Dayo Sobowale
I delve today into the history of the ancient Roman Empire to illustrate the prevailing attitude in many democracies in the world today.
Especially in the last few days on the issue of elections, political succession, protests and the institutions in operation to facilitate that political actions and decisions conform to rules and laws made to control them. Attila the Hun who once invaded a trembling Rome, the capital of the Ancient Roman Empire, was also called ‘the Scourge of God ‘by historians. Attila reportedly boasted that ‘there, where I have passed, the grass will not grow again. ‘Attila’s war strategy was total destruction of enemy territory in a manner of no return in terms of future human habitation or existence. The equivalent of that is another war terminology called ‘the scotched earth policy‘. The French who later invented the guillotine to behead their rich and mighty defined such total annihilation of the opponent or enemy as –‘après moi la deluge ‘which in English means –‘after me, destruction’
Obviously these are examples of war situations and should be avoided in times of peace. But then surprisingly politics nowadays is becoming a do or die situation with a no holds barred, might is right disposition that seems to say that everybody should fight for himself to grab what is available on the table to eat or squander and, may the devil take the hindmost. To illustrate what some may perceive as my exaggeration is the purpose of today’s discourse.
Just look at the state of American politics after the November 3 presidential elections and the daggers or guns drawn between the Republicans and Democrats gladiators on who has won and who has lost and who should concede or take power. It is a clear grim simulation of the definition of politics as – Who gets what, when and how. Again look at the situation in Nigeria where the CBN, on a court order has frozen the accounts of promoters of the last Anti SARS protests while the government has branded such activists as terrorists, a charge the activists and protesters loudly deny, although the destruction of police stations nationwide, the killing of policemen and the burning of public buildings and properties seem, so eloquently and vividly like acts of arson, vandalism and of course terrorism. Indeed a lawyer charged some activists to court for destruction of his property during the anti SARS demonstration and arson but another group of lawyers promised to take the name of the lawyer to the disciplinary committee of the Nigerian Bar Association for disbarring. These then are the knotty issues we shall look at in today’s narrative.
We shall look at the legalities of the American presidential politics in the light of the broken tradition of concession which President Trump has so personally and powerfully demonstrated. We shall look at the responsibility of the Nigerian government to maintain the rule of law and the legalities of such actions to prevent the nation from sliding to anarchy when the anti SARS demonstration was violently highjacked by hoodlums and miscreants who looted and destroyed police stations and public properties. We shall also see or look for the legality of a lawyer suing the protesters for destruction by protesters who were mostly led or galvanised into action by a body or collection of people who were mostly lawyers.
On the impasse in the US presidential election it is difficult to sit on the fence so I will try to present the position of those for Joe Biden, the perceived or projected winner, since the electoral college has not met, and that of the incumbent president who insists he has been cheated and has since gone to court. In terms of votes cast the Democrats insist that every vote must be counted. The Republicans insist that only legal votes must be counted and illegal ones cannot be counted pointing out that votes are meaningless until examined and found to be valid. The Republicans insist ominously that the polling center has shifted in this election to the post offices where votes are being counted and their polling agents are being denied access and votes are being counted for deceased and dead voters. So in a way the Democrats have prevailed in the post offices where posted votes favor them over personal and election day voting that favoured Republicans. But the courts are the arbiter in election litigations and voting audit and the Supreme Court which is the highest court in the US, is tilted towards the Republicans as Trump indeed recommended three of the present judges for appointment and the Republicans have 6 such pro Republican judges on the bench to the Democrats three. So the die is cast and the arena is the US Supreme Court and it is there that we shall see which will prevail between the endless counting of the post offices or the fine points of law on participant observation and legal or illegal ballots. Surely, as the tumultuous crowd historically hailed in the arena, as the gladiators of ancient Rome fought to the death, – ‘let the games begin’
We now focus on the anti SARS protests and the characterization of the promoters as terrorists. Really I think this is a serious mischaracterization as the government approved of the demonstrations very quickly and banned SARS but the demonstrations persisted which can be attributed to youthful exuberance. Surely it is within governments right to ban terrorists accounts as is done in the EU or US with ISIS, Al Quada, Boko Haram but these promoters are not of such caliber and government should temper justice with mercy. Indeed the anti SARS organisers should issue a statement condemning the arson and looting by those hooligans who brazenly hijacked the protests to give it a bad name. But definitely anti SARS demonstrators were public spirited and just wanted a more equitable and just society and government should indeed let bygones be bygones, unless there is an obvious illegality in the use of funds against the public interest and security.
Now we look at the threat to take to the Bar Disciplinary Committee a lawyer suing the anti SARS protesters for damage to his property arising from the carnage of the anti SARS protests. I think the lawyer is within his rights and should not be threatened with disbarment as a practicing lawyer. This lawyer’s motive is similar to that of government in the mischaracterization of anti SARS protests promoters as terrorists but his own grouse is personal and he should not be silenced. Indeed those who live in glass houses should not throw stones on this matter and the lawyer should be allowed to have his day in court without any threat of disbarment from practicing his profession. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Once again From the fury of this raging pandemic Good Lord Deliver Nigeria.
