Leadership (Abuja)
12 October 2008
interview
In this interview with LEADERSHIP SUNDAY, Shehu Sani, a foremost social critic and human rights activist expounds on the Masaba case, saying that the decision of Masaba to have as many wives as he pleases is a burden he has chosen to bear, as such, it was wrong for him to be dragged to court on that count.
He also speaks on the ongoing constitutional reform to be embarked on by the National Assembly and the planned cabinet reshuffle. Excerpts:
From the stand point of a social crusader and a human rights activist, what do you make of the Masaba Saga?
First and foremost it is important for the general public to understand that we are human right activist. It is our voluntary vocation to defend and protect the interest, the right, the fundamental human right of individuals whether it is violated by the state, or by the institution of the states or by the apparatus of the state, or by another individual or groups.
We have been involved in this for as long as we can remember and the results we get for those who don't understand what we are doing is either insult or sceptism. But we are not bothered. Masaba's issue is one of several that we have gotten our self involved in. In 1999 or 2000 when Sharia was introduced and politicised by the former governor of Zamfara state regardless of how contentious it was, I was among the few that took the bull by the horn and made it categorically clear that what was happening was not about religion.
It was simply politics by politicians. As a result of that, many Ulamars and sponsored groups went about criticising, attacking and threatening us, to the point that in some worship centres, insults were muttered on my person because we spoke out. But fortunately, years after, we were vindicated because the major actors that made that a national issue are now being criticised even by their own people.
Last year, when I wrote a play I made it clear that the fundamental human right of citizens must be preserved and protected. And their religion must be a tool for socio-economic and political advancement of society. It must not be an instrument for exploitation, it must not be a reactionary instrument for undermining basic rights of citizens, and it must not be used for repression and entrenchment of the culture of silence and suspicion. Well what I got from that also was a lot of ctiticisms and insult but we were not bothered. When Masaba's issue came in, it came like a bolt. And old man in his 80s is holding custody of 86 wives, and it became a national and international news. The first reaction we had was a statement issued in Kaduna by some clerics threatening to pass a death sentence on the man if he did not divorce those wives.
Now, I don't know that body to have the authority or powers of the court. It is a faith-based non-governmental organisation and it has no right or authority to pass a death sentence on a Nigerian who is allegedly accused of having 86 wives because he still remains innocent. He ought to be presented before a regular court and the complainant, against him must be people that are directly involved-his wives or their own parents. So, our own involvement came as a result of the threat of banishment by the Emir of by the Etsu Nupe. Now threat of death and banishment are illegal and unconstitutional and as human rights groups, we stepped in to defend the right of this man. He has the fundamental right to live as a Nigerian and constitutionally, he has broken no laws. I as a person do not have 86 wives, so I simply see him as someone who has carried the burden unto himself. And if he has broken any religious law, the first order of a religious group is to counsel and advise him, and you do not threaten him nor do you threat to banish him because you don't have the right to do that and this is why we are there to assert that.
At what point can we draw the line between religion and the constitutional fundamental human rights of citizens?
Well I think these are the major problems confronting our judicial system and political order in the country. First of all we are a multi-religious society and secondly this is not a theocratic state, and as such applications of religious law could all be subjected to the vagaries and the supremacy of the common law. In the sense that, you can challenge the decision of the lower court at a regular court. We should understand that on issues of law, people should simply treat it as a matter of law. But what we do here is raise a lot of sentimental attitude. Once you are being condemned to have committed blasphemy or religious law, nobody wants to give you a fair hearing. And, it is because of this that you will never hear any human right organisation in old Northern part of Nigeria getting involved in issues that have to do with violation of fundamental human rights if it was done under the guise of religion. Because a lot of them are afraid to speak out, a lot of them are scared of what could be the out come of that. And even, when we had the guts and got involved in the issue, we got a lot of threats and insults via text messages, write-ups and even in places where we do go for worship. But unfortunately, people like us are not people that give in to threat because I know it very well that the powers of a cleric does not also involve that of determining which part of heaven I will be and thereafter.
Are you saying that the civil society has not done enough in Masaba case?
It's about people always prefering the soft side of activism, either defending a minister or taking up issues that are not controversial like the freedom of information bill, like the electoral reform, like the reform of the judicial system, like issues of resource allocation, like issues that has to do with budgeting. These are issues which the civil society wants to get involved in. But things that will threaten their own individual liberation and also threaten, things that are also controversial are not things which they want to get involved in. And if it this is all there is to activism it is better we stopped getting involved and look for other things to do. If you are a journalist and you are afraid of being sent to cover a war or if you cannot go out and source for news in times of crisis, I mean you are not actually a journalist. So we are only setting the pace. We don't believe that activism should simply be about conferences, seminars, press statement and advertorials. It should also be involved in taking on issues, no matter how sensitive they are and reasserting the need to do everything right and that is why we make a difference in activism.
Our own style of civil society activism is quite different from the way in which other people do theirs. During the time of the military, in the early 1990s, I can remember how I wrote a pamphlet and I mobilised groups of people to challenge Babanginda's regime and to challenge Abacha's regime. And you could not believe that during that time, many of those that called themselves activists were reporting my activities to the security agencies, some of them were even collecting money, some of them even came out openly in the media disassociating themselves with what I was doing because they were afraid of being arrested. Well, I was never afraid of being arrested. They were hobnobbing with Babangida and Abacha's regime and many of them also were being hypocritical about what they are doing.
Concerning the proposed constitution review, do you share the sentiments of those who are against the National Assembly procedure in reviewing the much anticipated constitution?
First of all I'm not a part of that group but I share a lot of their sentiments. And one thing that we should always put into consideration is that the issue of reviewing of the constitution was a pet project of the civil society groups. In 1999 the politicians were not interested in the kind of document that was given to them by the military, they simply wanted power.
Nine years after, we have become hostage of that defect. The attempts in the past to review the constitution under the president Obasanjo's administration had an evil intention of manipulating it to suit his own agenda of elongating his tenure. Now, the civil society groups fears are apt and right. If the chairman of the PDP which is Ogbulafor would repreatedly make a statement that PDP will rule for 60 years. So how do we trust a review of a constitution by a legislature and a government that is dominated by the PDP. And reviewing the constitution is not an exclusive prerogative of the National Assembly.
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.
