‘Sowore Is Not Miyetti Allah’, FG Is Treating Judiciary With Disdain – Soyinka

Prof. Wole Soyinka has said that the Federal Government’s
continued disobedience to court rulings especially with regards to
the case of Mr. Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters,
is an act of disrespect to the Judiciary.

The Nobel Laureate said the nation continues to undergo the
chagrin of having the rug pulled from under her feet while waiting
on the long queue for judicial redress against the strong-arm
culture of the state, as well as unlisted power interests.

In the case of Sowore who was arrested for calling for
revolution to protest against bad governance via his
#RevolutionNow# movement, Soyinka asked: “Is Sowore Miyetti
Allah?”

He further stated that “As for those agencies that actually
think to inhibit social revolution by fastening on the alarmist
association of the word ‘revolution’, half the citizens of this
nation should be in permanent detention. From pulpit to the
minaret, from clinic to fish market, from student club to motor
park, the wish for a drastic transformation of this nation is
staple discourse.”

Soyinka also stated that the degree of cynicism in the conduct
of State Security agencies in the present administration has
attained a level of consistency that is surpassed by only one other
previous government.

The playwright and critic in a statement titled, ‘Between
thuggery and state disobedience’, said it is sad that not only have
the State Security agencies refused to obey a court order to
release the suspect after fulfilling his bail conditions, but they
have also manufactured one childish pretext after another,
including a claim that no one has shown up to receive the
detainee.

He condemned the arrest and continued detention of the human
rights activist under what he described as the often specious alibi
labeled “national security”.

Soyinka said much of the judiciary across the continent remains
constantly under siege, adding that Nigeria is no exception.

Below is the state as published by the Nobel
Laureate.

Between THUGGERY and STATE DISOBEDIENCE

I have no hesitation in admitting that I have a personal,
formative interest in the health of the Nigerian judiciary, deeper
perhaps than the average Nigerian. At a critical junction in the
life of this writer, a judge resolved to give primacy to the call
of conscience, affirm his professional integrity and defend the
supremacy of law in defiance of state interference.

He refused to bow to external pressure in adjudicating a case
whose conclusion, had this accused been found guilty as charged,
would have been life imprisonment. That individual, the late
Justice Kayode Eso, has narrated the event in his autobiography –
The Mystery Gunman with his noted wit and judicial poise.

The Deputy Premier of the then Western region of Nigeria had
summoned the judge to his residence, lectured him on his duty to
protect the interests of the government against the accused.
Justice Kayode listened politely, re-affirmed his commitment to the
rule of law, and took his leave.

It would be most surprising if my own brush with the law has not
crossed my mind since the predicament of Omoyele Sowole, journalist
and former presidential candidate began.

The Nigerian judiciary was not thereby, nor is today a model of
perfection.

Nonetheless, exemplars such as Justice Esho have succeeded in
creating, in some of us, an exceptional respect for the Bench,
instilled a conviction that the law, despite its lapses, demands
respect, autonomy, and obedience.

Much of the judiciary across the continent remains constantly
under siege – Nigeria is no exception. Needless to say, it often
strikes me that the “learned brotherhood” could do more to protect,
and assert itself. Apart from the obvious and numerous scandals of
moral deficit that require constant internal purgation, there are
instances where it does fail to protect itself even from putative
and/or illegal power.

Take the assassination of the Minister of Justice and
Attorney-General, Bola Ige on his way to a UN appointment. The
presiding judge on that case cried out against unseemly
interference from “ least expected quarters”.

He kept a diary of coded names and times, two pages of which
came into my possession. His cries petered out in the void. Justice
Abass, feeling vulnerable and isolated, bowed out of the case. The
judiciary lamely acquiesced, certainly with a huge sigh of relief
in some sectors. A robust opportunity lost to burnish the image of
the law. I was left aghast.

From tragedy to slapstick tragi-comedy – let us pull up an
eye-witness account from the Nigerian PM News of Thursday,
September 2014:

Temperamental Ekiti state Governor-elect, Ayodele Fayose,
slapped a court judge today for being rude to him and then ordered
his thugs to beat him further.

The action of Fayose and his thugs triggered some pandemonium in
the court, with judicial workers and others running into safety.
The sitting of the Ekiti State Governorship Election petition
Tribunal could also not hold.

Immediately, thugs numbering about 20 pounced on Justice
Adeyeye, beat him up and tore his clothes, while his co-workers
scampered and shouted for help.

Following the development, judicial workers hurriedly shut down
the court premises thereby preventing any court proceeding for
hours before the police fired tear gas canisters to disperse the
hoodlums.

For a week, two weeks, then forever, `I waited to see what would
be the response of the judiciary. There came none. Naively, I
thought, surely, this institution will rise and defend its very
existence through some form of action, even if merely symbolic. Not
a squeak. Not even after that governor left office and thereby lost
his immunity. What to me appeared to be the collapse, not just of a
pillar, but of the edifice of human culture, appeared to be no more
than a blip on the judicial template.

There are of course more effective ways of degrading a judiciary
than merely brutalizing a judge, and leaving his judicial robes in
tatters. One of the most effective, increasingly optimized in
Nigeria, is simply by not only ignoring, but treating its orders
with disdain, encouraging its agencies to trot out cynical excuses
for disobedience while laughing all the way to the citadel of
power.

In that regard, there does appear to be an undeclared contest
among succeeding governments, intensified since the return of the
nation to a civilian government in 1999 for placement in the
Guinness Book of Records as the most notorious Scofflaw in the
field of democratic pretensions. Or could it be an anticipation of
a proposal I made at the Athens Democracy Forum some months ago,
calling for an annual award – such as an Order of Demerit – for
such an achiever?

Perhaps we have finally attained maximum saturation, and there
is no need for any further record keeping. It is extremely
difficult to imagine a further lowering of the bar of disdain for
the law than we have witnessed under the present regime. The degree
of cynicism in the conduct of State Security agencies has attained
a level of consistency that is surpassed by only one other previous
government – but it is a close call. Not only does the security
agency refuse to obey a court order to release a suspect after
fulfilling his bail conditions, but that agency also manufactures
one childish pretext after another, including a claim that no one
has shown up to receive the detainee.

“His sureties have yet to show up to collect him”, declared the
DSS, prime candidate for a special featuring in my “Interventions”
series, periodically dedicated to the theme of The Republic of
Liars. Are we speaking here of a full-grown adult, a journalist and
former presidential aspirant, or an overnight bag awaiting the
rightful claimant in a LOST AND FOUND department?

The nation continues to undergo the chagrin of having the rug
pulled from under her feet while waiting on the long queue for
judicial redress against the strong-arm culture of state, as well
as unlisted power interests.

For instance, Lagos state, the former capital, and still the
acknowledged commercial capital of the nation, once found herself
denied statutory allocation for several years, despite repeated
court declarations that such withholding by the central government
was unconstitutional and should be remedied forthwith.

That president took sadistic pleasure in simply playing deaf. It
took his successor to end the abuse and restore the full
entitlements of that state, disobedience that went beyond mere
churlishness but affected the development and welfare of the
indigenes of that state. And so on, and on, waiting in vain for
that day when the Rule of Law becomes commonplace, and its benefice
is not doled out by the drop to famished mendicants.

So, finally, what do thuggery and court disobedience have in
common?Everything! They are both Scofflaw manifestations.
Unilateral declarations of Supra-Law delusions.

One is simply a more structured, more hypocritical version of
the other. One knows itself for what it is, while the other tries
to camouflage its abnormality under a higher purpose, the more
elastic the better . Such is that often specious alibi labeled
“national security”.

Is Sowore Myetti Allah? As for those agencies that actually
think to inhibit social revolution by fastening on the alarmist
association of the word ‘revolution’, half the citizens of this
nation should be in permanent detention. From pulpit to the
minaret, from clinic to fish market, from student club to motor
park, the wish for a drastic transformation of this nation is
staple discourse.

Perhaps we should begin with its application to that institution
whose decisions affect both society and individuals with such
finality, for good or ill – the judiciary.

Magu Can Contine to Act at Pleasure of President-
Justice Ojukwu

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday dismissed requests to
sack Mr. Ibrahim Magu as the acting Chairman of the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission EFCC even though it faulted Magu’s
unending stay in acting capacity

Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu delivered separate judgments in five
separate suits instituted in 2017 seeking judicial pronouncement on
Magu’s continued stay in office since 2015 without senate
confirmation.

The judge declined to sack Magu as prayed for in three of the
suits where the plaintiffs contended that he was not fit to
continue to remain in office as EFCC chairman either in acting or
substantive capacity, having been rejected by the Senate on two
different occasions.

She also rejected the two other suits in which the plaintiffs
contended that the Senate confirmation was not required for the
President to appoint Magu as the EFCC chairman.

In her judgments in the suits seeking Magu’s removal, the judge
held that a person could continue to act as the EFCC’s chairman at
the pleasure of the Nigerian President because there was a lacuna
in the law which failed to spell out a time limit for an acting
tenure.

She held that section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act,
2004, which provides that members and the chairman of the
anti-graft agency could only be appointed by the President subject
to the confirmation by the Senate, left a lacuna on how long a
person could occupy the office of commission’s chairman in acting
capacity.

Justice Ojukwu held that the time limit for the acting tenure,
having not been provided by the EFCC Act, the court could not
import it from the Civil Service Rules.

“As the law stands today, in my humble view, the period of the
tenure of the acting chairman of the EFCC lies with the President
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to decide,” Justice Ojukwu held.
.

She however dismissed Magu’s contention that his appointment by
the President did not require Senate’s confirmation.

“Without sentiment, the acting tenure is not meant to last as
long as the subtstntive office,” adding that “The acting tenure is
not meant to be used to install the person in perpetuity or use
that window of the lacuna to install the person in substantive
capacity.”

She said in view of the provision of section 2(3) of the EFCC
Act, and section 171 of the Nigerian Constitution, “it would be an
aberration for this court to hold that the appointment of the EFCC
chairman does need senate confirmation”.

The Judge added, “Senate confirmation is compulsorily
required.

“The senate confirmation is to ensure the checks and balances
needed in our democracy”.

The Judge held that section 2(3) of the EFCC (Establishment)
Act, 2004, provided that a person could only be appointed by the
Nigerian President as the substantive EFCC chairman subject to
Senate’s confirmation, but failed to provide for time limit a
person could act as the commission’s chairman.

“The lacuna in the law by the fact that there is no time limit
for the acting tenure for the office of the EFCC chairman has given
the President the proverbial yam and the knife to do as he
pleases,” Justice Ojukwu ruled.

Justice Ojukwu however held that contrary to the argument by
Magu’s lawyer, Mr. Wahab Shittu, the EFCC was not an
“extra-ministerial body” like those created under section 153 of
the Nigerian constitution and for which the appointment of their
members and chairmen by the President does not require senate
confirmation.

She held that section 171 of the Constitution was more
applicable to the EFCC as it limits the power of the President to
appoint the members and the chairman of the commission to Senate
confirmation.

The Judge held that section 2(3) of the EFCC Act, and sections
153, 154 and 171 of the Nigerian Constitution were not in conflict,
and “it would be an aberration for this court to hold that the
appointment of the EFCC chairman does not require Senate
confirmation”.

The plaintiffs in three of the suits had sought Magu’s removal
on the grounds that the Senate had twice rejected his appointed and
refused to confirm him to take up the position in a substantive
capacity.

They argued that Magu, who has been acting as the EFCC chairman
since 2015, having been rejected by the senate, was not fit to
continue to remain in the office either in temporary or substantive
capacity.

The suits were, FHC/ABJ/CS/159/2017 – Johnmary Jideobi Vs Senate
and three others; FHC/ABJ/CS/469/2017 – Chijioke Kanu Vs Minister
of Justice and two others; and FHC/ABJ/502/2017 – Wale Balogun Vs
President of Federal Republic of Nigeria and four others.

The other two suits are FHC/ABJ/CS/138/207 – Jibrin Okutepa
(SAN) Vs President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and four
others; and FHC/ABJ/CS/227/2017 – Ahmed Yusuf and another Vs
Ibrahim Magu and five others.

By PRNigeria^[1]