Alex Wodi
Alex Wodi is a lawyer with a background in banking, commercial law, and international law spanning over two decades. He is a data privacy professional (CIPP/US) and certified in cybersecurity (ISC2 CC), a chartered Arbitrator (CIArb, UK), Mediator and Conciliator (ICMC), life learner and thought leader.
He has written several scholarly articles and is also the author of two books, "Garnishment Law and Practice in Nigeria, UK and U.S." (2023) and "The Most Expensive Real Estate and Other Works – An Anthology of Essays, Poems and Art Works on the Cusp of a Pandemic." (2021)
Available in Kindle Edition, Paperback and Hardcover on Amazon, and Barnes & Noble.
He recently finished his third book “AI Governance: A Necessity and Imperative,“ (2025) and is currently working on the fourth books on Data Privacy and Protection.
He is passionate about climate change, leadership, capacity building and intrigued by technology and innovation.
He has written several scholarly articles and is also the author of two books, "Garnishment Law and Practice in Nigeria, UK and U.S." (2023) and "The Most Expensive Real Estate and Other Works – An Anthology of Essays, Poems and Art Works on the Cusp of a Pandemic." (2021)
Available in Kindle Edition, Paperback and Hardcover on Amazon, and Barnes & Noble.
He recently finished his third book “AI Governance: A Necessity and Imperative,“ (2025) and is currently working on the fourth books on Data Privacy and Protection.
He is passionate about climate change, leadership, capacity building and intrigued by technology and innovation.
less
InterestsView All (20)
Uploads
Papers by Alex Wodi
If you are like me or most people, my early impression of Artificial Intelligence (AI) was largely influenced and shaped by Hollywood. I remember the doomsday scenario in the Terminator movie franchise. However, there is more to AI than killer robots or drones. AI has huge potential in such areas as finance, agriculture, manufacturing, medicine, robotics, research, education, autonomous vehicles, including law enforcement, military, and defence applications. AI like many human technologies and discoveries has a dual use problem. Meaning it may be employed for good or bad. It is often the fear of the latter that is reflected in movies. The rapid evolution of AI technology at breakneck speed has implications for humans and society. AI and Algorithm bias and discrimination, systemic and environmental risks, the intersections between AI and data privacy, torts, and IP rights violations have made AI governance a necessity and imperative.
This paper looks at global and regional efforts to come up with strategies and regulatory frameworks for AI governance. Chief amongst them include the OECD AI Principles; the EU AI Act; and the NIST AI RMF. The common thread running through these frameworks and legislation is identifying and categorizing AI developments and deployments according to their risk levels and providing guidelines for ethical and trustworthy AI with considerations for human safety and innovation. Also identified and examined are a few national and state efforts, namely in the US, UK, Canada, China, Nigeria, and Singapore.
The objective is to facilitate understanding of AI governance among AI stakeholders and arm AI actors with the tools to establish a robust AI risks management framework and compliance regime.
In Nigeria, section 84 of the Sheriff's and Civil Process Act (SCPA) requires the consent of the Attorney General (AG) to first be obtained before the commencement of garnishee proceedings for the attachment of money in the custody of a public officer. There are discordant opinions amongst lawyers and judges over whether the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) is a "public officer" within the context of section 84 SCPA to require the AG's consent in garnishee proceedings against the apex Bank?
On 15 December 2017 the Supreme Court decision in CBN v. Interstella 1 appeared to have settled the issue, but the controversy rages on with conflicting decisions and interpretations in subsequent Court of Appeal cases. I had earlier examined the issue, among other interesting issues arising from garnishee proceedings in my book, Garnishment Law and Practice in Nigeria, UK, and US. (2023). Recently, I re-read some of the conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal (CBN v. Ezeanya, CBN v. Hydro Air Pty, CBN v. Njemanze,CBN v. Zakari, CBN v. Lafferi, CBN v. Okon, CBN v. Kakuri, CBN v. Tivfa, CBN v. Adejoh, CBN v. Kruggerbrent, CBN v. Barbedos et al). Weighing both sides of the arguments across the divide a few points reinforced my choice as to which side had a more convincing approach to settling the disceptation. I decided to lend more ink to the controversy in the hope of offering clarity and a practical resolution in this paper.
The use of Big Data has implications for governance, risk, and compliance across the privacy program framework. The repercussions of non-compliance with data privacy and security standards, a data breach or unauthorized access could be catastrophic, and result in reputational damage, huge financial losses, and dire legal consequences.
This paper seeks to examine Big Data: what it is, and why it Matters, through the prism of data privacy, data security and trust. What are the emerging trends in data privacy and Big Data practices? How can governments and companies foster transparency, accountability, and address issues of ethical and responsible use of Big Data?
This paper examines what FIPs entail; Data Privacy and Security; The Basic Steps for Data and Information Management; Privacy Program Framework; Privacy Rule and Security Rule; Cybersecurity and Privacy; Incidence Response Protocol; Phases of Incidence Response; Privacy by Design; Privacy Enhancing Technologies and other security measures.
The paper is written in the context of a rapidly changing world with developments in artificial intelligence (AI), Big Data, IoT, Smart devices and advanced cyber threats and attacks. In the face of increased threats and cybersecurity breaches what security controls and measures are accessible to data privacy professionals and cybersecurity teams within organisations exposed to large scale personal data in their business operations and processes? The paper x-rays these issues and details measures, practices, and standards available to data controllers and data processors.
Keywords: Data privacy, Data protection, Privacy Program, Data and Information Management, Fair Information Principles (FIPs), Cybersecurity, Cyberattacks, ISO 27001, ISO 27002, Malware, Cybercrimes, 419 – Obtaining by False Pretenses, Zero-day-attack, Data Breach, Incidence Response, Privacy by Design (PbD), Artificial Intelligence (AI); Generative AI, AI Governance.
The role of the garnishee upon being served with the order nisi is not to fight a proxy war with the judgment creditor on behalf of the judgment debtor, rather the role of the garnishee is to inform the court of the status of the judgment debtor’s account or funds in the garnishee’s possession.
This paper reflects on the role of the garnishee in garnishee proceedings by examining the the provisions of the SCPA and JER and the decisions of the appellate courts (the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal).
child support, alimony, student loans, or
back taxes, or a court judgment has been entered against you.
This paper is on the law and practice of Wage Garnishment,
The exemptions that may be claimed and options available,
including filing for Bankruptcy (Chapters 7, 11 and 13 et al)
and the protections and restriction under the
Fair Debts Collection Practices Act.
This paper discusses the relevant law and principles.
The cases consolidated the restrictive theory of the doctrine of sovereign immunity captured in the erudite judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in the locus classicus Trendtex v. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) which recognised the exception of the sovereign engaged in “commercial activity”. “The King in the market place is subject to the same rules as all other common folk” as it was colorfully put and espoused by the Master of Rolls.
The paper is intended to inform and educate readers on the International law doctrine of sovereign immunity, the relevant cases, law and evolving principles and applicability.
Notwithstanding a two prong test prescribed in the law and rules, the issue of jurisdiction arises, when determining the proper court, in garnishee proceedings involving the Federal Government or its Agencies or Garnishee banker. This is in view of two conflicting Supreme Court cases which emphasized the dichotomy between subject matter and parties in making such determination. Creating two schools of thought and confusion amongst jurists, legal scholars and the different divisions of the appellate court. Until its subsequent resolution by the Supreme Court years later. This paper x-rays the controversy. Initially written in 2008/2010 same has been updated to reflect recent cases and trends.
This paper provides an overview of the Law and Practice in Nigeria. The paper also has a comparative analysis of the law and practice in UK and US. Also considered and referenced are the different methods of judgment enforcement (viz: Writ of fifa; Charging Order; Sequestration; and Judgment Summons); Forms 48 and 49; the Supreme Court decision in CBN v. Interstella alongside other Court of Appeal decisions (such as: CBN v. Njemanze; CBN v. Hydro Air Pty Ltd; Ibrahim v. JSC et al) on section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and the controversy about who is a public officer?; Interim and Final Third-Party Debt Orders (TPDOs); The attachment of cryptocurrency via TPDOs in the Ion's case in UK; Garnishment under Title 18 USC 3205; and the P&ID v. Nigeria saga.
The paper concludes with recommendations regarding the regime of garnishee proceedings in Nigeria and suggestions for statutory amendments and best practices. The paper is suffused and laced with many references and a bibliography that would aid further research on the subject matter in form of case law, articles and books. The paper has since been expanded into a Law Textbook published in Jan. 2023.
Keywords: Garnishee, Judgment Debtor, Judgment Creditor, Order Nisi, Order Absolute, Judgment Enforcement, Title 18 USC 3205, Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Garnishment, Garnishor, Money Judgment, Wage Garnishment, Third Party Debt Order, Judgment Debt
Drafts by Alex Wodi
Different jurisdictions use different rules. But the more common approaches are that either the lex loci delicti commissi (The law of the place where the tort was committed) or the lex fori (the law of the forum) must be chosen; or that these two laws must be combined under the concurrent liability rule. A newer view is the proper law approach, that is, a foreign tort should be adjudged according to the law of the place with which it has the most significant connection.
The foregoing choice of law tort rules have been espoused and adopted in a myriad judicial decisions and writings. Noteworthy amongst the cases are four major ones from which the rules have since crystallized. They are: Phillips v. Eyre; Boys v. Chaplin; Benson v. Ashiru and Babcock v. Jackson.
These four cross continental juridical musketeers, it may be said, form the backbone of choice of law tort rules study. The first two cases - Phillips v. Eyre and Boys v. Chaplin are authorities for the English common law position. The third case Benson v. Ashiru is a Nigerian case, which basically is an adaptation of the rule in Phillips v. Eyre to the Nigerian situation. The last case - Babcock v. Jackson states the American position.
All these various approaches and choice of law rules have been employed by the different jurisdictions to the tort choice of law problem. Each being adopted for different reasons, to wit: certainty, predictability, and ease of application. As well as flexibility and justice.
No single rule per se has been able to satisfy any (or all) of these elements without compromising one or all the others.
The lex fori or lex loci delicti rule, alone or combined in the double actionability rule may satisfy certainty but compromise the justice that comes with flexibility. While the proper law approach may satisfy the expectations of justice of the parties, it compromises the certainty and ease of application that comes with all the other inflexible and rigid mechanical rules (viz the lex fori, lex loci delicti and double actionability rules).
Perhaps what is needed therefore, is a super-rule, which would be an admix of three rules (viz, the lex fori, lex loci delicti and lex propria). The quint-essential all-purpose tort choice of law rule. Having the lex fori and lex loci delicti combined at the core acting as a general rule, while the lex propria, omni-patiently orbits the periphery, as an electron round the nucleus of an atom [comprising proton (lex fori) and neutron (lex loci delicti)], ready to meet the demands of justice as a flexible exception, in so called difficult cases.
The writer believes this would finish what the law lords started in Boys v. Chaplin. The maintenance of certainty through the general rule in Philips v. Eyre and safeguarding the interest of justice in special cases through the proper law approach.