Daily Independent (Lagos)
9 October 2008
interview
Mr. Wale Ogunade is a human rights lawyer and the president of Voters' Awareness Initiative. He spoke to our reporter, Dolapo Oseni, on the recent move by the National Assembly to criminalise communal violence, arguing that it is not a panacea to violence. He also spoke on other issues.
Mbeki's resignation to many Nigerians is a boost to democracy and a lesson for Africa; do you share this view?
Obviously it is a lesson, a very good lesson because in the history of democracy in Africa particularly at that level, this is the first time that someone would resign from office and of course it is a very good lesson. In fact, one way or the other, I would like to get in touch with Mr. Mbeki if not for anything to start a school on leadership, etiquettes and norms and values of the attributes of good leadership, particularly for training leaders in Africa. The last saga in Nigeria, I mean the PTDF scandal was not as close as Mbeki's problems but here was a man who threw in the towel but in Nigerian it was personalised to the extent that there was nothing they didn't call each other and of course, there was nothing they didn't call Atiku for even attempting to bring out to the open the wrong doings in the system. So that extent, I give kudos to Mbeki and I really appreciate that Africa and Nigerian politicians imbibe this lesson of if found wanting, you leave office rather than passing the bulk or personalising situations.
Do you think the creation of the Niger Delta Ministry will put an end to the myriad of problems in the region?
Our problem is not about structures; our problem is not about institutions but our problem is about the political will. Do we have the political will? The Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) is it not a pseudo ministry. The chairman and Managing Director of NDDC are given powers like that of a minister. They have the status of a minister; they are under the Presidency directly and of course the ministers are under the Presidency per se, so what is the difference? To me, it is just changing clothes; it is merely trying to bring an old wine in a new bottle. What I am trying to say is that whatever nomenclature they want, what we want is action, structures and solutions to the Niger Delta problems. For God sake, I have been to that area and I know the level of deprivation and injustice. What is the big deal in putting structures on the ground? Is it too difficult to build bridges, schools, hospitals and other vital amenities? These are the things these people want. Is it too much to ask for educational institutions for them to be trained in order to take them away from the creeks? All these are not too much to do. It is not about just changing. Before NDDC came up, obviously there was this issue of crime but ever since they have been there, they have been trying their best but it is not enough but one will expect that the government will empower them the more but again if it is in the wisdom of government believes the ministry will do it but of course that is bureaucracy, so if they think the ministry will do it then let them give that ministry the power to do it the way it should be done not that they will create it again and it would now be a trouble and a problem on itself.
There is this move by the Senate to criminalise communal violence and any act of terrorism, however, many are of the view that it is targeted at the Niger Delta agitators and they have prescribed a minimum of 20 years jail term for persons engaged in organised crime. Do you think this can stop the myriad of violence in the region?
It cannot stop violence. You see, I like this song by Peter Tosh that everyone is talking about peace nobody is talking about justice. They want to criminalise violence, kidnapping and all other activities under communal violence, what is the reason for that? Have you stemmed the cause of the problems? You see it is wrong to look for cure without first looking for solution. You solve the problem first before any other thing but now trying to bring in a draconian way of solving the problem does not arise or would never arise. Look, whatever and I would let the Senate know this that ever since the death penalty was introduced for drug couriers, drug barons, has it stopped people from carrying drugs. So what is the hell that is not the solution? Based on the oversight functions they have, they should go to the basics, see how the problems of the Niger Delta and all other communal feuds can be solved. They are the representatives of the people and they should do their work as true representatives of the people because as I talk to you, each of the community that has these feuds has senator, member House of Representatives representing that area, so they should be on ground, so if they are on ground, obviously they must have solutions. I am just coming from the kabiesi of Ikeja palace; we discussed one or two things and in between people are coming in to meet him for one problem or the other, so that is someone who is on ground. If these representatives are on ground, they will know the problems. The communities are they not people living there and these people, are they not the one they are representing so is a matter of our representative calling them and talking to them and they will say what their problems are, like this person's land has been encroached upon, how do we solve it? Then they will meet traditional rulers and government officers and within a twinkle the problem is solved but6 what do we find, well, if what we are hearing in the Truth Commission in Port-Harcourt is anything to go by then obviously you can have peace when some people who are supposed to engineer the peace are the ones funding violence. So I want to say actions of the senators does not mean well and they are not doing it out of good faith, they have some ulterior motives behind the move.
The President's recent Pronouncement on the removal of subsidy on petroleum products has generated a lot of controversies, what is your reaction on this?
It is okay, if they want to remove subsidy let them remove it and they should let us have everlasting peace. I know that this subsidy problem they have created will bring more problems than envisaged because we all know that petroleum drives life and kerosene feeds us and without it many homes will crumble because that is what they use in feeding. Petrol is what we use around in our various vehicles and offices. It is a lifeline because it is what we live on. If you want to remove subsidy as it is done in other cline let there be a cushioning effect. It is done world over, in Sri Lanka the government gives the people $10 to cushion the effect. In India, government removed subsidy but gave its citizens amenities and other infrastructures provided to make things work for them. it is only in Nigeria, this is not the first time that the issue of subsidy has crept up, in fact it is as if government is always playing pranks, they will say there will be cushioning effects, they will roll out various releases at the end of the day nothing happens but of course it goes into some private pockets. If they want to remove subsidy, it is fine but in my own opinion, let there be a palliative measure. The other time, it was the removal of toll fares and some others but we now pay more than the various tolls. There are various taxes that have come up through the back door, so the issue of subsidy, government should give it a serious re-think. You see, we are living in a democratic system, not in a military world anymore and of course the way it is, it is as if government is still living in its old past that is the military mentality, if not this is an issue which is based on public opinion and views because in democracy, the input of the people matters not somebody sitting down somewhere in Abuja and just pass on the law down here, that is not how it is done, people in Ipedumodu, Yenogoa, Akure, Ilase- okeodo, Papale, ikare Aramoko, Kasamunaka, Zaria, etc are supposed to be beneficiaries of this policies but instead they are affected by this policies from Abuja and if you go to Abuja it is another ball game entirely from the rest of the country. It is wise to make policies that would be beneficial to all.
Applicants for the SAN status are required to pay N250, 000 as part of the requirements; does this not mean that only moneybags can get the status?
Obviously the SAN status is for only successful lawyers. There is no pretence about it; the SAN position is for privileged, successful and for the top ranking people in the profession. So if you attain it and can sustain it, obviously a poor lawyer, new lawyer, small lawyer or a lawyer who cannot find his feet cannot aspire to be a SAN and before you become a SAN, I want to believe that the fee is to debar frivolous applicants; that is people who don't even have practice who just think because they are qualified. It is not about qualification in all your years but it is qualification too in terms of your financial status, it is your ability to have a chamber. Even the N250, 000 is not enough when you want to be conferred there are people who will come to visit your chambers to know that indeed you are qualified for the status and you have the required numbers of lawyers in your chamber, required experience, number of books, contacts, logistics to support that position because it is not becoming a SAN that really matters.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
