President Muhammadu Buhari chose the most auspicious place to
officially declare his disdain for the rule of law and his avowed preference
for the rule of man, his own rule, in the Nigerian nation-state, where he has
been deploying his might in its vast capriciousness and whimsicality since he
stepped in the saddle on May 29, 2015.
*Buhari |
Buhari
must have perceived that the arm of government remains the single most
irritable stumbling block to his anti-corruption war. That was possibly the
reason he shunned some lawyers who were chanting: “sai baba!” when he was leaving the venue at the end of his
well-orchestrated speech that was intended to be frank.
It was
very unusual for Buhari not to raise his right hand in a fist in response to
such recognition and adulation. Like a ramrod, ironically without a scruple for
the law or its rule, he walked and looked straight without a smile, let alone a
dimple on his face. He had unambiguously passed across his message even if the
message was not in synch with the fine traditions of democracy and the general
principles of constitutionalism.
The
president had simply exposed his very own underbelly as a dictator or, if he is
not, as someone who loves dictatorship as a directive principle of state
policy. But Nigerians were aware of Buhari’s military background before they
decided to invest their mandate in him to rule as president; that was after he
had been rebranded as a new-born democrat. He was simply dressed in
borrowed robes.
And, to
be sure, he had in the early months of his presidency, yanked off the robes to
assume his true posture. It was during his maiden media chat that was telecast
live that he unraveled when he said that he would not release a former National
Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, and the leader of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra
(IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, despite several court directives.
Buhari
said that the two accused persons could not be allowed to enjoy any form of
freedom due to the enormity of their offences. Kanu had, in particular, been
slammed with a treasonable felony charge. According to him, “If you see the
atrocities these people committed against this country, we can’t allow them to
jump bail.” It was thus clear that the president caused the executive arm of
government to disobey lawful court directives; which is why despite bails
granted by no fewer than six courts, Dasuki is still being held in government
custody.
The
leader of Shiites, Sheik Ibrahim El-Zakzaky and his wife have also been held in
detention by the executive arm despite bails granted them by the courts.
Buhari’s body language and pronouncements had fuelled and continue to fuel
disobedience to court orders by agents of the executive arm. This attitude
violates the essence of the rule of law, substituting it, as it were, with the
rule of man, which is a throwback to Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature where life
was nasty, brutish and short.
That is
the situation Buhari, in his seeming imperial presidency, has virtually foisted
on the nation. The fact that only Dasuki and El-Zakzaky are the
prominent victims does not mitigate the existential fears that now stalk the
rest of us. More Nigerians may be victims tomorrow. That brazen
violation of the rule of law rubbishes the spirit of our nationhood. One would
not have had qualms had Nigeria
been in a state of nature, where lawlessness and jungle justice were the
defining features; and, where the president’s proposition that national
security is superior to rule of law was a fitting characteristic.
But good
enough, Nigeria
is not a jungle. She is a member of the comity of nations whose processes and
wellbeing are circumscribed by the 1999 Constitution (as amended 2010) and
other bodies of laws. The process that threw up the Buhari candidature and
eventual presidency is constitutionally-regulated. He took the oath
of office and oath of allegiance to defend the constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria. The constitution is still in place and has not
given way to a body of decrees by which military dictatorship and its civilian
variants rule. It is therefore obligatory that Buhari ensures that his
administration defers to the rule of law and not his own rule.
Buhari’s
rule of engagement is inclined to defy the rule of law. It is nothing but the
rule of man, a brazen affront against the legal norms, mores and conventions by
which human civilizations are governed. Whereas, the rule of the law is
essentially respect for the law and its ramifications; it regulates private and
public affairs. It imposes obedience by its recognition and acceptability. It
is cosmopolitan and speaks only one language-that of justice. It applies to
humanity with the same tenor, not inclined to colour, nationality, ethnicity,
geography, religion and partisan interest.
The rule
of law is what makes the judiciary strong for all of us. The
judiciary is entrusted with the powers of life and death. This is why the final
decision in judicial matters is not confined to the courts of first
instance. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter. That clearly
underscores the infallibility of the apex court. The Supreme Court had
adumbrated its inherent powers in Adegoke Motors Limited v. Adesanya& another
(1989) 3 NWLR (part 109) pg 250 @ 274 wherein it said: “We are final not
because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because we are final.”
This
immense faith that societies vest in the Judiciary as the custodian of the rule
of law explicates in particular the mantra in this part of the world that
judiciary is the last hope of the common man. It is the
instrumentality that people deploy to protect their rights. But
human rights, unlike the rule of law, is negotiable and susceptible to the superiority
of national interest in special circumstances where national security is of the
overriding importance; otherwise, human rights enjoys virtual universal
constitutional or legal protection.
But,
indeed, both human rights, and national interest that finds anchorage in national
security, are all subject to the rule of law, sancta simplicitas. I
hereby add my layman’s perspective to the conversation by lawyers that Buhari
was wrong to have proposed and, in fact, pushed the narrative that the rule of
law should be subservient to national interest or national security just
because he was and is still, perhaps, overwhelmed by a feeling of frustration
by the deployment of legal technicalities by defence lawyers in the
government’s prosecution of corruption cases.
That
Buhari would not want any opposition from the Bar and the Bench who are
constitutionally bound to ensure fair hearing in corruption cases is writ
large. But the accused must be allowed to defend themselves within the ambit of
the law and its rule; and, not in deference to the rule of (a) man who, in the
circumstance, happens to be president by the mandate of Nigerians as provided
for and protected, ironically, by the Constitution- the grundnorm-(read the
rule of law) which he seeks to deprecate.
*Sufuyan Ojeifo is a
commentator on public issues (ojwonderngr@yahoo.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment