In defence of Justice Taiwo’s judgment

I read The Nation’s beautiful editorial of Sunday, February 4,
titled “A conundrum” followed by the rider “Good for federalism.
Bad for anti-corruption. That is the import of the court judgment
on EFCC and states’ finances”.

While I agree with you that the judgment of the Ado-Ekiti
Federal High Court judge, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, delivered on January
30, which is the peg for your editorial is good for federalism as
you posit, I beg to disagree with the reminder of the two legs of
your rider that it is “bad for anti-corruption” as well as a
licence for miscreants and felons to pillage state resources. I
also am of the opinion that the editorial was slightly harsh on the
judge, even though you did not mention his name throughout in the
said editorial. The judge only did his job and, in my considered
opinion, marvellously well. I do not know Justice Taiwo from Adam
but only feel that being in a position where he cannot be expected
to offer a defence; I should offer him this service as amicus
curia!

We have complained ad nauseam that we are not practising true
federalism but a unitary system in the garb of federalism. The cry
all over the land is a return to true federalism, which is what the
agitation for restructuring of the polity is all about. There is
too much concentration of power – and resources – in the hands of
the federal government to the chagrin of the states (that are
supposed to make up the federating units) and the local
governments. In fact, the very existence of the local governments,
standing as a full-fledged tier of government independent of the
states and which are being made even more powerful with new
legislations giving them financial autonomy from the states, is
another aberration of a federal system properly so-called. Local
governments ought to be the creation of each states and not the
other way round of the federal government under military jackboot
arbitrarily creating local governments, short-changing a section of
the country and favouring another in the process. This is one of
the injustices in the system that is not allowing the various
nationalities making up this country to mesh and become a
nation.

Unfortunately, however, we were the ones that played into the
hands of the military in that once a little problem emerges, rather
than confront it head-on, we try to cut corners around it. When it
became clear that states were not being fair in the distribution of
resources, we advocated for local governments created by fiat from
the centre, never minding that this undermines the practise of true
federalism. Now, rather than retrace our footsteps, we are digging
in and sinking deeper into the miry clay. Those holding the
advantage in the present skewed system do not want to let go while
those holding the short end of the stick are agitating for redress.
We thus have the unsavoury proverbial situation of a chicken that
perches on a rope: neither the chicken nor the rope finds the
situation palatable.

The federal government emasculates the states and local
governments in the awesome powers it ascribes to itself to the
chagrin of the latter; which is why, whereas state governors are
the so-called chief security officer of their respective states,
they cannot even give orders to a DPO, not to talk of the
Commissioner of Police or State Director of the DSS. The two other
tiers of government, where much of the responsibilities lie, are
also short-changed in the allocation of resources, with the federal
government appropriating the lion’s share to itself. Not satisfied
with these, the federal government has also been in the habitual
practice of using its monopoly of the coercive powers of the state
to frustrate, intimidate, and even punish state governors, as you
rightly noted in the editorial. In other words, the powers which we
are reluctant to concede to the states because they have been
abused in the past and or will be abused now have also consistently
been abused by the federal government. A current example is the
herdsmen’s atrocious killings all over the country, about which the
federal government has demonstrated inertia; nay, complicity, while
the state at the receiving end lay prostrate. Were there to be
state police, the situation would have been significantly
different; but we kick against state police because we think the
states had in the past abused and or will abuse it. If I may ask,
what of the federal government that has not only abused its control
of the police but also of the armed forces and the intelligence
agencies in this regard?

As stated by you, and rightly so, EFCC had, in times past, been
mindlessly compromised for the promotion of the political chicanery
of those who paid the piper. Matters could not have been worse in
the hands of state governors. Yet, we have not asked for the
scrapping of the EFCC or for the federal government to hands off
its control. And it is not as if anyone could beat his chest and
vouch that there is no corruption in the EFCC. In fact, for
whatever it is worth, the DSS has twice indicted the EFCC’s acting
chairman, Ibrahim Magu, as being unfit to hold office. Repulsive as
it is to see a state House of Assembly become the play-thing of a
governor, it is not only in the states that the legislature has
become such a caricature of what it is supposed to be. We have seen
similar or worse shenanigans at the centre. Yet, we did not
advocate for the eradication of the National Assembly or demand
that it is divested of its constitutionally-assigned duties.
Respectfully, let me say that Justice Taiwo’s judgment does not
necessary amount to an erosion of the fight against corruption. I
dare to say that, in fact, it can – and should – promote it by
giving it more verve and panache. How many cases in Abuja alone can
the EFCC handle, not to talk of all over the states? With the
states setting up their own EFCC, more will be achieved in the
anti-corruption war. And with the state House of Assembly being
told to be alive to its responsibility of ensuring that the funds
it appropriates are judiciously used, Taiwo is helping to deepen,
rather than erode, the anti-graft war. He should be commended for
this.

As for any House of Assembly that makes itself a rubber stamp,
their shame and good grief! But if, as a result, we run away from
true federalism and promote a system that has concentrated too much
powers and resources already in the hands of the federal
government, we shall only be cutting our nose to spite our face. As
they say, we cannot have our cake and eat it. We must be conscious
to deepen democracy and restore true federalism. States should set
up their own anti-graft agencies. State Houses of Assembly should
be up and alive to their duties. As citizens, we must hold their
feet to the fire. I want to believe that the theatrics of Governor
Ayo Fayose on the floor of the Ekiti State House of Assembly should
be seen simply as politics. It is the duty of the honourable
members of the House to proceed afterwards to do the needful with
the state budget; otherwise, they, and not necessarily Fayose,
should carry the can. Whoever has sworn to an oath of office must
observe it and those for whom tasks have been set must diligently
undertake them; otherwise, our renascent democracy will be
endangered again and we shall, sooner than later, be back to square
one.

Bolawole is a former newspaper editor.

I read The Nation’s beautiful editorial of Sunday, February 4,
titled “A conundrum” followed by the rider “Good for federalism.
Bad for anti-corruption. That is the import of the court judgment
on EFCC and states’ finances”.

While I agree with you that the judgment of the Ado-Ekiti
Federal High Court judge, Justice Taiwo Taiwo, delivered on January
30, which is the peg for your editorial is good for federalism as
you posit, I beg to disagree with the reminder of the two legs of
your rider that it is “bad for anti-corruption” as well as a
licence for miscreants and felons to pillage state resources. I
also am of the opinion that the editorial was slightly harsh on the
judge, even though you did not mention his name throughout in the
said editorial. The judge only did his job and, in my considered
opinion, marvellously well. I do not know Justice Taiwo from Adam
but only feel that being in a position where he cannot be expected
to offer a defence; I should offer him this service as amicus
curia!

We have complained ad nauseam that we are not practising true
federalism but a unitary system in the garb of federalism. The cry
all over the land is a return to true federalism, which is what the
agitation for restructuring of the polity is all about. There is
too much concentration of power – and resources – in the hands of
the federal government to the chagrin of the states (that are
supposed to make up the federating units) and the local
governments. In fact, the very existence of the local governments,
standing as a full-fledged tier of government independent of the
states and which are being made even more powerful with new
legislations giving them financial autonomy from the states, is
another aberration of a federal system properly so-called. Local
governments ought to be the creation of each states and not the
other way round of the federal government under military jackboot
arbitrarily creating local governments, short-changing a section of
the country and favouring another in the process. This is one of
the injustices in the system that is not allowing the various
nationalities making up this country to mesh and become a
nation.

Unfortunately, however, we were the ones that played into the
hands of the military in that once a little problem emerges, rather
than confront it head-on, we try to cut corners around it. When it
became clear that states were not being fair in the distribution of
resources, we advocated for local governments created by fiat from
the centre, never minding that this undermines the practise of true
federalism. Now, rather than retrace our footsteps, we are digging
in and sinking deeper into the miry clay. Those holding the
advantage in the present skewed system do not want to let go while
those holding the short end of the stick are agitating for redress.
We thus have the unsavoury proverbial situation of a chicken that
perches on a rope: neither the chicken nor the rope finds the
situation palatable.

The federal government emasculates the states and local
governments in the awesome powers it ascribes to itself to the
chagrin of the latter; which is why, whereas state governors are
the so-called chief security officer of their respective states,
they cannot even give orders to a DPO, not to talk of the
Commissioner of Police or State Director of the DSS. The two other
tiers of government, where much of the responsibilities lie, are
also short-changed in the allocation of resources, with the federal
government appropriating the lion’s share to itself. Not satisfied
with these, the federal government has also been in the habitual
practice of using its monopoly of the coercive powers of the state
to frustrate, intimidate, and even punish state governors, as you
rightly noted in the editorial. In other words, the powers which we
are reluctant to concede to the states because they have been
abused in the past and or will be abused now have also consistently
been abused by the federal government. A current example is the
herdsmen’s atrocious killings all over the country, about which the
federal government has demonstrated inertia; nay, complicity, while
the state at the receiving end lay prostrate. Were there to be
state police, the situation would have been significantly
different; but we kick against state police because we think the
states had in the past abused and or will abuse it. If I may ask,
what of the federal government that has not only abused its control
of the police but also of the armed forces and the intelligence
agencies in this regard?

As stated by you, and rightly so, EFCC had, in times past, been
mindlessly compromised for the promotion of the political chicanery
of those who paid the piper. Matters could not have been worse in
the hands of state governors. Yet, we have not asked for the
scrapping of the EFCC or for the federal government to hands off
its control. And it is not as if anyone could beat his chest and
vouch that there is no corruption in the EFCC. In fact, for
whatever it is worth, the DSS has twice indicted the EFCC’s acting
chairman, Ibrahim Magu, as being unfit to hold office. Repulsive as
it is to see a state House of Assembly become the play-thing of a
governor, it is not only in the states that the legislature has
become such a caricature of what it is supposed to be. We have seen
similar or worse shenanigans at the centre. Yet, we did not
advocate for the eradication of the National Assembly or demand
that it is divested of its constitutionally-assigned duties.
Respectfully, let me say that Justice Taiwo’s judgment does not
necessary amount to an erosion of the fight against corruption. I
dare to say that, in fact, it can – and should – promote it by
giving it more verve and panache. How many cases in Abuja alone can
the EFCC handle, not to talk of all over the states? With the
states setting up their own EFCC, more will be achieved in the
anti-corruption war. And with the state House of Assembly being
told to be alive to its responsibility of ensuring that the funds
it appropriates are judiciously used, Taiwo is helping to deepen,
rather than erode, the anti-graft war. He should be commended for
this.

As for any House of Assembly that makes itself a rubber stamp,
their shame and good grief! But if, as a result, we run away from
true federalism and promote a system that has concentrated too much
powers and resources already in the hands of the federal
government, we shall only be cutting our nose to spite our face. As
they say, we cannot have our cake and eat it. We must be conscious
to deepen democracy and restore true federalism. States should set
up their own anti-graft agencies. State Houses of Assembly should
be up and alive to their duties. As citizens, we must hold their
feet to the fire. I want to believe that the theatrics of Governor
Ayo Fayose on the floor of the Ekiti State House of Assembly should
be seen simply as politics. It is the duty of the honourable
members of the House to proceed afterwards to do the needful with
the state budget; otherwise, they, and not necessarily Fayose,
should carry the can. Whoever has sworn to an oath of office must
observe it and those for whom tasks have been set must diligently
undertake them; otherwise, our renascent democracy will be
endangered again and we shall, sooner than later, be back to square
one.

Bolawole is a former newspaper editor.