Daily Independent (Lagos)
19 November 2008
interview
DELE ADESINA, a Senior Advocate Of Nigeria (SAN), was a former secretary of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA).
An insightful commentator on policy and political affairs, Adesina, in this interview with SENIOR CORRESPONDENT DANIEL KANU, says Nigeria has had the problem of trial and error leadership while commending the Judiciary on the Edo verdict as having hope towards deepening democracy.
He examines other issues such as corruption, Vision 2020, Yar'Adua's Seven-point Agenda, Barack Obama's presidency and the problem with Nigeria.
Excerpts:
Let us start with the recent victory of Adams Oshiomhole in Edo election!
Well, you should expect what my reaction should be: it's a welcome development, a very welcome development and, I believe, in a limited way it has demonstrated that a system is evolving that has an inbuilt system or inbuilt mechanism to correct its own mistake in the course of that process. In other words, it's a kind of an assurance that if in the process of democratisation, mistakes are made or fraud(s) are committed, the system itself has an inbuilt mechanism that can right the wrong. So, it has given a hope that all is not lost; it has given a hope that the rule of law, ultimately in this land, is something to be proud of and I believe that it has given us that desired confidence that even though Rome was not built in a day, there is no day Rome was left un-built. So, the victory before the Court of Appeal is a part of that building process in our democracy. I believe, ultimately, we will get there.
Does it really bother you that almost over one year and six months after, there are still some cases in the court including the presidential election?
It bothers me, just as it bothers every right thinking member of the society, and it is not because those that are saddled with the responsibility, for instance, either at the tribunal level or at the Court of Appeal level or at the Supreme Court level, are not doing their best to terminate these cases, it is the system itself that has to be looked into. When I say the system itself, I mean a system that allows somebody whose election is being questioned to be sworn in and be performing the functions and responsibility of an office: with a big question mark to his eligibility. So that is the big question. Now, a good number of the tribunals, if not all, had wound up; decision have been reached one way or the other, and a good number of the cases are now pending before the appellate courts - either that they will terminate at the level of the court of appeal if they are gubernatorial petitions or at the level of the Supreme Court as it affects the presidential electoral petition. But we must look at the law itself that allows a swearing in to take place while the election of the person purportedly elected is being questioned. In America, you are fully aware that the election was held on November 4, the gentleman who won, Senator Barack Obama, will not be sworn-in until the January 20, and even if there is a petition against him, that petition will be dealt with before that date. You will recall the case of Bush and Algore, in year 2000. The United States Supreme Court terminated (the) case before the swearing-in was done. So. if it will take us, and this very important ingredient of our democracy and rule of law too, if you must attain justice the combatants must be at the same level. We say there is equality before the law. That fundamental principle of law is seriously called into question. If somebody is standing there as a governor with all the apparatuses of office, with all the influences of that office and is facing a petitioner who still remains as an ordinary person on the street, they are no longer equal. One, even the resources to fight the case are not the same because immediately you are sworn in, you have access to the resources of the state; and I do know that a good number of them fight this election petitions even with the states money, unlike the petitioner, you (who) have to be looking for money from here and there to pay the lawyers or what have you. So, we have to look at the Electoral Act. We have to create a space of three months or six months.
Whatever period we create, we must adhere to it to provide a time period between the election time and the swearing-in time so that all this election petition can be dealt with before the winners of the election assumes office. There is the need for the people to know whom their leaders are, and there is need for those leaders not only to satisfy acceptance principle but they must also satisfy the legitimacy principle.
Nigeria has clocked 48 years of independence: what is your candid assessment?
I think I have had the privilege of making one or two comments on the 48th anniversary of Nigeria, which was marked on October 1, 2008. To me, as far as democracy and democratisation is concerned, we have started well, there is a hope for the future that tomorrow will be better than today. And that optimism is predicated on the point that democracy itself is not an end, rather a process, many people interpret it to be an end - government of the people, for the people and by the people - that it must be ideal, it must be this and that... No, it is a process. Democracy must translate in the welfare of the people; democracy must translate in their acceptance of people's will, the supremacy of the will of the people. That is why we say the sovereignty resides with the people. The people's vote must count. But when you are talking in terms of the provision of infrastructure, when you are talking in terms of our education system; when you are talking in terms of mobility of people from rural areas to the city, we have not fared enough in these 48 years. That drift ought to have been arrested and by now we should be able to turn our taps and water will come out, by now we should be able to enjoy uninterrupted power supply, by now we should be able to drive on good roads in Nigeria, 48 years after independence.
If two years to 50, we are still driving on bad roads, we are still having epileptic supply of power, we are still having leaders we cannot really say they are tested leaders in the sense of having selfless leaders, leaders who will look at what they want to achieve for the larger society and not for themselves, we are still far behind. The scripture says that a man that cannot provide for his house is worst than an infidel. The house of our leaders is Nigeria and the people that are living there, and it is a known fact to you and I that substantial majority of the Nigerian people are on the street today looking for what to eat. Children that will otherwise be in school are roaming about the streets begging for arms, particularly on the streets of the cities. It should not be so.
What can you pin down as the cause of this problem?
You see, leadership plays a very pivotal role in the development of a nation, because they shape the course that everything should go. If the leadership is right, the followership will be right. If there is no leadership, there can be no followership. If you have leaders in the sense of having committed leaders, focused leaders, pragmatic and practical leaders who have firm knowledge of what they want to achieve for the people and will set about implementing that, which they want to achieve for the people, then there will be growth.
In other words, it will not be a game of trial and error. By and large, in this nation, I think we have been having this trial and error leadership and that is why we are not getting it right. That is why also, like the Yoruba will say, if you take a step forward and two steps backwards, the cumulative effect is a step backward; and that is retrogression. Now, you take, for instance, our educational system in Nigeria today. There was a time in the history of this nation when we could boast that HSC certificate in Nigeria was equivalent of the degree in the U.S.A. But, can we still say the same thing today? Now, you want to ask: what has gone wrong? Is it that we did not have the resources to fund our educational system? I will say - we have the funds, enough funds. But we did not get our priorities right and, again, is it the duty of the followership to get the priorities, right? I will say no, it is that of the leadership. In a country where we now see as a phenomenon, where our leaders prefer to establish their own educational institutions, well funded with more than buildings, first class lecturers over and above public institutions that have gone down the drain, who do you blame? Is it the ordinary man on the street? The answer is no. So, this has to do with selfless leadership.
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.
