As the nation moves towards another political transition, what role do you think the judiciary has to play to ensure a difference in the next political dispensation?
The role of the judiciary as an arm of government is as stated in Section 6 of the Constitution. It is mainly to adjudicate among parties which atimes, may be between citizens; between government and citizens and between government of the state and federal.
Since you specifically mentioned political transition, I believe that you are mostly concerned with elections. The judiciary has in a way done its best in ensuring that politicians play according to the rules. This role had been misinterpreted in the past to mean that the judiciary is taking over the roles of the electorate. This may be so but duly in line with the extant law. What do you want the court to do where the party put forward a person that did not participate in the party’s primary or put forward a candidate that the only educational qualification that he has is dancing? The law presumes that in that situation, the party has not presented any candidate thereby opening the way for the next candidate that has a majority of lawful votes!
Naturally this negates the wish of the electorate but one should not forget that the electoral law puts a time window. It will amount to rewriting the law to order for fresh primary when time for the same had elapsed.
By now the politicians have known that internal democracy is sine qua non to electoral victory and not votes garnered in election. In any case, you cannot put something on nothing!
The belief in many quarters is that the judiciary has in a way been part of the problems of the country since 1999 by giving curious judgments such that persons that do not stand in for election, for example, are made governors. What can you say about this?
As stated earlier, the judiciary has a role to play as the watchdog of the politicians. Laws must be obeyed. Think of it, the politicians are the people elected into the national Assembly. They make laws, not the judiciary. Laws are not made for fun. Who is to be blamed if a political party fails to comply strictly with the law? The full weight of the law must be applied without minding whose ox is gored. Judiciary has never been a problem in this democratic set up but the problem of the arrogant politicians who believe that laws are made for fun. We should be grateful to God that gave us a fearless bench. You can see what happened in Rivers and Zamfara states where the party in government had all its candidates disqualified in all elections from the state to the National Assembly! Could that be done prior to 1999? From the High Court to the Supreme Court, the decisions on Rivers and Zamfara were unanimous. That is a panel of no fewer than nine judges. The judiciary has matured; one hopes the executive and the legislature could grow up too.
Does the law have to be an ass most of the time just to allow the guilty in quote to escape the long arm of the law?
It is an age long adage that the law is an ass. It could be until you ride and find it to be a burning fire! Who are the guilty? How do you decide who is guilty? It is like football spectators wanting to select players for a team. Do they know the capacity and ability of each of the players? Justice is not what you hear in the media. The prosecutor must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In my early days, my client was coming from Okitipupa with a lorry load of what the police and my client called cannabis sativa, popularly called Indian hemp. My client made a confessional statement. Seven witnesses, including the driver, were called and they closed their case. I made a no case submission because no laboratory result was tendered to show that what was alleged to be Indian hemp was not ewedu or soko. Incompetence of the prosecutor and/or modern day filing of over 30 charges for a case that good prosecutors of yore could secure life sentence for on only three or maximum of five charges are impeding securing sentences for offenders.
With the Supreme Court declaration that the Executive order 10 is unconstitutional, what do you think of the quest for devolution of powers, other reforms designed to achieve a coordinate arrangement in Nigeria’s federalism?
The intention behind EO10 is good but it crossed the red line. It is a blatant breach of separation of power. The President put it upon himself because those who are saddled with the responsibility at the state level shirked their duty. It is heart burning to see a Chief Judge going to a Governor with cap in hand to beg for what rightly belongs to the judiciary. Courts are still operating under the archaic pre-colonial era of long hand and court rooms are becoming dilapidated. These days you find judges’ cars breaking down in no man’s land thereby exposing them to kidnappers and vengeance seeking defendants sentenced by them. Let the Judiciary stop being docile. Since all disputes end on their table, there should be protestation judgments; the type that will ensure that a recalcitrant governor does not receive their discretion in borderline cases with obiter dictum stating that whosoever that does not respect the independence of the judiciary should not expect justice from it!
Have we really tried to test the Constitution of the country on some of the powers of states usurped by the centre, instead of people just calling for restructuring of the country and power devolution?
The constitution cannot be stretched beyond its content and context. There is the exclusive list with 68 items and the concurrent legislative list with 29 items. While only the Federal Government can legislate on the exclusive list, both could legislate on the concurrent list. However, where the two legislate on the latter, state legislation is deemed null and void to the extent of inconsistency. Thus, the Federal Government of Nigeria is the most powerful among countries operating a federal system of government. So if a state should legislate on the Nigerian police and goes to court to test the same, it will amount to embarking on a wasted effort. In areas where the centre had taken over the power of the states, courts have risen up to the situation, an example being EO10 and VAT. However, the exclusive legislative list will have to be revisited to reflect true federalism.
Where do you think the current hide and seek over the Electoral Act and general electoral system lead us as a country?
It is a game of two people hunting in a forest. One said that it has appeared and the other said I have gripped it. The one that lied that it appeared asked the other what he gripped and he replied that it is what the other said appeared. No doubt, governors are the most powerful politicians in the Nigerian political firmament. They decide who takes what. Most of the legislators are there at the pleasure of the governors. Hence, the legislators are doing everything to wrestle this power from the governors to save their necks. However, in doing this, they have forgotten that the president stands as the governors’ godfather. He did not sign. Even if he had consented, would it not have been set aside for intruding into the domestic affairs of parties in choosing the manner they will run their primaries?
The Uwais panel recommendation of the electoral offences commission remains a pipe dream. What are the implications of the laissez faire attitude of the authorities on the recommendation, given the nature of offences that characterise our elections?
We don’t have independent law enforcement agencies. Those who are contesting elections are those committing electoral offences. If they win, the first thing they do is to release all those in police custody. They also have the right of executive pardon to release those convicted. With all respect, our institutions have not matured to the level of independently investigating electoral offences and punishing the offender with the police not afraid of backlash from the concerned political parties. Most governors have given police commissioners a marching order to leave their state with IGP forced to comply with the same by order from above.
How optimistic are you on the ongoing Constitution review or amendment addressing the genuine demand, desire and fear of Nigerians about their country and why?
What Nigeria needs is a comprehensive Constitution not a patch-patch rag tag one! But for the fact that nobody has taken it up by filing an action against it, this Constitution cannot stand. It told a lie against itself. It started with “We the people”. Are we the people members of Abubakar household and other military juntas that constitute the people of Nigeria? The constitution has not been tested by public interested people and I think we will soon get there. It told a lie against itself when it says it is federal yet some federal agencies like NJC are appointing and disciplining state judges; ICPPC and EFCC are charging councillors to court for embezzling local government funds and Attorney General of Federation was executing judgment of the Supreme Court against a state. The constitution as it is, is democratic fraud on Nigerian people; little wonder that it has been adopted by a fraudulent legislature for a fraudulent generation. Let us all rise and frame a constitution that is truly Nigerian in reflecting our culture and finance. Bicameral legislature at the national level is a colossal waste of resources. Ministries are in triplicates as in federal, state and local government. Why can’t the Federal Government face military, external affairs and finance and leave others like agriculture, education, VAT, trade, mining etc to the states.
Why has the judiciary failed to complement the other arms of government and anti-graft agencies in the battle against corruption in Nigeria?
Judiciary has in this country sentenced MDAS heads, governors, ministers and even judges to prison terms for corruption. If anyone fails, it is not the Judiciary but the executive using prosecution for corruption as punishment for non-members of their parties. Like I said earlier, how can you bring up 20 to 150 charges against an individual and expect to prove all? What of the compromising roles of prosecuting agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). If one listens to recent allegations of finding some of their officers with billions of naira, one would see why high profile politicians are escaping terms. The judiciary adjudicates on the evidence before it and cannot go beyond that.
What would you do if you had to take on a case that is against your values?
You find a way to reject it by charging high fees. I don’t do divorce and people know that. It is not on a religious level but because I don’t believe divorce is a solution to marital problems. I don’t also institute land matters especially where there are existing buildings on the land of over 12 years old. I only defend in land cases.
How can the legal system be improved to make sure all people get a fair trial?
To get fair trial for all, there should be a law that every SAN must handle three pro bono cases a year to retain their title. In the alternative, they should be appointed acting judges with minimal fee in deciding offences that carry no death penalty. Most importantly, police must never be allowed to prosecute any case in all law courts whether or not they are lawyers or lawyers who have not spent at least three years in the Ministry of Justice. Administration of Criminal Justice Law has also done a lot to create fair trial for all save that there is a need to make it to supersede other laws, especially law of evidence, where there is conflict.
Have you ever had a ruling that you felt was unfair and how did you handle it?
Judges are human. Many a times, the mistakes are not deliberate. But I have seen instances when I was intimidated by a judge because of his interest in the other party. In an election petition, a judge now heading one of the federal courts today in collusion with other members frustrated me in a petition in Osun State. I didn’t lose my head. I appealed to the Court of Appeal. I won. The judge was removed as Chairman and every other judge from his court in election petition tribunals was withdrawn. You are a senior Advocate of Nigeria because instead of disrespecting the court when the judge comes into the arena, you keep your head and file an appeal.
There is a belief that lawyers enable criminals, what will you say about this?
How can that be? The law sets a limit to how far a lawyer can go in the defence of his client. Truth is like a coin. While one can say as far as he could see, it is a tail; that does not mean that the person who saw only the head from his side is a liar. The proper definition of which of them substantially constitutes a coin depends on the statute and the judge interpreting it. In my Indian hemp case, could I have been held to enable crime when the police refused to take samples of the weeds to the laboratory for confirmation of it as cannabis sativa as provided by statute. Efinrin smells and looks like Indian hemp when dried. There is a need to prove which is which. The prosecutor must be properly trained to do his job.
What’s your opinion on perceived corruption in the judiciary?
It is true that the bench is a reflection of the larger society. Judges are appointed from the lawyers practising within the society. Though I see some judges living above their means, I have never seen a judge asking me for a bribe in my close to four decades of practice that sometimes involve high profile cases. Sometimes I wonder why none demands a bribe from me. I also enjoy the confidence of my client that if they had offered a bribe to a judge, they would tell me. I believe that 90 per cent of these allegations are made by bad losers. In any case there are other eight Justices to meet at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to review the judgment. So why will one bribe a judge? In a constitutional matter or presidential election petition, it could be 12 senior justices of both courts!
There are rising cases of ‘fake’ lawyers, how is it becoming phenomenal, what has gone wrong and how can this be curbed?
Even though almost every university in Nigeria has faculty of law and law school is dishing out thousands of half baked lawyers that are more of academicians than lawyers, the populace cannot afford the services of lawyers. This leads to employing fake lawyers who are mainly law class dropouts, ex-court and lawyers clerks and retired servicemen. There was one in Ibadan in the mid eighties who won his case up to the Court of Appeal. He was very good in court at cross examination. It was later discovered that the name “Nwanozike” that he was using belonged to a deceased female lawyer. Another one, a lady this time, about three to six years ago contested and won election as an executive member of NBA Ibadan Branch. The introduction of written address, branch ID card and stamps have reduced this class to a minimal level.
