GETTING the Nigerian Bar Association President, Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN, for an interview was a little bit of an uphill task. It is understandable because the NBA topmost seat demands much of its occupant's time. When an initial contact was made on telephone sometime last November, he requested for a little more time to enable him fix an appointment. A few days later when he picked a call that was put through, he was far away in Ilorin attending an official meeting. He was due to return the following week. That response dampened a nurtured hope of an early interview.

It was at the time Mallam Nuhu Ribadu's travail was getting to climax, so an interview with the NBA president was necessary.

The expectation of securing a definite interview appointment was cracked when he was contacted again. He had travelled to Ghana to monitor the country's election and he was scheduled to return mid-December last year. After his return, another call had to be made to know if he would be in Lagos or Ibadan just before Christmas.

On Monday, December 22, he confirmed he was in Ibadan and he agreed to grant the interview the following day. That meant going to Ibadan since he would not be in Victoria Island NBA Secretariat earlier than this week. He even suggested the interview be postponed till he returns to Lagos. Delay is dangerous, it was reasoned.

Considering the volume of heavy traffic and the last minute Christmas rush, it was ill-advised to travel out of Lagos and hope to return to office same day. Thus, Vanguard Ibadan Correspondent was detailed to conduct the interview.

Late Tuesday December 23, afternoon, Mr. Akeredolu fielded questions on sundry issues in the polity. He spoke on judiciary, President Yar'Adua's administration, rule of law, Ribadu, 2011 elections, etc. Excerpts:

How would you assess the role of the judiciary in the polity since you became president NBA?

I became the president of NBA on September 3, 2008. I have spent about five months in office. For me to assess the judiciary the way I see it, without fear or favour, I would say it has done pretty well in this democratic dispensation. The judiciary is soldiering on just like soldiers.

The legal tussle between President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua and the former Vice President, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar as well as General Muhammad Buhari (rtd) has been put to rest by the Supreme Court. What is your view on the judgment which was greeted with mixed feelings considering the earlier comment of the president himself that the election was flawed?

All of us know that it was an election that was fraudulent which former President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, conducted. It was flawed in all respects. In fact, there was no election in 2007. That was the assessment of all of us who monitored the election, that is, the international observer group, monitoring body and the NBA. Everybody came out and said the election was flawed. The election petition is a different thing.

It has to operate within the confines and ambit of the law _ the electoral law and the constitution. So, in proving the case in court, that is a different thing. The fact that we observed or knew that the election was flawed does not make proving the case according to law easy.

You still have to prove the case. What we are talking about now is proving the case according to law. If you want me to assess the judiciary with that one in mind, I would say that the judiciary does a lot more than that. Not only in election petition, that is why I said the judiciary has done fairly well.

I don't agree with the majority decision of the Supreme Court, I agree with the minority judgment, but I still believe it is a good development for our law. At least people know that the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in which only four justices sustained the election as being alright. But to me as a person, the reasoning of the three is sound, nobody can fault it easily. At the end of the day, it was four against three. That was fair enough.

What is your advice to the losers -Atiku and Buhari?

What other advice do you need to give them. They must have well advised themselves. The important thing is that they were not the ones that lost but it was we, the people of Nigeria that lost. It is a problem for all of us. What we are saying is that in this country, we owe a duty to our people to conduct a free and fair election.

That is the basis in this country for any democracy. If we don't have a free and fair election, we are yet to start. Really, my fear is that 2011 will be a different thing in this country. If they dare to rig in 2011, then you will see what will happen.

People will be on the streets to fight because they know that that is probably the only way they can get solution or ventilate their grievances. If the court is not going to assist them, then why wait for the court. They go to the streets, take up arms and fight for your rights. I suspect that will happen in 2011. So, it our duty to make sure that what we deliver to the people in 2011 is free and fair election. They have done it in Ghana.

So, we have a serious duty to ensure that what we deliver to the people in 2011 is free and fair in this country as they have done in Ghana. People are not going to wait. I would not probably advise anybody to wait for the judiciary to get his mandate if you believe that your mandate is being stolen. So, that is the problem. People have to be very careful to see that those who would manage our subsequent elections are men of integrity so that there will be free and fair elections.

Part of the recommendations of the Electoral Reform Committee is that the National Judicial Council (NJC) should be responsible for the appointment of the chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC) to pave way for free and fair elections. Do you subscribe to this?

I know that it is part of the Uwais Electoral Reform Committee recommendation that the NJC should appoint three people and make them go before the Council of States. I for one do not subscribe to that. I don't see what the Council of States is going to do in it.

That body is not going to be a democratic body, so it is not going to serve anybody's interest. If you leave the appointment to the NJC to do, that is fair. There is nothing wrong in doing that. The point there is that the person appointed should be able to differentiate between government and state.

If we are not able to see your role as a statesman as opposed to government agent, then we are in trouble. Take for instance, if they appoint me as INEC chairman, I'm going to work like a statesman not as a government agent. So, who is in government doesn't matter to me. That's what I'm going to do.

Prof. Maurice Iwu supervised the election which was greeted with international condemnation, violence and controversy and so on, do you think that it is right for him to still remain there as INEC chairman?

He is a shameless individual. That is the point. Then the government is not even serious except we don't want to say the truth. Iwu should not remain. He should have long left the place. That is when you know that the government is serious. For Iwu to still be there is a serious anomaly. He offends the sensibility of any right thinking Nigerians. That is the way I see it.

Recently, President Yar'Adua granted amnesty to two condemned criminals from Kebbi and Bayelsa. His action generated heated controversy from some quarters?

As the president, he has the power to commute conviction. It is provided for in the constitution. Every October 1, he releases prisoners. I don't know those who are saying he doesn't have the power. I want to be directed to the portion of the law that says he has no such power. Even the governors too have such powers. It is based on the recommendations made to them that they would act on.

President Yar'Adua's administration has received knocks from Nigerians for being docile. Can you compare his government with that of Chief Obasanjo? What do you think has really gone wrong in this government?

It is not easy to compare the administration of Obasanjo and Yar'Adua. Obasanjo was more active as president, no doubt, though sizeable part of his activities was on the negative side. At the end of the day, the minus he had negated all the plus that he had.

At the end, he never did any considerable justice. He had eight full years to get Nigeria out of this quagmire because he has complicated issues for Nigeria now. He never did anything meaningfully. He had enough time pursuing his adversaries. But the government that we have now looks too immobile for Nigeria.

That is why I said that Nigerians need someone that would galvanize this nation into action. Nigerians are ready to change their fortune, they are ready to chart their course. They are ready to take their future into their hands. And you cannot do that without a good leadership and achieve meaningful success.

It is unfortunate that we don't have a motivational leader in this country. The leadership we have now is too docile for the people of Nigeria. Nigeria is a country that needs some activities so that we can move Nigeria ahead. And unfortunately, as things are going, it appears that Obasanjo as much as he had part of his actions misdirected and targeted at some individuals, was still making some efforts at nipping corruption in the bud.

But this government today, to me, is not making any effort at fighting corruption. Even the alleged corrupt former governors today are the ones in control of government. If we are not careful, when corrupt people take over the government, then we are doomed. If the government pally with some former governors who are corrupt, then something is wrong with us. Obasanjo still had some meaningful impact in fighting corruption, but this time around, fight against corruption looks dead. It is unfortunate.

Do you think President Yar'Adua is in control of this government? It is a belief in some quarters that he is not actually the one ruling but a clique of people.

I don't know. I'm not in government. He is the president and the bulk of the whole thing stops on his desk. If people are ruling for him, he is still the one ruling. I don't know anybody, he is the only one I know. I think he should be in control. It is just that how firm he holds this country depends on his strength. If he doesn't have that strength, many things would get done under his name. But he is the one in charge.

Nuhu Ribadu fought corruption almost to a standstill and he received both national and international applause. Today, he is being persecuted for the bravery he exhibited during his time as the EFCC chairman, do you think he really deserves the kind of treatment he is being subjected to?

Nobody can justify what he is facing today. Let's be fair to ourselves, he was violator of people's human rights, but for the fact that he did that, does not mean that his own right should be violated with reckless abandon. That is the position of the NBA.

That is why America went to Iraq and with what Saddam Hussein did, he was still brought before a court for him to plead his case. That is the essence of civilization. We are civilized people. And that is why when Ribadu was in control of EFCC, he had total power which he abused thoroughly in a number of instances, but that's notwithstanding, in spite of those excesses, in spite of the way he treated some lawyers, he still made positive impact in fighting corruption in this country. That is what earned him a lot of honours beyond the shores of this country.

The way the government is taking matters now is funny to most of us. The government should not be too petty and diminish itself to that level and say it wants to have its own pound of flesh on Ribadu. It is unfortunate. He has done his own work. If you want him to leave, let him leave and give him the honour. That is the way we see it.

The EFCC has not changed except that it is not fighting corruption again. Today, people are still being detained unnecessarily, lawyers are not being allowed to see their clients or know where their clients are being taken. The abuse of fundamental human rights has not changed as in the days of Ribadu. The way they see things is the way they have always been seeing things. So, nothing has changed. The way they are taking Ribadu issue is condemnable and that is the way all of us are seeing it.

He was invited by the Police Service Commission and he refused to honour its invitation. It is expected that as a policeman, he ought to have honoured the invitation to clear his name. Do you think he was right to have turned down the invitation?

If honestly you believe you are being hounded, you believe you cannot get justice, if you believe that whatever steps that are being taken in your country is going to offend your fundamental human rights, you could stay abroad and at the end of the day they may grant you an asylum because you have proved a case that you are entitled to an asylum; that your rights are being suppressed, that you are being hounded and that if you go for that trial, you cannot get a free and fair hearing, it is possible.

When he was invited, what one expects normally is that he should come. He had invited and interrogated people, so why would he not present himself for interrogation?

Some people believe that those who had been punished for corrupt practices by Ribadu are the ones behind his ordeal. That they are capitalizing on the docility of this government to take their own pound of flesh. What is your view on this?

My own stance on this matter is similar to what you have said. It is a belief that the rein of power in this country is being taken over by some few corrupt people that were at the receiving end of Ribadu's brunt.

Since there is a change of power, what do you now expect them to do. Now they are also out, just like Obasanjo was using the EFCC to hound his own adversaries, but that is very unfortunate. It is not supposed to be. That is because the government we have, in spite of its messianic pretension, is not in anyway different from any other corrupt government.

That is all. They pretend to be saints but their actions have shown they are not. They have not shown us that they are committed to fighting corruption with the honesty it deserves.

On his dismissal

That is one thing about life. He should have at least reported at his place of work where they transferred him and then sue, if he thinks he is being unjustly treated. It is not right for him to have refused to report for duty.

Mallam Nasir el_Rufai served in the administration of Obasanjo. Today, he is wanted by the EFCC in connection with alleged mismanagement of N3.2 billion. But the president under whom he served seems untouchable. Don't you think the commission is again engaging in selective justice?

I don't think there is any selective justice. But I want to believe it is not possible for a minister to do anything without the president knowing or not to be part of it. What is expected really is what they are doing. If they interrogate the minister and he implicates his master- the former president, then you can now go and interrogate the former president and not him before his minister. Due process should be followed.

Our position at the bar is that nobody should be treated as a sacred cow no matter how big or fat the cow is. If at the end of the day, his hands are found in corruption, the man should be tried. But, today there is nothing. I think el-Rufai's case is the beginning.

Unlike, Fani-Kayode's case, that is a different one. If they were pretending to be saints while they were there, get them investigated and tried. If in the process of their trial, Obasanjo is found to be part of it, get him tried. That is all.

It is seven years since that the former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Chief Bola Ige, was murdered. Funsho Williams and many others were also felled by assassins' bullets. Up till now, none of these high profile killings has been resolved. Would you like to promise Nigerians that the bar would do its utmost best to ensure that all those that committed the murders are brought to book?

What we intend to do is to write a letter to the president to pay him a courtesy visit. But we want all the matters in court to be settled before the visit. When we go to him, one of the salient points we hope to discuss with him is to tell him to set up a judicial commission of enquiry to look into the death of Chief Bola Ige and some other unresolved murders.

You know immediately I came in, I said we want a commission of enquiry into those murders so that members of his family can come out and say something and at the end of the day, if the killers are known but are not tried, at least the reports of the commission would have satisfied everybody. But I assure you, the bar would call for it.

People believe that the Attorney-General, Michael Aondoakaa, should have been swapped in the recent cabinet reshuffle by President Yar'Adua. What's your view on this?

The man wants him as his Attorney-General. Who am I to say he should not be. I want to believe that Aondoakaa has not done too badly for the body to clamour for his removal. You can blame him for not being proactive or for failure to do one or two things.

But the bar has not found him seriously wanting to call for his redeployment or removal. So, if the president still wants to retain him as his AG, it is well and good. In fact, one of the things he first did was what the bar supported, like putting the EFCC under the office of the AG. He stood his ground as the AG, yes, that is what is expected of an AGF. He asserted his authority so that the office of the AG is not ridiculed. He has never come out to interpret the judgment of the court.

With the cabinet reshuffle, should Nigerians expect some changes in the administration?

I don't expect anything to change in this administration. I see nothing coming out of it. If you look at the time it took him to reshuffle, you would know that it tallies with the Yoruba adage that says the eyes that would serve till old age, would not be faulty at the beginning. That this 'eye' would see us to old age, I don't believe so. Let us just be prayerful and hopeful.

He is just putting governors here and there while some governors are in the Aso Rock controlling the government. He is not fighting corruption. So, if you are not committed to those strong principles, let us not deceive ourselves, all these discussions are probably unnecessary. We would continue to shout and talk, no doubt, and people would hear our voices.

But the most important thing for Nigerians is to be getting prepared, gird our loins, a big battle is ahead of us. Not that anybody would take over (the government) but we have to fight this decadent status quo and make sure that we get somewhere. If we are not committed to fighting it, we can't get anywhere. It is like making the omelets, eggs will be broken. Sure, heads will be battered. The way I look at it is that there is a decadent status quo, nobody would fight it for us.

Is there any hope at all for the law abiding citizens? Take for instance, the 2007 elections, those that rigged seem to be having the edge. The election tribunals in some states have further shattered the hope of the people, and the courts too seem not to have solutions to election rigging. Don't you think that this will further encourage election riggers come 2011?

Let me correct that. I did not say that would not happen. It could happen. They will attempt to do it but I say it would not stand. That is why I said Nigerians should continue to gird their loins. What I'm saying is that we must be prepared to fight them, we must be prepared to chase them out of office if they still insist they want to rig themselves in.

We don't have to wait for courts. It is not injunctions. I have said so, and I'm still repeating it that injunctions, court orders, court judgments would not put an end to the bluff we are facing now by the election riggers and those in government.

People must call off that bluff. How they will do it, that is left for us. People who rigged themselves into office are still there up till today. They have their elections challenged, nullified, and they have rigged another election to come back into office.

It is an unfortunate development and we are docile people. And this docility by our people cannot continue endlessly. It will get to a time that these people would get to the wall and be forced to turn back. We know we are in-between the dead sea and the rock. We must fight back one day, and I say, that day must come that Nigerians would rise to fight for their rights. It is not court. If we wait for the courts, we will still remain where we are.

Do you support the recommendation of the Justice Uwais Electoral Reform Committee?

I have read part of it. I have not finished reading it. I have never believed that the problem of this country is with the law but with the people that would manage our elections. Our Electoral Act is not too different from that of Ghana and in Ghana, they have managed election perfectly well. So, what are we now saying? Let us not deceive ourselves.

It is the people. One, we ourselves who are electorates, INEC who is the election manager, and the security agencies must all work together. It is only in Nigeria and some other places that the police see themselves as government police and not as state police.

There is difference between state police and government police. The state police is there to protect the interest of the people and to stand by the state. We have soldiers that would tell their government we are on the side of the people, we would never shoot anybody. When they see their people demonstrate, they would say, 'look we are not shooting'.

I remember in Philippines when Aquino came and Marcus was driven away, the soldiers stood with the people. They said, 'look, we are not shooting the Philippines. We are all Filipinos. If you can manage it, manage it and if you cannot and they ask you to leave, then leave'. That is how it is supposed to be. People would try to rig and do whatever they want to do. The point is that it is the people that matter.

We must have a re_orientation as a people. We must cultivate the habit of knowing about election. Those who are going to manage it must organise a lot of workshops for polling agents, returning officers and other electoral officers. The person that would head INEC itself must be somebody that is above board. Somebody that is transparent, somebody that has a name.

If you go and pick one riffraff from somewhere. You called him from America. Somebody who has never been there before. Nobody knew him.

You just picked him that he should come and be the chairman of INEC. When there are people who have made names for themselves in this country and because of that name they would not go that way that Iwu has gone. It is the people and the managers chosen to manage things. That is how a law can change everything in this country.

Owing to these retrogressive policies, violence during elections and many other vices, if you were given a chance to choose among South Africa, Nigeria and Ghana, which of these countries would you choose as the giant of Africa?

Giant of Africa? Nigeria is only a sleeping giant .Nigeria is only giant in population. Nobody takes Nigeria serious. We have population. We are the Africa's leading light to be. We are the ones that are destined to lead Africa but we have not been blessed with good leadership that would take us to achieve our rights. That is what I have always said.

Today, if you talk about development and contribution, South Africa is there. Ghana is leading in a number of things. Look at their democratic process that the whole world has seen as, at least, credible. That is a plus. Even the economy is blossoming, that is a plus in Ghana. May be it is the people. Somebody told me it is because of the crisis they had.

They have got that orientation and they have not changed. They have civilized way of behaviour. If it is that, Ghana is far ahead of us. It is in this country that you have hold up and people would be driving on the other side of the road. It would not happen in Ghana. Those are the things you have to think about.

Those are the basics that have arisen them above us. But they don't have population and they don't have much money but they have just discovered oil. By the time they start exporting oil and coal, Nigeria will be nowhere. So, among those three, Ghana would have become first, South Africa would be second before it gets to Nigeria.

How can the issue of delayed justice be tackled? Someone feels cheated, he goes to court, but the court continues to delay and delay. What is the way out?

Let me say this, I'm not saying that the court has no blame. Some of our courts do have blame. We had condemned the approach of our Court of Appeal to some of our election petitions. The court of Appeal has not helped matters in the appeals that have gone to them to complain of not hearing them more expeditiously.

Though they have done one or two things after we have started shouting, fair enough. We cannot treat election petitions this way. But if you look at the trials in the election tribunals, there was a problem. But along the line, they were able to cope.

That is as far as we can take blame in the legal profession. But the major thing is this. What you need to prove in the election petition in Nigeria is not contemplated under the law or the Electoral Act. What they have in Electoral Act is the human involvement and the multi_faceted nature of the problem. The Nigerian election case is not the one that the law foresaw that it could tackle easily. That is what the election petition has caused, which are more than what the legal procedure could chew.

We have said at the bar that no election petition should go beyond the first quarter of the year. So, we call on the Court of Appeal to call on more people to handle the appeal. So for now, by March, it should end.