We are not in Spain. But there, it is claimed that bulls
are enraged when red flags flutter before them. The matador, the man who fights and kills a
bull in a sport, gets the beast into the game by waving the red cloth. The
indifferent, motionless animal only charges at his opponent when it sights his
muleta, the stick with a crimson swathe employed in the final third of the
bullfight…We know what follows:
savagery, slaughter and sanguinary cheers from the spectators.
 |
| *Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa |
In Nigeria, we appear to be in for a bullfight over the
Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa affair. She is the President of the Appeal Court, who
has been asked to head the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal looking into
the suit of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and its Presidential Candidate,
Atiku Abubakar. They are challenging the victory of Muhammadu Buhari in the
poll of February 2019.
But the party and its candidate say the judge should
recuse herself on account of her marriage to Senator-elect Adamu Bulkachuwa of
All Progressives Congress, APC, Buhari’s party.
They protest she’s ill-fitted to sit atop a judicial panel in which her
husband’s APC is an interested party. PDP won’t receive fair hearing, they fear.
Conflict of interest. PDP is also asking the federal government to consider
corruption allegations against Bulkachuwa and drop her from hearing its
petition against Buhari.
Some activist groups have waded in, supporting PDP’s
stand. Access to Justice and United Front for the Preservation of Democracy
Ethos faulted Bulkachuwa’s appointment. One of them said the government’s move
amounts to ‘’the highest level of defiance and total disregard for the will and
democratic sensibilities of Nigerians.’’ It added: ‘’It is a decision that is
very poor in moral judgment…It smacks of recklessness in decision making.’’
Another declared: ‘’In ordinary circumstances, there would be no question of
whether the President of the Court of Appeal can, or should participate in
tribunals adjudicating election petitions involving her spouse’s party. But
these are no ordinary or normal times.’’
With regard to PDP’s corruption charges as other grounds
for telling her to step aside, the Department of State Services, DSS, says it never
indicted Justice Bulkachuwa for bribery and corruption. It urged the public to
ignore the indictment report, disclosing that DSS has launched a probe into the
‘’ controversies surrounding the publication ‘’.
There’s also been a reaction from APC. It dismissed PDP’s
point that spousal affiliation should compel the exit of Bulkachuwa from the
petition-hearing panel. “They (PDP) should point to what aspect of the Nigerian
law that says that if you have a relation who is politician, then you are
disqualified. PDP is indirectly questioning the integrity of the people in the
judiciary and is indirectly trying to intimidate that institution and undermine
the rule of law.’’
When a well-regarded constitutional lawyer and public
affairs commentator Bolanle Olugbani was asked to discuss the matter on radio
yesterday, he said in effect that he does not see it as a legal tangle or
complex case requiring a trip into much history. He believes that mere moral or
ethical considerations demand that a judicial officer, bench or bar, does not
adjudicate over a case in which he or she has interest via friendship, family
or business. He said as a lawyer of many years’ experience, he always refrained
from appearing in court where his father was a judge. His father wasn’t barring
him. But he understood the moral implications.
It’s the same ethical concerns at work with Bulkachuwa. If
the case goes against Atiku, would there not be valid grounds to suspect she
has influenced the verdict because there has been pillow talk on it between her
and Senator-elect husband, whether that talk takes place or not? Isn’t it also
possible for cynics to suggest that the party might move her husband to work on
her to swing judgment in their favour?
Why Nigerians are skeptical about the intentions of the
government is that lately the authorities seem determined to use the judiciary
to achieve self-centred political goals. First, they point to the early days of
the Buhari government when it applied extra-legal means to wage war against
so-called corrupt judges, with no far-reaching results to show for its extreme
actions. Next, is how the government removed Walter Onnoghen, the immediate
past Chief Justice of Nigeria. The Court of Appeal has since condemned the
‘’secret’’ sitting of the Code of Conduct Tribunal that suspended Onnoghen.
But as we hit the government for contempt of the
perceptions and sensibilities of the citizens, we must also be disturbed that
Bulkachuwa too is not moved by the outcry that her integrity is at stake. This
has little to do with her competence. They are separate. The government will
talk of competence as their guiding principle in picking her. They might talk
of the appointment as the reward for her diligence. Or her next level. But
Nigerians are questioning the sanctity of government’s motive, given its knack
for a belief in the motto: the end justifies the means. If a person’s so-termed
diligence or integrity becomes a tool in the hands of less altruistic people,
wouldn’t it be wise for the person to withdraw from the project altogether?
She must fight to keep her name. Insisting on staying on
in the face of possible clash of loyalties as perceived by many reasonable
Nigerians would tarnish her great name.
Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa is being shown the red tag to
draw her into combat with a matador. She shouldn’t fall for the murderous bait.
*Ojewale, a veteran journalist and writer, contributed
this piece from Ogun State (bmrtbo@yahoo.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment