of Life. Law Practitioner. Corporate Compliance & Property Advisor. Arbitrator. Mediator.Chartered Trustee. Rotarian. #ManU @BRIGHTSTAR

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

With over 7k registration on our portal and post incorporation resolutions. We are the leading connect to handle you company issues with CAC

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

11. The protection applies only to communications made during marriage. A statement made before marriage does not suddenly become privileged because the parties later exchanged wedding vows. Likewise, where a communication is made openly before friends, neighbours or relatives, its confidential character may disappear. The law protects secrets shared in confidence, not announcements made before an audience.

12. The protection is also not absolute. Where the dispute is between the husband and wife themselves, such as divorce proceedings, child custody disputes or claims relating to matrimonial property, the law may permit disclosure of relevant communications. Similarly, the Evidence Act creates exceptions in certain criminal matters, particularly where one spouse is accused of committing offences against the other spouse or protected members of the family. The law will not allow marital privilege to become a shield for domestic wrongdoing.

13. It is therefore wrong to assume that marriage provides a hiding place from the law. A spouse who participates in a crime, receives stolen property, destroys evidence or assists an offender may still be investigated and prosecuted for his or her own actions. The principle is easy to remember. The law protects confidence, not conspiracy; trust, not trickery; marriage, not misconduct. What is preserved is the sanctity of the relationship, not the secrecy of a crime.
PRINCE E. UWA UMOH,OOW
Lead Counsel
Brightstar Law Consult

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS AND WITNESSES WHO CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE PART I:

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE

1. The work of the Police and the courts is, in simple terms, the search for the truth. For that reason, persons who know something about a crime, dispute or important event may be invited by the Police to make a statement or summoned by a court to give evidence.

2. A person who ignores a lawful Police invitation may eventually discover that what began as an invitation has become an arrest if his presence is necessary for an investigation. In the same way, a person who treats a court summons as an ordinary piece of paper may find himself facing a warrant of arrest, contempt proceedings or other unpleasant consequences. The law expects citizens to assist in the administration of justice, not play hide and seek with it.

3. Yet, the law also appreciates that not every conversation is meant for public consumption. Some words are spoken in confidence, some relationships are built on trust and some disclosures may do more harm than good. For this reason, the Evidence Act protects certain communications and prevents some persons from being compelled to reveal information, even where that information may be relevant to a case.

4. One of the oldest and most cherished of these protections concerns communications between husband and wife. Section 187 of the Evidence Act provides that a husband or wife cannot ordinarily be compelled to disclose a communication made by the other spouse during marriage.

5. The reason is not difficult to understand. Marriage is more than a legal union; it is a partnership built on trust. A husband should be able to speak freely with his wife and a wife should be able to speak freely with her husband without the constant fear that their private conversations may one day be repeated in a courtroom.

6. In everyday language, the law protects what many people call "pillow talk". The matrimonial bedroom is a place for affection, companionship and confidence. It is not intended to serve as an extension of the witness box.

7. Every marriage has its quiet moments. The husband returning home after a long day. The wife sharing her fears about tomorrow. The late night conversations when the world is asleep and two people speak openly because they trust each other. The law recognizes the value of those moments and gives them protection. Suppose, for example, a husband quietly tells his wife:

" _My dear, I was involved in the incident everybody is talking about. Please do not tell anyone_ ."

8. The following day, the Police may arrest the husband and investigate the allegation. However, the wife cannot ordinarily be compelled to disclose that communication merely because it may be useful to the investigation.

9. The law takes the view that society gains more from preserving trust in marriage than from turning husbands and wives into reluctant informants against each other. After all, a marriage in which every conversation is measured against the possibility of future cross examination is unlikely to be a happy one. This protection, however, is not a licence for wrongdoing. The law protects confidence, but it does not reward misconduct.

10. An important distinction must therefore be made between what a spouse is told and what a spouse sees. If a husband tells his wife, "I stole the motorcycle," that communication may be protected. However, if the wife personally watched him steal the motorcycle, ride it home and hide it behind the house, those are facts she observed for herself. Put simply, the law may protect the confession made on the pillow, but it does not necessarily protect the conduct witnessed in the compound.

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

12. For in the end, infrastructure is not an abstract ideal but a lived reality. It is the difference between a child in the village sitting for an examination with dignity or being shut out by distance and hardship. It is the difference between potential fulfilled and potential wasted. Local Governments must therefore move from contemplation to construction, from policy to purpose. The moment demands action, deliberate, immediate, and sustained, to bring opportunity closer to the people and ensure that no child is denied a future simply because access was too far to reach.

PRINCE E. UWA UMOH
(The Faithful of God)
Brightstar Law Consult
Ikot Ekpene

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT PROMOTES EDUCATION:

A CONSTITUTIONAL INVOCATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS TO BUILD CBT EXAMINATION CENTRES**

1. There is a quiet crisis, subtle yet severe, shaping the destiny of our young people. It is not the absence of ambition, nor the lack of intellect, but the cruel distance between them and the platforms that test their future. Across many communities, access to Computer Based Test centres has become an unintended barrier to education itself.

2. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, particularly the Fourth Schedule, does not speak in timid tones. It expressly empowers Local Governments to participate in the provision and development of education and, more importantly, in the development of infrastructure that promotes education within their locality. This is not a relic of governance. It is a living mandate demanding modern expression.

3. Education has outgrown the chalkboard. It now breathes through screens, networks, and coded systems. With the transition by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board to Computer Based Testing, and the evolving framework of the West African Examinations Council, access to technology has become the new gatekeeper of opportunity.

4. Yet, in many localities, young persons travel for days, spending scarce resources on expensive sleep overs, or rise at dawn to embark on long journeys just to access CBT centres, arriving tired, worn out, and exhausted before the examination even begins. Hope, for them, is not only tested by examination questions, but by distance, cost, fatigue, and risk.

5. These harsh conditions impair concentration, dull alertness, and erode the mental sharpness required for success in a time bound, technology driven examination, making performance a casualty of circumstance rather than a true reflection of intellect.

6. Private CBT centres are often concentrated in urban areas where profitability is assured, leaving rural communities underserved. Education, however, is not a commodity that should be dictated solely by market forces. It is a public good, and its enabling infrastructure must reflect that character. Local Governments cannot, in good conscience, surrender this vital artery of educational access to private enterprise alone. Where profit hesitates, governance must advance, and the widening gap must be deliberately bridged.

7. The establishment of CBT centres by Local Governments is not an innovation beyond law. It is a fulfilment of it. Examination bodies already utilise third party centres, demonstrating that infrastructure and examination authority are distinct. What remains is for Local Governments to step into a space already recognised, yet insufficiently occupied in underserved areas.

8. A CBT centre, in its quiet hum of processors and flicker of screens, is more than a building. It is a bridge. A bridge between rural isolation and national opportunity, and indeed a gateway to international possibilities. A bridge between aspiration and admission. A bridge between what is and what may yet be.

9. Beyond examinations, these centres can transform into hubs of digital awakening. When the examination season fades, the same facilities can train minds, sharpen skills, and ignite possibilities. In their circuits lies not just data, but destiny. In their operation lies not just service, but sustainability.

10. Properly harnessed, such centres can generate revenue, sustain maintenance, and evolve with technological demands. Thus, what begins as an act of access becomes an ecosystem of empowerment, where learning, opportunity, and enterprise converge.

11. The question is no longer whether Local Governments can act. The law permits. The need compels. The future insists. The only question that remains is whether leadership will rise to meet the moment.

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@mediaablogg However, while that is so, a combine reading of the verse shows that it was refers to a man. The Bible verse uses the pronoun "he" and "his". So, yes it is the duty of a man to provide, a woman is but a help meet

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@mediaablogg Thank you so much for your comment on the Bible verse of 1 Tim 5:8, actually what is in my head is if any man does not provide for his household. I did not notice that the Bible verse in all versions said "if anyone".

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@Topboychriss

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@Topboychriss ,4 be hhx see b

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@Asiwajuson23 @Imranmuhdz @woye1 All politics is local and most of the voters are not on X. Now have you considered the quality of the candidate within the constituency. That is what the electorate considers and not the party

[Chris @only1topboyy]

BREAKING:

Labour Party Governorship Candidate in the 2023 Rivers State Governorship Election, Mrs. Beatrice Itubo pledges total support for Governor Sim Fubara.

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@ruffydfire Seriously empty vessels make the loudest noise. You are just a man working for another to make ends meet. Keep quiet people are making money and do things you can only imagine. The worst is that you are not even good at the thing you choose to identify your life with

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

Count on us, your sure plug

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

Today @AirtelNigeria has so frustrated my life. Who can assist me with a customer care number that I can speak with an agent or help me subscribe on my router

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@Sports_Doctor2 This Obidient Movement have brought so much vibe and emptiness into this election cycle. They tend to take everything seriously without legal basis.

[BlackHistoryStudies @BlkHistStudies]

Grand Rising Global Family! #SelfCare #SelfPreparation #MondayMotivation #PositiveVibrations #Focus #Goals

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@Arch_kelvin @fkeyamo @officialABAT May 29, 2023 as sure as the break of dawn

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@DBDamba @Topboychriss It's the same pattern that Obaseki used to remove Oshiomole in APC, Wike used same to remove Secondus, and now Ortom is playing the same card to remove Ayu.

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@Eqdr101 I do not agree with you on this point. We respect our indigenous host. History abounds of various communities rewarding persons in their communities. But it is disrespectful to takeover the Govt of the host community.
We are in Nigeria, our culture is different from oyigbo

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

@Maryama15620642 @inecnigeria @icpcnigeria @PremiumTimesng @SaharaReporters @eu_eeas @OfficialAPCNg @AUC_PAPS I am from Obot Akara and I am in APC, however I will caution you from making a general statement when referring to people. Politics is local, Obot Akara people may be enjoying good governance in the party they support. The opposition is not united.

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

INEC should be interested in the blatant infringement of the electoral law in Akwa Ibom State. PDP should be disqualified while the persons in the photo should be prosecuted.

[Prince E. Uwa Umoh @fitfiddle]

In many churches in Akwa Ibom the compromised clergy turned churches to Political indoctrination for the PDP.