Mrs. Olufunke Adekoya is Head, Dispute Resolution Practice Group at AELEX, a firm of legal practitioners and arbitrators. She was appointed Notary Public in 1986 and elevated to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) in 2001 (the fifth woman to be so elevated). She has been a member of the Body of Benchers since 1999 and was elevated to a life bencher in March 2007. In the field of arbitration, Mrs. Adekoya represents both local and transnational parties as counsel in both domestic and international arbitration proceedings within Nigeria and abroad, and has acted in numerous disputes as either-party appointed arbitrator, sole arbitrator and presiding arbitrator. In this interview with Assistant Editor, LINUS OBOGO, the wife of Air Vice Marshal Oluwole Adekoya (rtd) speaks on the rise of women on the Bench, corruption in the judiciary, as well as the balance between her role as a lawyer and wife to a soldier. Excerpts:
DOES coming from a family of lawyers mean anything special to you?
My father was a lawyer, I am a lawyer and my daughter is also a lawyer. The one thing I could say I gained from having a father who was a lawyer is that I had to explain and give reasons for every demand that I made of my father. For instance, if I needed N100, I had to explain to him why and what I needed it for and how I was going to spend it. That was the kind of man my father was as a lawyer and a father. But if it was just any other man, he could say okay, here is the N100 or that he does not have exactly N100 and if I could manage N50.
So, for my father, everything was in debate and in discussion. He taught me how to think logically and to be able to explain my actions at all times. There was no time I needed to go out and to return at say 8 pm or 9 pm, that my father would not insist on me explaining to him in detail why it had to be that time.
As a lawyer married to an army officer, what was the atmosphere like in the house, given that in the military, there is this command and obey structure, or ‘obey before complaint’?
As a lawyer married to a military officer, I knew and still know that I could only be a lawyer in the office and not in the house. Also, sometimes when there is a discussion between my husband and me, as a lawyer, what I usually say is ‘let’s reason it out, this is what I think should be done’. But as a military man, he will say ‘no, this is how I want it to be. I will say okay, you are the boss. So if it turns out the way I had earlier suggested, next time when such situation arises, he will remember and align with my position. But if he does not remember, we will do it his own way again until such a time that he realises that we may have to try my own point of view.
Over a period of time, if I hold a view contrary to his, he will listen and engage my own view. There is the tendency for him to look at issues from the angle of the military, while I will like to consider the same issue from the position of law. That is how we have managed ourselves over the years; 35 years to be exact.
What would you consider your most embarrassing moment as a lawyer?
My most embarrassing moment was not exactly in court. It was in the office of my principal in Kaduna, where I started practising as a lawyer. We were the second set of youth corps members then. It happened that a male client walked into the office and demanded to see my principal. He was not only surprised to see a woman but one he actually regarded as a Nyarinya (young girl) as a lawyer. When I wanted to attend to him, he said ‘no, I want a lawyer’. He probably thought I was a secretary. Even when I told him I was a lawyer and that I was assigned to his case, he said no; that he wanted to see my boss who he thought was probably the only lawyer in the chambers. I went in to tell my boss that Alhaji did not want me and that he said he wanted a lawyer. Unfortunately for him, my boss led him out of his office with his file, and asked him not to come to his chambers any longer. He told him he was not handling his matter and that he could go elsewhere. The man started trembling.
My boss told him that if I was the one handling his case and he did not respect me, it also meant he did not respect or have confidence in him (boss). Eventually, he allowed me. That, to me, was very embarrassing; for somebody to walk in and assume that because I was a woman, I was supposed to be a secretary and I could not be a lawyer, and he wanted to see a lawyer. Not even when I had told him I was a lawyer. He said ‘no, I want to see a lawyer, a man.’
I went home that day and reflected on what being a woman was. For the first time, I was confronted with the issue of being a woman and actually came to terms with the gender issue for the first time. The assumption then was that as a woman, you could never be a lawyer.
How do you relax?
I read novels. And if I have the time, I go to parties and dance. That is just about it.
If you were not a lawyer, what would you have been?
If I was not a lawyer, I would have been in Nollywood as an actress. When I was in the university, Ife (OAU), to be precise, I used to be very active in the theatre. I was in the drama group, acting plays. We used to travel to Dakar, Senegal. During the holiday, I used to act in the now rested Village Headmaster. So, if I was not a lawyer, I would have been an actress.
What would you consider as the most expensive piece of apparel in your closet?
Honestly, I am not into fashion and so, I cannot see any expensive clothing in my wardrobe. What I have are just my office wears. I am not a style person. Rather, I am a functional dresser and I wear what I am comfortable in at any given time.
What would you regard as your worst habit?
What I will consider as my worst habit is perhaps the fact that I do not give much attention to myself. I am always busy doing one thing or the other for one person or the other without giving much attention to myself. I would not know if that is a habit. If it is, then, that may be my worst habit.
With the elevation of a woman as head of the country’s apex court and with more promoted as justices of the Supreme Court, would you say the women are finally assuming their right of place, particularly in a sector dominated largely by men?
Sincerely, I will say yes. The women are assuming their rightful place in the judiciary. Having said that, it is pertinent to point out that we have had women chief judges at the state level, in the northern, western and eastern part of the country. It is only at the Supreme Court that we are finally getting to the apex. Again, I will say that it is only a question of timing, because as we all know, from Justice Aloma Muktar’s CV, she has been in the profession a long time.
However, I want to say that women in any career will also know that it takes a longer time to get to the height of their career than their male counterparts. This is because women have additional responsibilities as wives, mothers, other obligations and family commitments to take care of. So, while we are balancing all these various roles, one thing will take precedence at a particular time and another will take precedence at another time. Therefore, it generally takes a woman a little bit longer to rise to the top than it does take a man. And this is not any different in the legal profession.
What, in your view, would you consider as challenges likely to constrain women, who have risen to the top from succeeding, whether in the judiciary or other sectors?
Whether one succeeds or not, having climbed to the top has nothing to do with gender. Anybody who has risen to the top has the same responsibility to use the time to make a mark, to be different and stamp her own imprints on where he or she finds herself at that point in time.
Maybe for Justice Aloma Mariam Muktar, I think because she happens to be the first woman to have risen to the position of Chief Justice of Nigeria, all eyes are on her. Also, given the state our judiciary has found itself at the time she assumed office, there will be a little bit more of the searchlight and the spotlight on her as people will expect her to be a magician and move mountains. But this may not be possible in the two years she has to be in office.
But so far, she is doing her best and most people are quite happy with what she has been able to do. She has a two-year-tenure because she has to retire at 70 years.
A lot of people would want to imagine that judges should be full of wisdom as they get older. Does it not amount to robbing the country of the wealth of experience and wisdom, when judges are statutorily stampeded into premature retirement at the age of 70 years?
Absolutely! But while I wouldn’t link tenure to age because we have people who are well over 70 years and who are still very active. If I had my way, I would rather that at that level, it should be tenure than age. For instance, the late Justice Kayode Eso was well over 80 years, yet he was still very active at the arbitration community, even though he had retired from the Supreme Court. Conversely, we have people who are under 50s and 60s, yet they are already tired and finished. So, I would want to suggest that tenure should perhaps be reviewed to some renewable terms, in the same way that we have four years renewable term for the presidency. This is worth considering to have the chief judge of a state or the chief justice of the federation to have a four-year-tenure, during which if he or she fails to perform, he goes back to being part of the Bench and someone else takes over. But if you perform, your tenure should be renewed for as long as you are physically able to perform. I do not subscribe to the 65/70 years retirement age for our judges. If as a judge, you do not perform, you should rather return to the Bench, because leadership skills are not the same as the skills to judge or decide a case.
Someone could be good at judging a case which makes him or her a good judge, but because by seniority you become the chief justice or the chief judge, if you do not have the administrative and leadership skills, you may not be able to lead. Apart from being a good judge, you need management skills as well. And if you cannot balance the two, in a situation where you have a good judge who is good at judging cases in leadership position, one of either will fall apart. The administration will suffer. So, if you cannot be the administrative head, you might as well go back to the Bench and someone else becomes the chief judge.
There is this refrain that has gradually acquired a dated appeal, which is that ‘the judiciary is the last hope of the common man’. Today, the common man’s hope is irredeemably dashed, no thanks to obvious institutional corruption that has held the senior officers of the bench captive. Who, in your view will bell the cat?
I must say that the Chief Justice is doing her best to face up to these issues. Additionally, the Bar also needs to face up to these issues. On our part, we are also trying to do something by setting up the anti-corruption committee. But on the whole, we really need to engage with the populace. Just like the SERVICOM, we can also have complaint boxes in the court rooms and court premises, where people can write and drop their complaints about corrupt legal officers. There can also be a website where people can send posts about legal officers demanding bribes to facilitate or obtain justice.
Honestly, I think we are getting to a point where we must face up to the issues that confront us both as members of the Bar and the Bench. Hopefully, things will change if we continue like that. Obviously, the Bench is disciplining itself. Even in the profession, we have gotten to a point where we have said that as a legal profession, we are also involved. Some of our members are not helping the situation by corrupting the judicial process.
We can also see that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee is becoming more active in publicising it activities. And once the public gets to know that once you make a complaint, there will be a quick decision, confidence will definitely return. That is what we are trying to do.
The trend all over the world today, is in the direction of how to settle dispute outside the usual court method through arbitration. Why is the emphasis still more on litigation in Nigeria than arbitration?
I think that firstly, the arbitration community or practitioners in Nigeria have woken up to the fact that we are losing focus. People go to arbitration because they want a quick decision and they do not want to go to court. But we find a situation where people get a decision and yet they go to court to challenge that same decision. What the arbitration community has decided to do is to educate ourselves and secondly the judiciary. To educate ourselves as lawyers is to explain to our members that look, today you are in court and tomorrow, you are before the arbitration. If you appear before the arbitration and you are not satisfied or successful and you take the case to court, at the end of the day, you have destroyed 50 per cent of your potential income. For instance, if those who are bringing arbitration matters to you think that at the end of the day they will still end up in court, they will rather not bring arbitration matters to you.
So, we are actually cutting down our own practice. Secondly, they may decide that they are not going to court at all. They may decide to leave the country and forget about the whole matter entirely. Alternatively, they may decide to take the arbitration abroad. What we are trying to do therefore, is to tell our members that in arbitration, you must choose the correct person as your arbitrator and once the correct arbitrator has given you the right decision, accept it and let your client accept it.
We are also talking to judges to explain to lawyers what arbitration process is and that we are both partners working together, so that when arbitration matters come to their court, they should dispose of them quickly. And over a period of years, people will come to appreciate that it is not worth going to court to prolong what ordinarily should have taken a short time to resolve.
How can arbitration be made accessible to the ordinary man without undue financial encumbrances to him and in a binding manner?
Well, one of the things, for instance, that the Lagos State Government has done is that from January 2012, if you file any paper anywhere in court, the court will decide if it should go for mediation settlement or arbitration, and why it should not come into the full courtroom. That is one of the ways in which many cases will be resolved at the arbitration stage, or even mediation, trying to negotiate a settlement between the parties. Many of these instances will affect smaller disputes where you will not have to spend a lot of money and time in court.
Courts also have mediation courthouses attached to them. You will find this in Lagos, Abuja and Port Harcourt, where you also have arbitration courthouses or court annex. Here, if you have a dispute, you just pay a small amount, after which they will collect your paper and call the other party and help settle the matter.
Arbitration appears to be narrowly skewed in favour of a few privileged lawyers, despite that it is somewhat an integral part of legal service delivery, why the seeming segregation?
You are not totally correct. In the law school, every single student takes a course in arbitration. In fact, it is called Alternate Dispute Resolution, ADR. It is arbitration, mediation conciliation and negotiation. Every law student takes the course. What has happened is the mentality of a typical Nigerian lawyer to want to try something new.
In our part of the world, we have always been brought up to reason in a way that unless you put on the wig and the gown and go to court, you are not a lawyer. And this is what we have been trying to preach to everybody that arbitration is open to every lawyer. It is not restricted to select privileged lawyers in a way you are trying to paint the picture. If you want to be involved as a lawyer in arbitration, it is simple. If you have a dispute, do not try to rush to court. First and foremost, you have to check the agreement. If the agreement has an arbitration clause, you commend the arbitration proceedings.
Sadly for many lawyers, when they have a dispute, they want to prove they are lawyers by rushing to court first before considering other options. That is what we are trying to explain to lawyers who think that arbitration is only for privileged lawyers that once you have taken that route of first going to court, you cannot go back to arbitration. You have to first think arbitration and it is only when that fails that you then explore the option of court.
You recently chaired a workshop organised by the Centre for Corrections and Human Development (CCHD), an advocacy group against human and child/sex trafficking. What do you imagine to be the underlying motives behind the trade and the constraint in arresting the boom?
It is purely economic. Both the trafficker and the trafficked are involved purely for the fundamental reasons of economic. Those engaged in human and child/sex trafficking do so purely for money and nothing else. They prey on the fact that the women and the children they are trafficking also want to make money. The workshop which was very well attended was an eye opener. It was the general observation that many of the women and the girl child do not go into it with the knowledge that they are going into prostitution or human slavery. They are usually told to begin fending for themselves soon after they leave secondary school and with the prospect of furthering their education apparently bleak. They are baited with fantastic pictures of European countries and the abundant job opportunities. The young hapless women see the opportunities as one to better their lives and they unknowingly jump on the chance. It is the same story with the woman in the village who begs a city woman to take her child to Lagos or Abuja to be assisted with one form of trade or the other. By the time the child gets to Lagos, he or she literally becomes a slave without the parents knowing it.
The challenge, essentially, is to persuade people not to believe everything they are told. Many Nigerians are engaged in one form of menial job or the other in Europe and the U.S. without those back home knowing what they are into. Occasionally, they will send home a few dollars and some good photographs. Their innocent parents hardly get to know that their son or daughter wakes up as early as 4.am to clean the toilets for a white man or wash plates at the restaurants.
The only way out is that we must make our economy as buoyant as possible to make our people stay back in Nigeria. The economic environment must be made conducive so that people do not fall victim to human trafficking. We need this kind of workshop from time to time to sensitise the unsuspecting and gullible public.
As head of AELEX, a firm of legal practitioners and arbitrators, how is it like managing over 40 lawyers?
It is all about being focused and knowing what it is that you want. You have to be prepared to make the compromises necessary. Managing a chamber such as ours is like marriage. Today the man wins and tomorrow the woman wins. That is it. It is also like putting yam in oil or putting oil in yam. As long as both come together, that is what is important. That is how we balance things in our chambers, among the partners and even among the lawyers. We understand and agree that we are looking at a common goal, which is to improve the profession and improve ourselves as lawyers. I think that women are better managers and administrators than men. As women, we have to manage our children, our husbands, our brothers and their wives and that makes women better managers.
Speaking of women being better managers, why has it taken the women lawyers so long to rise to the headship of the Nigerian Bar Association, many years after Mrs. Priscilia Kuye, who was the first female NBA President?
Well, I am aspiring to that position in the next election. But I do not think being the NBA president is an issue of gender. Rather, it is about whoever wants to be the president must be for a reason. You must have objectives or goals you think can be done differently or that can be achieved either differently or even better. We have a lot of women who are actively involved in the activities of the NBA. We have women who are chairmen of branches.
But I think in the same sense in which before the CJN could rise to the top of her profession and become the CJN, this takes time because of other commitments. It is the same for women, even within the bar association. You cannot rise at the same as the men because you have other commitments and you have to do the balancing acts. But then, we have a lot of women who are actively involved in the Nigerian Bar Association.
As for the next NBA presidency, I will put my hat in the ring when the time comes. But I will not say more than that so that I will not be accused of campaigning ahead of time.
The NBA used to be known for its radical socio-political and economic activism. But same cannot be said today with allegations of the association reportedly becoming a willing tool available for hire by politicians for rallies. At what stage did the NBA sink to this level?
Well, I am not really aware of the NBA being rented for rallies at any given time. NBA, like any association, has to move with the situation in which it finds itself. The stance of the NBA when we are in a military regime will be different from when we are in a civilian regime. So if you say we are no more radical, it is because if we were in a military regime, we may have to be a bit more vocal and more radical because you are confronting a regime, which from the point of view as a lawyer, does not have legitimacy and it is more likely to trample on the rule of law because of the manner of its training.
In a civilian regime, you need to be a bit more circumspect to ascertain that the position that you are trying to put forward is one that has democracy behind it. If we all agree that democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people, and if everybody says ‘that man is a thief, but we want him as our leader’, that is the voice of the majority, even when you as a lawyer would want to say this is wrong. So, one must be more circumspect. The role of the Bar association in a civilian regime is more of a partner with the government, the civil society and with the people to elevate everybody’s standard. Yes, we should speak out when we should, particularly when the government is not doing what it ought to do. But at the same time, we are expected to educate the populace about their rights.
To say we are not radical may be as a result of the change of regime because we are no longer in a military regime. But having said that, I think we can do better and engage more.
Some lawyers, not long ago advocated for the scrapping of the award of the Senior Advocate of Nigeria, arguing the award tends to confer undue privileges on the bearers of the title and which in turn tilts the balance of justice. Do you agree with this?
I think SANship is still relevant and I do not subscribe that it should be scrapped. What I think should be done is for the process of elevation to be reformed. I feel it is relevant because everybody needs something to aspire to. Otherwise, we will become complacent in our comfort zone.
Even in the media, a correspondent in the newspaper wants to be chief correspondent, a sub-editor wants to be editor, a publisher wants to be a proprietor etc. In every profession, there should be something for everyone to aspire to. In our profession, the privileges that we are given are for a reason. The major privilege is that your cases are often called first when you get to court.
For me, my understanding is that even the courtroom is supposed to be a learning experience so that the younger lawyers who are there can acquire and acquire some level of additional knowledge and erudition from the senior lawyers who are Senior Advocates.
Like every facet of our national life, the elevation procedure has its problems and this needs to be reviewed. I do not think that the award should be done by age or length of practice. As we speak, there are lawyers of forty years who have never practised, but have been doing tenancy agreement for the last forty years.
Meanwhile, a lawyer of ten years may have been at a point where he is negotiating transactions with international lenders or international financial institutions, which brings us to what is called exposure. With that being said, we need to reform the award procedure and make it more transparent. This will bring back the prestige and the glamour.
Also, among the Senior Advocates, we need to look at ourselves and tell each other the home truth that even as SANs, we are not performing up to the level expected of us as SANs. There are many Senior Advocates today who, having been made SANs, no longer go to court. It has become like a chieftaincy title to them. They are alright being addressed by the title and nothing more. They no longer lend their intellectual capacity to lift the younger lawyers. The process needs to be reformed but not scrapped. It should not be something of a monopoly. There is the notion that once you are made a SAN, it is million, million all the way. It is not true. The experience is that once you become a SAN, the first casualty is that you begin to lose your clients. Those who could afford your services before you became SAN will tell you, look, I can no longer afford your services. Having lost some of your clients because of SANship, you begin to build a new clientele all over again. I became a SAN in 2001 and I experienced it. I lost some of my clients who thought they could no longer afford me.
