AIDS: OUR COURTS AND AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS

INTRODUCTION

The world is still being ravaged by the AIDS epidemic. Tears are constantly flowing for those we have lost and those living with HIV/AIDS. Hopefully someday the Red Ribbon and AIDS will be just a memory but until then we must remember and raise awareness about the myths and facts of the epidemic and the year 2008 World Aids Day is a perfect opportunity to do so.

As the World AIDS day 2008 approaches with the main theme “Leadership” for 2007 and 2008 with the slogan “Stop AIDS: Keep the Promise” for World AIDS day observances through 2010, I am using this opportunity to raise awareness of HIV/AIDS by highlighting the history and other salient issues that affect the fight against HIV/AIDS especially in Africa and in Nigeria in particular factoring in the role of the judiciary in the process as one of the things I can do to support the World AIDS day as prescribed by the World AIDS Campaign which took over the responsibility from the UNAIDS in 2005.

The tagline Leadership encourages leaders at all levels to stop AIDS. Building on the 2006 theme of Accountability, leadership highlights the discrepancy between the commitments that have been made to halt the spread of AIDS, and actions taken to follow them through. Leadership empowers everyone – individuals, organisations, governments – to lead in the response to AIDS.

HISTORY

The pandemic known as HIV/AIDS has decimated whole African villages especially in East and Central Africa since it came to the limelight in the early 1980s even though there are shards of evidence that tend to show that diagnoses or deaths from HIV/AIDS may have been recorded in 1959 in the Congo and in 1969 when a young American died in St. Louis and again in 1976 when a Norwegian sailor died of the same ailment. Not much of this disease was known in the 1970’s which has appropriately been dubbed the decade of silence, nothing was done and the disease spread as many more people got infected. Some scientists even believe that HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) probably transferred to human’s in Africa around 1930 and that HIV probably entered the American subcontinent through Haiti around 1966 when some infected immigrant from the Congolese war emigrated to Haiti.

HIV may have entered the US through Haiti around 1970, when African doctors began to see in opportunistic infections and wasting whilst western scientists and doctors remain ignorant of the growing epidemic. By 1981 AIDS was detected in California and New York and the first cases were among gaymen and then injecting drug users. In 1981 AIDS was reported among haemophiliacs and Haitians in the USA and in several European countries. The name “AIDS” – Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome – is created and community organisations in the USA and the UK began to promote safer sex among gay men who were infected in large numbers at this time.

The year 1983 was a turning point and alarm bells began to ring as AIDS is reported among non - drug using women and children. As a result, experts became more confident that the cause of AIDS is infectious. Three thousand AIDS cases had been reported in the USA and one thousand had died.

In 1984, scientists identified HIV (initially called HTLV – III or LAV) as the cause of AIDS and Western scientists became aware that AIDS was widespread in parts of Africa. In 1985, an HIV test is licensed for screening blood supplies even as AIDS was found in China, and has therefore been seen in all parts of the world.

By 1986 AIDS had become a global phenomenon and the seriousness of the pandemic began to dawn even on the pessimistic as more than 38, 000 cases of AIDS was reported from more than 85 countries. Uganda, one African country where the disease was rife began promoting sexual behaviour change in response to the AIDS pandemic. A year later, AZT became the first drug approved for the treatment of the disease and the UK and other countries increasingly acted to raise awareness of AIDS. In 1988, the American government conducted a national AIDS education campaign. Health ministers from around the world met to discuss and establish a world AIDS day.

Despite these initiatives, the infection rate grew scandalously such that by 1990, an estimated 8 million people were living with HIV worldwide, an astronomical increase from 38, 000 reported worldwide just four years earlier in 1986.

However in 1993, an unpalatable dimension was introduced into the AIDS saga when the approved AZT by the west is shown to be of no benefit to those in the early stages of HIV infection, infact some have contended and even litigated the issue that AZT accelerated the onset of AIDS in HIV patients. It is equally worthy of note that in 1994 AZT was shown to reduce the risk of mother – to – child transmission of HIV in another study and infant HIV infections began to fall in developed countries, due to the use of AZT, it was claimed.

In 1995, it came to be realized that anything short of a concerted global effort will not save mankind from the scourge of this dreaded disease. The UN and other regional bodies began to take note and this led to the birth of the joint United Nations Programme on AIDS (UNAIDS) in 1995.

Between 1996 and the year 2000, supposed progress was made as a combination of antiretroviral treatment is shown to be highly effective against HIV. In developed countries, many people began taking the new treatment. AIDS deaths began to decline in developed countries, due to the new drugs. Brazil became the first developing country to begin providing free combination treatment. In other developing countries, only a tiny minority could access treatment for HIV. Annual global spending on AIDS in low – and middle – income countries was $ 300, 000,000.00 (Three Hundred Million Dollars).

Notwithstanding these concerted efforts, it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs and the race to rein in HIV/AIDS that at the turn of the century, in the year 2000, an estimated 30 million people were living with HIV worldwide.

The efforts has however continued and in 2001 at a UN special session, world leaders set long-term targets on HIV/AIDS and in 2002, the Global Fund was established to boost the response to AIDS, TB and Malaria and at about the same time Botswana began Africa’s first national AIDS treatment programme. By the year 2003 AIDS drugs became more affordable for developing countries as the “3 by 5” campaign is launched to widen access to AIDS treatment but the first AIDS vaccine to undergo a major trial is found to be ineffective.

In 2004, the US launched a major initiative called PEPFAR to combat AIDS worldwide. The statistics continued to be grim and the reality alarming. By 2005, an estimated 40 million people were living with HIV, 10 million more from five years earlier, including 25 million Africans and more that 21 million people had died of the dreaded disease since 1981. Today 28% of people in developing countries who need treatment for HIV are receiving it. Annual global spending on AIDS in low – and middle – income countries has risen to $ 1.8 billion dollars. It is estimated that $ 14.9 billion dollars would be needed for a truly effective response.

AIDS AND AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS

I have recounted the history of the pandemic since it became widely known but the interesting thing is that whilst the earliest known cases were recorded in the west, the reality today is that the poor continent of Africa is the one which has become mostly affected. Of the estimated 40 million people living with HIV worldwide, 25 million of them live in Africa. In Africa, the disease kills by the hundreds everyday, Children are made orphans, parents lose loved ones, the youth who is the driver of any economy and a beacon of hope for the future is being cut down in his prime by the disease. By the sheer force of nature, he is most sexually active and sex remains the principal avenue by which the disease may be contracted and in the same vein, he is the one likely to inject drugs to spice up his system.

In all this, what is our government doing to check this disease and buck the trend. African governments say they do not have the resources to fight the disease effectively, there are no funds to spend on research, there is no vaccine in sight and the prospects of getting one soon is bleak, most of Africa’s poor cannot afford antiretroviral drugs and Thabo Mbeki added a curious dimension to the debate when he questioned the utility of antiretroviral drugs and the legal battle that ensued between the Government of South Africa and the big multinational pharmaceuticals which will not make the drugs cheap and freely available did the cause no good. Apart from these and ill coordinated awareness campaigns and some workshops/seminars with discussions thrown into the mix for good measure at bilateral, multilateral and regional levels, there is no clear cut initiative and strategy on the part of African governments to fight the disease.

African governments may well not have the resources, but if the sleaze, waste and corruption that permeates most of its countries national life is halved by two and the resources thereby released dedicated to fighting the scourge of HIV/AIDS and other killer diseases such as malaria and TB on the continent, the day may not be far off when the continent will need no aid donor to fight disease. Even with the lean resources, Africa does not spend a fraction of what it expends on arms on the fight against disease. From Abuja to Pretoria, Abidjan to Kinshasa, Dafur to Kampala, Rabat to Mogadishu, the entire continent is mired in crisis. Infact, it has being stumbling from one war to the other and the wars are increasing in intensity. Witness the unspeakable human tragedy unfolding in Dafur today, Mogadishu has remained ungovernable since 1992 and other flashpoints are emerging by the day, the Niger delta region of Nigeria for example, the decades long resistance in Uganda is gathering momentum, hitherto stable Cote d Voire is teetering on the edge of collapse. Too much innocent blood has been shed all over the continent since 1960. There is hardly any African country that has not witnessed war of one kind or the other. Any wonder then the continent is a rife dumping ground of caches of small arms? That Dafur is happening before our very eyes, a mere decade after Rwanda is proof that the specie of human beings that inhabit this part of the world will never learn. Whatever happened to the “NEVER AGAIN” resolve after Rwanda?

If our governments will not fight the disease, how on earth are they going to confront and handle the social, economic and political issues that are a consequential fall out of contracting the disease? In other words, what has our governments done about the human rights of persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA)? PLWHA have had to face difficult challenges in the course of their everyday life, they face discrimination, and they are stigmatized thereby aggravating the impact of the disease on them and on the society in several ways.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS

Good a thing, it has become accepted that for the epidemic to be curbed, the human rights of PLWHA must be respected and protected in the society. PLWHA are human beings and as such they are entitled to the basic rights which every person is entitled to. All the rights guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are as a matter of course guaranteed to PLWHA.

There are some international and regional human right instruments which are important in protecting the right of PLWHA. Some of these instruments are:

(i) International Guideline on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights.

(ii) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

(iii) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

(iv) The convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

(v) The Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

(vi) The Convention on the Rights of the Child.

(vii) The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

(viii) The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

(ix) Various International Labour Organisations Conventions and Recommendations.

As laudable as the Constitutional provisions and the international and regional human rights instruments are, they are observed more in the breach in many countries. Nigeria for example has ratified most of the international instruments and copiously provides for the protection of fundamental human rights in Chapter IV of the Constitution but the reality is that in Nigeria PLWHA are openly discriminated against and stigmatised in the work place, place of education, in employment, in prison, in healthcare and even in the home that should otherwise be a shield and a fortress for PLWHA. It has been reported that a High Court Judge in Nigeria once ruled that a plaintiff, who had tested positive to HIV could only be allowed into the court room to give evidence if a medical expert satisfied the court that her presence will not endanger the lives of other people in the court room. What an unbelievable ignorance on the part of an elite judge. Recently, it took the intervention of the Ministry of Education to stop a private University in Nigeria which insisted on an HIV test as a prerequisite for enrolling in the University.

THE GREAT GOOD OUR COURTS CAN DO

In a country like Nigeria, where discrimination is widespread as a result of socio – cultural factors and unfounded prejudices, it is imperative that the law courts should brace up and be in the vanguard of the protection of the human rights of PLWHA as has been done in other jurisdictions. A few examples of the proactive role the courts have played in other jurisdictions may suffice here.

On May 10, 2000 in N v. Minister of Defence (Case No. 1LC 24/98), a Namibian court ruled that the Namibian Defence Force (NDF) was guilty of unfair discrimination for refusing to enlist a man solely on the basis of his HIV status. In Hammel/Malaxos (25 November 1993, No. 73032000370929), a Canadian court found that the defendant (a Dentist) in refusing to treat the plaintiff because he was seropositive, had committed a discriminatory act contrary to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom, and awarded the plaintiff $ 1,000.00 in damages.

In Pacific Western Airlines Ltd. v. Canadian Airline Flight Attendants Association (1987) 28 L.A.C (3d) 291 (Can. Arb. Bd.), the court found that the employers conduct was wrongfully discriminatory: dismissing an employee from his job solely on the basis of his HIV status is unjustified. A case that coincidentally and interestingly answers the Nigerian judge is the Florida case of Peacock (In the matter of), 59 B.R 568 (Banker S.D. Fla. 1986) where the issue arose whether the fact that a person is HIV positive will require special precautions against contagion to be taken in the court room. The court emphatically answered no stating that no special precautions need be taken reasoning that HIV is not spread by casual contact, so there is no need for precautions to be taken in the court room.

The Arbitrator in Centre d’ Accueil Sainte – Domitille v. Union des employes de Service, local 298 (F.T.Q.) (1989) T.A. 439 (Tribunal d’ Arbitrage) held that an employer does not have the right to require a medical examination where the purpose is merely to obtain evidence that the employee is HIV seropositive.

On 1, August, 2000, a Venezuelan court ordered the Universidad Pedagogica Experimental Libertadore (UPEL), a powerful, sprawling Government subsidized University with eight main campuses and twenty other units throughout the country, to stop requiring an HIV test for admission. A timely wake up call for the private university that recently attempted same in Nigeria.

In Davis v. Walker, U.S.D.C. N.D. Alabama, AIDS Litigation Reporter 12/28/87 (opinion) the issue was considered whether a Sheriff’s failure to test all in - coming inmates for HIV violated the plaintiffs civil rights. The court held that the failure to test did not violate the plaintiff’s civil rights. The court also determined that the sheriff’s decision was reasonable based on the manner in which the infection is spread. Given that the known routes to transmission required participating in conduct prohibited within the prison system, the court found that the sheriff could properly eschew screening and testing each inmate in favour of stringent enforcement of rules against homosexuality and intravenous drug use in the jail.

In Ter Neuzen v. Korn (1992) 3 W.W.R. 469 (BC Supreme Court), The plaintiff patient alleged that she had been infected with HIV during an artificial insemination procedure in January 1985 and that the infection was due to negligence on the part of the defendant gynecologist who performed the procedure. On 20 November 1991, a BC Supreme Court jury found the gynecologist liable and assessed damages of almost $900,000.00 (Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars) though the case went on appeal.

Again in Pittman v The Canadian Red Cross Society (1994) O.J. No. 463, the Ontario court of justice awarded the estate of a man who died of complications from AIDS as a result of “tainted blood”, his widow and four children the sum of $515,075 in compensation for the tainted blood received by the deceased in 1984.

In R v Wentzell, File No. C.R. 10888 (December 8, 1999, N.S. Co. Ct.), Wentzell pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm. He knew of his infection and had been advised not to have unprotected sex. The court invoked the principle of deterrence and Wentzell was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a recommendation that he receive all necessary treatment and counseling. In Venter v Nel 1997 4 SA 1014 (D), the court granted the plaintiff damages in the amount of R 344,399,06 on the ground that the defendant had infected her with HIV during sexual intercourse. Damages were granted for future medical expenses as well as for the possibility of a reduction in life expectancy, psychological stress, pain and suffering.

In Applicant v Administrator, Transvaal and Others, 1993 (4) SA 733, the court ordered that the “Applicant” receive the medication (Gancyclovir) that was initially promised to him by a provincial hospital which had prescribed the drug along with preparing the patient for its administration upon its reneging because of the cost of the drugs. Similarly in Biljon and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others, CPD, 1997. Unreported 117778/96, the court awarded Applicants (2 of 4) access to anti – retroviral therapy (ARV) after the court dismissed the prison authorities’ argument of budgetary constraints as a reason for not providing ARV.

CONCLUSION

These examples show the good the court can do in the cause of the eradication of HIV/AIDS and in the protection of PLWHA and the health and larger interests of society. Our courts have not yet been faced with these issues, we hope that when the time comes as it definitely will the court can learn a few things from these examples from abroad.

As for African governments, we noted earlier, the statistics and the consequences for Africa are grim; our governments must as a matter of priority start doing the right things if the Millennium development goals and ambitious economic targets (such as Nigeria’s Vision 2020) across the continent must be met. What can be more important than securing the future of our Children? If our governments see no reason to act fast, I will supply one and it is simple “the last child to be cured or protected against HIV/AIDS will probably be an African child”.

STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA is a partner in the Lagos law firm of Fountain Court Partners.

STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA

Fountain Court Partners

Block 36B, LSPDC Estate

Ogudu Road

Ojota – Lagos.

08052066172

08098066172

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA: HOW THE LAW CAN HELP

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA: HOW THE LAW CAN HELP

Introduction:

I read with deep concern your feature article “Domestic Violence: When the Law Fails to Protect” in the Thisday Lawyer of Tuesday, September 20, 2011. It was indeed a sad, brutal and pathetic story for want of worse words. At times I wondered how all the things the woman in your story endured could even happen. The woman went through hell and I wept for all victims of domestic violence but we cannot afford to fold our arms and watch this evil fester. The law is not of much help in this part of the World because it is more of a cultural and social problem. Here it is still a man’s world where many think they have earned the right to chastise their wives. But this is by no means implying that domestic violence is a one way traffic. There have also been reported cases of wives abusing their husbands. Apart from assault; nagging, vulgar abuse and neglect of general marital duties by the wife to a certain degree may amount to domestic violence and abuse against the man.

Cultural, Social and Economic Issues:

It is crucial that the law takes into consideration our peculiar circumstances in dealing with this issue. There are too many closet abusers and domestic violence perpetrators than you think. Studies have shown that otherwise very successful men and even members of the clergy are involved. So as they say ‘things are not always as they seem’. For cultural reasons though, our women would rather put forward a bold face, flash cosmetic smiles and disguise the bruises with a generous dose of cosmetics with a veneer of ‘happily married’ and all is well to boot.

Like the experiences of the woman in your story, it is for these cultural reasons that victims suffer most. The family, friends and now most annoyingly the church are always likely to counsel patience, endurance and remind the victim of how love is long suffering and marriage is meant to last forever even at the expense of her health and life.

The very important Economic and Social factors cannot also be discountenanced. Here men are likely to have better jobs and earn more. Many women do not even work. In a situation like that it becomes so difficult to walk away from domestic violence and abuse especially in a country and an economy where Children are the ones who support their parents and siblings are also likely to be unemployed and in School even. Where your cousins, siblings and friends seem to be enjoying their marriages even where they might be getting as much abuse and enduring domestic violence as you are doing; who wants to be the one who is divorced? They will even say you walked out of your marriage. These are the serious dilemmas women who suffer domestic violence and abuse in our society face and is the reason why domestic violence and abuse festers and is perpetuated without fear of purnishment.

What is Domestic Violence:

Domestic violence may not lend itself to a particular or one encompassing definition because of the change in concept overtime and the shifting quicksand’s on which assumptions stand these days. What is domestic, family or intimate relationships used to be quite simple but not anymore so we will attempt to work with a few definitions which capture and suits our present purpose.

A study wrote “Domestic violence has traditionally been defined as violence in the home, or between family members. As society's definition of family has changed, so has the law's definition of family violence. While some states cling to the traditional view of domestic violence as between spouses or former spouses, increasingly legislatures are expanding the scope of the law to include children, relatives, unmarried persons living together, persons with a child in common, and even those in an "intimate relationship."

According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, “Domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, and intimate partner violence (IPV), has been broadly defined as a pattern of abusive behaviors by one or both partners in an intimate relationship such as marriage, dating, family, friends or cohabitation. Domestic violence, so defined, has many forms, including physical aggression (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, throwing objects), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; emotional abuse; controlling or domineering; intimidation; stalking; passive/covert abuse (e.g., neglect); and economic deprivation. Alcohol consumption and mental illness can be co-morbid with abuse, and present additional challenges when present alongside patterns of abuse.”

How the Law Can Help:

Domestic violence is no longer a family secret, it is now a public health problem and we must acknowledge it as such in Nigeria if we must draw the necessary focus to it and ensure the passage of relevant legislation to curb same. Apart from the general criminal laws on assault, sexual crimes and to a limited extent a few gender specific laws and the ones against Child abuse there has been no concerted effort and comprehensive legislation against domestic violence and abuse in Nigeria.

But in expanding the frontiers of the law for the prevention and protection of victims of domestic violence, Nigeria can learn a few things from abroad. For example one of the most potent weapons for addressing domestic violence is the Protective Order that excludes the abuser from the home. We shall come back to this very important order with drastic implications for the abuser and his victim shortly.

The cultural, social and economic impediments that victims face are indeed enormous and will not be dismantled any time soon but the law, our Government and relevant authorities will need to shed its indifference, take affirmative action and if indeed it is necessary enact gender sensitive/specific legislation to help bridge the gap and set us on the way to addressing domestic violence and create the necessary awareness and avenues to end domestic violence and abuse.

All Schools, Churches, Mosques, Employers, Medical Centres, the Law Enforcement Agencies and other social places of contact should be legally mandated and encouraged to have proper counseling and support units and to take more than a passing interest in those with whom they come in contact. The priority should be geared towards early detection of domestic violence and adequately address same and determine where continuous monitoring and evaluation may be necessary.

The Protective Order:

The protective order is an important legal tool which bans a person from the home on pain of arrest and enables the treatment of presence at home as a prelude to committing the crime of domestic violence as the protective order has transformed from being a mere Civil remedy to a Criminal weapon.

The standard method of redress for domestic violence victims in many United States jurisdictions is obtaining a protective order. These may be short-term, emergency protective orders, or longer term orders issued after a hearing. An emergency protective order in most cases is only issued where the applicant can show that there is a danger of immediate harm unless an order is issued. Such an order ordinarily is valid for only a few days, until a contested hearing can be held. After a hearing, the court may issue a longer term protective order.

A protective order may provide such relief as prohibition of further abuse; prohibiting contact with the victim; excluding the offender from the home, excluding the offender from the victim’s place of work or school; payment by the offender of spousal support, child support, monetary compensation or payment for alternative housing for the victim and other forms of relief.

The protective order once conceived as a civil remedy to be sought by victims themselves in court and enforced through contempt proceedings has become firmly a component of criminal law. The state itself now initiates, seeks and obtains criminal protection orders pursuant to criminal prosecution and violation of a civil or criminal protection order is now prosecuted as a crime, usually a misdemeanor and sometimes even as a felony.

Of all the reliefs provided by a protective order, the most far reaching and with far reaching consequences still for the parties is that which excludes the abuser from the home with drastic implications for property law and the old common law of home invasion, burglary. It is no defence that the person excluded from the home co-owns or even solely owns the property and any violation of the order may be and is often treated and prosecuted as burglary. To convict for burglary in the classic common law sense will require the offender to break into another’s dwelling with intent to commit felony therein. But here presence at home will suffice thus criminalizing mere presence at home. Any form of contact is usually prohibited. The person excluded will still have violated the order even if he was contacted by the victim and the order cannot be lifted at the instance of the victim. If we consider that the order which may initially be for three months can be repeatedly extended for up to three years in some jurisdictions then parties may well be staring de facto divorce in the face. For if there is no form of communication for that long period of time, what will be left of any relationship?

If we explore and use protective orders here in Nigeria, many grasping its full implications may not thread the path of domestic violence and/or abuse. Exclusion from the home aims particularly to reverse the power relations as the abuser is almost always likely to be in a superior power position. It seeks to protect the homestead, install peace and a measure of tranquility free from intimidation which will otherwise not be possible if the abuser were to remain at home. Off course this also brings about the unpleasant consequences of enforced separation which the parties could do nothing about even if they desire to resume intimate relations whilst the protective order lasts. In our circumstances however, we may seek ways to temper or ameliorate the consequences but I think a proper appreciation of these dire consequences will deter many an abuser and help end domestic violence.

Conclusion:

Domestic Violence is such a serious matter in Nigeria now and as the rest of the civilized world has done, we must find ways to combat and ultimately end domestic violence. Our circumstances may differ but there is no way we cannot adopt and adapt measures that have worked elsewhere to suit our local circumstances. One of those important measures we must adopt in the fight against domestic violence and abuse is the protective order.

The protective order is a drastic measure but what choice have we got in a world where domestic violence and abuse has become so common place. In an ideal world, the home is a fortress, a tranquil and a place of shelter from the vicissitudes of the outside world for afterall where else should a man (read woman) be safe if not in his own home? But we do not live in an ideal world. Until we get that Adamic world back where man is at peace with man and beast we must explore the use of the protective order to either curb or end domestic violence.

Stephen O. Obajaja Esq. is a Partner at the Lagos Law Firm of Fountain Court Partners.

STEPHEN O. OBAJAJA

Fountain Court Partners

Block 36B, LSPDC Estate

Ogudu Road

Ojota – Lagos.

08052066172.