Daily Independent (Lagos)
7 January 2009
interview
Chief Fassy Adetokunboh Yusuf is the Editor-In-Chief of Law News, he is a renowned academic, journalist and one time Commissioner for Information in Ogun State. In this interview with Dolapo Oseni, he spoke on the award of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, saying that it is neither mandatory nor automatic. He also spoke on the implication of the judiciary workers' strike on litigants, lawyers and the society. Excerpts:
As a lawyer, how do you feel when government defiles a court order?
Well, fundamentally I feel unsettled, I feel concerned, I feel there is a return to a state of calumny where might is said to be greater than the Constitution. It is paramount that the Constitution must be swayed or adhered to. It is akin to being a banana republic where any specie can decide to conduct itself in a manner that is bereft of any orderly biological sequence. Also as a legal practitioner, a minister in the temple of justice I see it as a bastardisation and desecration of that temple, which is and ought to be held sacrosanct and sacred. If we allow the desecration and bastardisation of that holy temple then we have said goodbye to orderliness, justice and fairness as well as equity in the society.
Well this is my belief, but I don't know the premise from which the question was asked from, was it at the premise of the present administration or from the premise of the past administration or from the premise of our past experiences or from the totality of what we are experiencing within the body polity or within the society? So I think an elucidation on the precinct or the premise from which this question came from would allow me to offer a more elaborate decision on the question.
The question emanates from the decision of the Supreme Court. If the decision had gone the other way, many are of the opinion that the present executive will not honour the verdict, do you agree with this?
That question is hypothetical and it is speculative. In the legal profession we don't deal with speculations. Speculations isn't one of the aspects or areas we were taught in the Law School and it is not one of the areas lawyers, jurists and others within the legal profession are taught to know or to believe in. Secondly, government must have got no choice than to obey the decision of the Supreme Court because it is the last hope of the common man, it is the highest court of the land. A violation, disobedience of the decision of the Supreme Court would have brought in anarchy and the resultant effect would have been very unpalatable and unbelievable and again we cannot forget in a hurry the events that led to the crisis that ensued in 1966 that is the January 15 1966, which crept up and consumed many of our worthy brilliant and irreplaceable leaders, so no government in its right senses would disobey the order of the Supreme Court.
In recent memory it has never been done, I don't think if the decision had gone the other way round and in any case without holding brief for President Yar'Adua, he had said even before the judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered that he would not even re-contest, which means he would have fully obeyed the order. Because not obeying the order of the Supreme Court would have had monumental and dire consequences to the country, of course, he would operate in a state of calumny, what will be the result? One, there will be economic dislocation; two, there will be political disequilibrium; three, there will be social calumny and four anything can happen. The military can even come in because if the whole place is in disarray, our lives are not safe, we cannot guarantee security of lives and properties what will be the next thing and I'm sure the military cannot wait in perpetuity for sanity to be reinstalled. So, there could not have been any alternative for the government than to obey the order of the Supreme Court. I cannot even imagine Federal Government disobeying the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect to an electoral matter, especially when some parts are aggrieved. It is only when you have a majority decision that the polity would be disstabilised, but if the decision had gone the other way round I believe government would have obeyed it otherwise government would not have had any basis to be in existence.
The award of SAN has been politicised, do you agree?
Well, I don't know your appreciation or understanding of politicisation. Is there any shred of evidence to that effect?
At a time when the list of those that applied were released to the public, we saw the name of Femi Falana, but nobody knows what happened afterwards, as he was denied the honour of the award. Is it right to say the award is for the favoured?
I have told you that in law we don't deal with speculations and hearsays are hardly of any substance in the legal profession and, therefore, Femi Falana is my learned senior and friend, but I don't know the minds of those who screened him and others. I am not aware of the criteria adopted. Yes they would tell us there are certain things, but I was not in the panel, I didn't witness the proceedings, therefore, it will amount to legal rascality for me to be commenting on an issue I was not privy to. Yes, if I were to be a journalist that I was then I could speculate, but as a lawyer I cannot afford to speculate because my speculation may have profound effect on the society and it may be taken as the gospel truth. I need scientific evidence and proofs. I am supposed to say these are the criteria used and Femi Falana scaled through the criteria and because of politics or because of his involvement in social activism he was denied. Nobody told us why he was denied, so if they have not told us why he was denied nobody should speculate. Yes, journalists and the media may be excused for speculating, after all what makes news, it is when a man bites a dog that we have some news, but when a dog bites a man it's no news. So the media is in a position to market its products and what is its products - news, but being in the legal profession I am expected to market law, justice, equity and to do that I need evidence, verifiable evidence, evidence that I can defend, so I cannot be seen to be condemning the learned gentlemen that made up the panel, which screened them. Unless, it is made open. Don't forget they call it privilege, Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee, it is not a right. It is just like a national honour. You may be qualified, but for one reason or the other you may not be given. Unless it is said to be automatic, but now it is not automatic. The criteria may be subjective or objective depending on the perspective and the perception of those involved. So, unless we are saying let us make it automatic. Like, when you have clocked 10 years and you have maintained a high opinion about yourself, no adverse comment and you have not been taken before the disciplinary committee of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), but as long as it is called the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC), it is a privilege that may be given, withdrawn or may not be given. Just like the national honours, so many people are qualified, but how many people have been given national honour. So, let us be circumspect in our criticism. Let us not because we want to attract attention to ourselves embark on irrational, irresponsible and indefensible statements or arguments simply because one of us is involved. I as an individual wants to see Femi Falana like several others being made a SAN, but they call it LPPC, it is a privilege not a right, this simply means it is not mandatory that you are conferred. It has been on like that for ages, so why should we now be thinking of politicisation, is it because one of us is involved or one of the activists around. What about several others that are not activists but have been denied or have not got it? And I think we should help the man get the SAN status, but our comments, especially these adverse comments would not help him get it. In the legal profession, the more controversial you become, the more these gentlemen that are involved would run away from you.
The President is clamouring for the abrogation of immunity clause for public office holders, do you support his campaign?
Well, I think to a large extent I will endorse the clarion call for the removal of immunity clause, but it would be in so far as criminal prosecution, as the Supreme Court has made it clear that nobody is immune from investigation. The only thing is that some people, the president, vice-president, governor and deputy governor are immune from prosecution for acts done or undone while they remain in office. The operators of the system must be blamed for the present perilous, thievery or mafia state where people steal recklessly, irresponsibly and when people embark on an act of debauchery, stealing, act of kleptomania. That is stealing what you, children and grandchildren don't even need. It is because our law enforcement agencies have closed their eyes deliberately or without necessarily knowing because it could be deliberate or not deliberate. I don't know whether they are afraid of those in office or they are trying to justify their continual existence. Therefore, when they see our leaders committing act of debauchery and other vices they closed their eyes. What stopped them from thorough investigation even if these people cannot be prosecuted? What do we have, just making a mountain of a molehill? To the extent that we want a society that is free of corruption that is to a manageable extent. To the extent that we want an egalitarian and just society we should eliminate corruption. That wouldn't eliminate corruption. It is only when we have a government that is willing, that has a political will and the wherewithal to tackle corruption holistically not a government that will turn deaf ears. The issue of immunity clause came into the Constitution from 1979. It was not in the Constitution we operated between 1960 and January 14, 1966 when the military made its infamous incursion into the body polity. And ever since it has been a movement from one abyss to the other and to remove the kleptomaniac situation I endorse that call, but we must guarantee that our leaders, especially the executives are not distracted by frivolous suits or litigations. Therefore, civil litigations could wait until when they leave office, but criminal litigations should not be allowed to wait for one minute. Once there is any evidence that the President has corruptly enriched himself, he should be made to face the wrath of the law because democracy is all about subjecting ourselves to public scrutiny if it is government of the people with the people being involved, with them electing the officials then they must be accountable to the people, the day they stop accounting to people is that day that we can say goodbye to democracy. Therefore, the removal of immunity clause in so far as corrupt practices are concerned should be welcomed by all.
Read comments. Write your own.
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.
As part of their requirements to qualify for a SAN status should be a set number of billable hours dedicated to Pro-Bono representation, as our new heroes - Chief Gani Faweihinmi, Chief Femi Falana, Chief Dosunmu and 37 other lawyers have dedicated themselves to represent Mr. Ribadu, free of charge. Other SANs could emulate this worthy service by devoting time to represent our poor indigenes who have legitimate case of abuse and oppression but lacking the financial wherewithal to afford good attorneys that only represent the rich and powerful - a habit that Aondoaakaa has gotten so used to that… [Read Full Text]