I had once expressed the view that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), an organisation I am a member of, needs to do more in the struggle against corruption in Nigeria. I had posited an inverse relationship between the rule of law and corruption and expressed the view that the NBA was not doing enough in fighting corruption.
And now, the First Vice-President of the NBA recently made a statement that articulates a militaristic notion of upholding the Nigerian 1999 Constitution. His constitutionalism overlooks the failure of the state to provide security, as expected under that same Constitution. By his oversight of constitutionalism, the NBA First Vice-President makes the association to be in cahoot with our governor who reportedly sees kidnapping for ransom – with killing, maiming and raping as collateral in the process – as “business” and superior to those asking for the division of Nigeria. So many issues are thrown up for consideration by the purported statement of the NBA’s First V.P.
Thanks to the statement by Olumide Akpata, the NBA President who recognised the fact that peaceful protests “do not deserve to be crushed”. It equally points to the fact that the 1999 Constitution is not cast in stone, in as much as Nigeria remains a signatory to the UN Charter, amongst other laws and protocols.
More importantly, for me, the fact that the 1999 Constitution recognises the procedure for amendment puts human beings in every epoch above Article 2 or any other Article since they can seek the amendment of the body of laws. Elsewhere, I have articulated the need for the realisation of a confederal Nigeria, as others want restructuring.
How many Constitutions have Nigeria had in the last 60 years of its existence? The Independence Constitution gave way to the Republican Constitution, in response to political demands under a civilian government, before the 1979, 1989 and 1999 Constitutions were foisted by military regimes. How can a people realise constitutional changes or change of constitutions if they cannot peacefully canvass for their objectives? It’s not a crime to peacefully canvass for constitutional changes with the objective of dividing Nigeria peacefully. Should a purportedly “democratic” government, even headed by a former military General, not have pacific settlement approaches to popular demands for self-determination by many Nigerian nationalities?
But even then, does Sunday Igboho deserve the type of multi-security apparatuses invasion that he faced last week for any reason, when he has killed no one but only disarmed killer herdsmen that the world has recognised as terrorists, who were killing his relations? Should he be castrated or face extra-judicial killing or, as NBA V-P says: be “crushed” for calling for a peaceful rally in support of self-determination for a Yoruba nation? Was the overnight attack on Igboho the type of Nigeria that the NBA stands for? Are human lives important to the NBA and its human rights section that I believe the First Vice-President leads?
Aside from properties allegedly destroyed, the FGN and Igboho are agreed that people were killed at Igboho’s residence during the failed attempt to arrest Mr Sunday Adeyemo. Is the extrajudicial killing of citizens now supported by the NBA? Are there procedures we, as members of the NBA, should stand for on arrests and searches of homes?
Should the brigandage in the whisking of Nnamdi Kanu back to Nigeria be endorsed by the NBA? Are there procedures for extradition, as opposed to rendition? Should the NBA dance in favour of violations of international law and still claim to the world that it exists to promote the rule of law?
The NBA has “promoting rule of law” as the cornerstone of its existence. Thats its raison d’etre. So, I disagree with the NBA President that the NBA First Vice-President has a personal capacity to express such militaristic expressions like the need to “crush” citizens, as if we are in a militocracy. Of course, he has a right to articulate his views, as any other Nigerian, but definitely not to expressly undermine the rule of law as a way of upholding the Constitution of Nigeria and still remain as the First Vice-President of the NBA.
The NBA should clearly stand up for the rule of law and ask its First Vice-President to leave office for his statement, even if on his Facebook page. Statements on Facebook are public and different from dinner table talks. The NBA leadership owes all of us the duty of accountability and needs to separate us from a First V.P. who thinks and articulates the need to, in this day and age, “crush” citizens, even before their days in Court. It is my hope that the NBA will rise up to the situation and not confirm that an organisation gets the type of leadership it deserves.
Credit: Babafemi A. Badejo