Special Court’ll compound judiciary’s woes – TheNigerialawyer

Chief Mike Ahamba, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria
(SAN), in this interview with AKEEM
NAFIU of Newtelegraph^[1], speaks on
special court for corruption cases, AGF’s power to manage assets
recovered by anti-graft agencies, Hate Speech Bill, life jail for
kidnappers and sundry issues.

Do you share the view that the new rule issued by
the Ministry of Justice, empowering the Attorney General of the
Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), to manage all assets recovered
by anti-graft agencies will promote corruption?

Who will do it and there will not be thinking about
corruption? There’s nobody who will take charge that will not be
suspected of engaging in corruption. Now, if you look at the
Constitution, the president has the power to assign any
responsibility given to him as the Chief Executive of this country
to any of his ministers. So, if this is an assignment from the
president, I think it is constitutional. We can only hope and pray
that the Attorney-General will do the right thing with the
recovered assets.

However, if it is the Ministry of Justice that came
up with the rule, it has no such powers. But, the implementation of
such rule must be with the authority of the president.

If the president has asked the Attorney-General of
the Federation to take charge, we should allow him to carry out the
assignment before criticizing him.

Do you support establishment of Special Courts for
speedy dispensation of justice as being canvassed by President
Muhammadu Buhari?

I have always been against the creation of Special
Court to enhance speedy dispensation of justice. I spoke against it
at the National Conference and even in my book which will soon be
published.

One problem that we have in this country is that we
usually fail to examine why a negative issue is persisting before
making attempt to address it.

How will the creation of Special Courts solve the
problem of slow pace of justice delivery? By creating more courts,
we cannot solve the problem. I think we should focus on the
procedure of adjudication in the country as a way out of the
problem rather than creating Special Courts.

We should look among other things at what rules are
to be amended to enhance quick dispensation of justice. Necessary
equipment should also be supplied to existing judges to work with.
Why won’t cases be delayed when judges are still writing in long
hands? Why are there no recorders for proceedings? These are some
of the issues to be addressed. Let’s find the cause of a problem
before we look for a solution.

For instance, has the changing of the name of
National Electricity Power Authority (NEPA) to Power Holding
Company of Nigeria (PHCN) help us in solving the electricity
problem in this country? How much positive impact has the changing
of Nigerian Prison Service (NPS) to Nigerian Correctional Service
(NCS) brought on inmates?

As far as I am concerned, it is the human management
of a place that matters and not the change of name or something
else. The important thing is for those in charge to know their
responsibilities and carry them out.

Besides, the absence of sanctions in appropriate
areas is the bane of our society. People must be appropriately
sanctioned for failing to carry out responsibilities assigned to
them under the law.

What I am saying, in essence, is that creating more
courts in the name of Special Courts will only add to the existing
problems. People who are directly involved in adjudication should
be involved in charting a course for the way out of the problem of
justice delay.

The sponsor of the Hate Speech Bill, Senator Aliyu
Abdullahi, said he had to come up with the Bill because hate speech
is the root of violence in Nigeria. Do you share his view?

I can’t agree with him. It’s not true. Sometimes what
is regarded as hate speech could have emanated as a result of what
has been done to an individual.

I am against the Bill. It is unconstitutional. That
man who came up with the Bill might be the first victim. There must
be a proper definition of what constitutes hate speech. If people
are complaining because a government is underperforming, we cannot
term that as hate speech.

If an issue is affecting me and my people and I
decided to air my views, you cannot accuse me of propagating hate
speech. If your cattle are destroying my crops and I stand up
against it by saying one thing or the other, you cannot accuse me
of hate speech.

So, in essence, there must be a proper definition of
what constitutes hate speech before coming up with any law to curb
it, in order to prevent any infringement on constitutional
provisions.

As far as I am concerned, anything that prevents
people from expressing their views is against the Constitution of
Nigeria. Besides, this Hate Speech Bill is even an issue of
misplaced priority by the Senators. It is not in pursuit of peace,
order and good government in Nigeria, which is what is suppose to
be the main concern of the lawmakers. Anything to the contrary is
unconstitutional.

So, any attempt by anyone to gag me not to say my
mind on any issue is unconstitutional. Members of the National
Assembly are expected to work in line with the dictates of the
Constitution and if the lawmakers succeeded in passing the Bill, I,
Mike Ahamba, will go to court to test its validity.

Senators are now pushing for life imprisonment for
anyone engaging in kidnapping. How far would this measure help in
curbing the menace?

Well, I think it’s a step in the right direction.
But, the punishment being suggested is not even the issue but I am
more concerned about the implementation.

Anyone who involved in kidnapping should be kept in
jail to serve as a deterrent to others and also prevent him from
continuing in the illicit business.

The problem we are having is the implementation of
the laws and not the laws themselves. The failure of institutions
to perform their functions under the law is a major problem. This
is why we are faced with diverse problems in this country.

Do you think the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) is right to have returned anyone as the winner of
the last governorship election in Kogi State with the reported
violence that characterized the polls?

Well, the Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC) has already declared a winner and it is now left for the
judiciary to look at the proper conduct or otherwise of the whole
exercise.

If INEC has failed, there’s a remedy called the
judiciary. It is the failure of the judiciary that is more
dangerous to Nigeria than the perpetrators of the violence. So,
judiciary should try not to fail Nigerians.

If it is true that there were widespread violence so
that it could not be said that an election has taken place, the
judiciary is expected to void it. If on the hand, it was found out
that the conduct of the election had complied substantially with
the law, then its result should be validated by the court.

The ball is now in judiciary’s court to make proper
findings about the conduct of the election and make appropriate
declaration.

What do you think can be done to have elections
devoid of violence in this country?

Well, I have always been saying that being just and
honest is a choice. One day, we shall have an INEC Chairman and
others working with him, who will say I will not be part of any
irregularity and that would be the end of the problem.

Besides, those at the National Assembly should sit up
and come up with a brand new Electoral Act that will be used for
the next general election. It’s no longer a matter of amending the
existing one.

There should be serious brainstorming by people who
are familiar with the contents of all the Electoral Acts used so
far for elections in this country and from there, a brand new
Electoral Act to be used for future elections will emerged.

In 2003, I identified five safeguard provisions in
our Electoral Act and by 2007, those safeguard provisions have been
removed to allow rigging. When we attacked this in 2007, more
safeguard provisions were removed from the Electoral Act to allow
rigging in 2011. The same thing has continued till date.

Therefore, the process of getting a brand new
Electoral Act should commence immediately before preparations for
the next general election begins. The National Assembly should
organize a seminar and invite notable election petition lawyers to
speak on what have gone wrong and chart the way forward.

How do you view a statement credited to the
Inspector General of Police, Mohammed Adamu, that fake policemen
perpetrated violence in the recently conducted Kogi governorship
election?  Is the statement enough to exonerate the
police of complicity?

In a civilized and decent clime, the IGP ought to
have resigned by now. How can IGP say fake policemen operated among
his own men? I am not even sure any of those so-called fake
policemen have been arrested till date. That’s why violence has
continued to trail our elections. You can be rest assured that in
2023, the same thing will repeat itself. Repeatedly, we have failed
to take decisive action against perpetrators of violence during
elections.

So, the assertion by the IGP cannot exonerate the
police of any complicity. In fact, the first police officer that
should go now is the Inspector General of Police for coming up with
such assertion. I am very surprised that all these are happening
under the watch of President Muhammadu Buhari in whom I had
absolute belief.