Dr. Ayebaesin Jacob Beredugo is a Port Harcourt-based lawyer and university teacher. He is an Executive Assistant on Research and Documentation to the Rivers State Governor. In this interview with Legal Editor JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU, he speaks on criminalising hate speech, special corruption courts and sundry issues.
what is your take on criminalisation of hate speeches?
Hate speeches are totally wrong and despicable. Nobody should encourage or indulge in hate speech because it is extremely dangerous to the corporate existence of this country. What on earth should be the motivations for hate speeches, when the effect could be very disastrous. The genocide in Rwanda was fuelled, ignited and accentuated by hate and nothing else. And so in a delicate country, such as Nigeria, anyone promoting hate speeches should be apprehended and interrogated for his motive, and where any genocidal intentions are established, should be charged to court and appropriately punished if convicted. I think that our penal laws already criminalize elements of hate speeches, but they may not be far-reaching. A fundamental function of law is to curb anti-social behavior.
What do you mean by this?
There is nothing wrong if the Federal Government decides to invoke our criminal laws to curb hate and incendiary speeches and allow Nigerians to live in peace insofar as the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the press are not thereby unduly curtained or repressed. As you know, no human right, including the right to life is absolute. The right to freedom of speech is not a license to preach hate and incite violence directly or indirectly against other people or groups based on ethnic, religious or other social identities. But the Federal Government must clearly define what they mean by criminal hate speech in a written law because Nigerians do not want another decree 4 in whatever disguise. I think that is the concern that we must all be vigilant about.
Are you in support of creation of special courts for corruption ?
I completely agree with this suggestion. Corruption has been and continues to be one, if not the most serious challenge to Nigeria’s development. The quality of life of ordinary Nigerians keeps deteriorating by the day because so much money is lost to corruption and less money is available to advance the social and economic wellbeing of common people. Governments across all tiers cannot provide basic services, yet a few politicians and their collaborators are obscenely rich and exuding power over the rest of society with their ill-gotten wealth. Politics has become a vocation for all sorts of lazy, ill-educated, dishonest and unpatriotic characters because it is has become the quickest means to unmerited wealth. And as they say, if corruption is not killed or at least, drastically reduced, Nigeria’s development will remain stunted. With due respect, the normal courts have not proven to be partners in the fight against corruption. No one is saying that the courts must convict at all cost even when the prosecution has failed to prove its case. But the regular courts are too indifferent to the national mood against corruption. Apart from the sickening delay, the regular courts pander too easily to technicalities, while strenuously defending their rule-dominated processes, which serves the interest of the defendants more in corruption cases.
Why do you canvass this view?
This is because we have issues of capacity, competence and experience in trying corruption cases. This notion that every judge is a master of all trials because all that they do is to evaluate facts against the weight of evidence adduced by the parties is not totally correct. Certainly, judges with peripheral knowledge or practice interestin criminal matters may not be quite helpful in the trial of corruption cases. And so when corruption cases linger for years without progress; when high profile convictions are hardly secured, and when corruption cases are not treated with the seriousness they deserve for all sorts of reasons by a judge, then the hope of winning the war against corruption remains in the realm of fiction. But, judicial attitude to corruption cases will change for the better when special or dedicated courts handle these cases. Once appointed, judges in such courts know from the very beginning that they are on a special national assignment; that they have a direct, unencumbered and sustained mandate over corruption trials; they know that they have a responsibility to curb corruption by punishing the guilty; they know the social policy that compelled their creation and the expectations of the public on speedy and judicious dispensation of justice in corruption cases assigned to them. And as the system continues to evolve and mature, special courts will engender specialization, greater competence and commitment on the part of judges with a positive impact on outcomes. The Federal Government must show that it is serious about fighting corruption by establishing special courts as a matter of urgency.
Do you think the judiciary is still the last hope of the common man?
In theory I would say that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man. As an institution our judiciary is saddled with the responsibility of doing justice to all manner of people without fear or favour. The judicial system must live up this expectation to inspire confidence as the last hope of the common man. But, this is not yet the reality with the Nigerian judicial system. However, as I had stated, justice administration in the country is notoriously typified by process formality, expensiveness, delay, complexity, excessive appeals and rule-dominated qualities. Under these circumstances it is difficult for the common man, who in most cases, belong to the lower rung of society to fund, follow-up, have a good day in our courts and get justice, as it should be. Besides, recent findings from the National Bureau of Statistics have reaffirmed the perception about pervasive corruption in the nation’s judiciary. Lately, poor quality of judgments by inferior courts, including the Court of Appeal is also eroding public confidence in the nation’s judiciary.We all know that appointment of judicial officers is highly politicized. As a result, morally depraved and intellectually challenged characters; people little or no visible experience in legal practice and procedure and people with neither courage nor convictions are notoriously finding spaces as magistrates and judges and doing untold havoc to the quality of justice delivery in the courts. Equally worrisome is the tendentious process of constituting appeal panels by heads of courts, especially in relation to political and election matters. The Nigerian judiciary used to respected as courageous, sound and inspirational across Africa and the globe. There are systemic problems that must be pragmatically and courageously addressed, otherwise the common man will continue to hope for, but may not have access to substantial justice from our courts if status quo continues.
What do you make of calls for Nigeria’s restructuring ?
Restructuring Nigeria? How? Where is the acceptable template? Some have suggested we should return to the 1963 arrangement and reestablish the regional fortresses of minority domination as the federating units. Some others want a federal structure consisting of the six geo-political zones without telling us what becomes of the existing States. To a section of the country, restructuring means creating equal number of States for each geo-political zone. We’ve been restructuring since independence without getting it right in the opinion of the apostles of restructuring. From three regions, we expanded to four, then to 12 States, and later to 19 States, and further to 21 States and now 36 States. For me, people are just twisting facts about the concept to suit some nebulous political agendas. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with our current federal structure. As agencies of governance and development, the 36 States and the Federation Government can remain, as the federating units. What is fundamentally wrong with this structure, and which must be addressed urgently, is the lopsided allocation of powers, responsibilities and resources between the Federal and the State Governments. As it stands today, too much powers and responsibilities are vested in the Federal Government. We do not need a bicameral and wasteful legislature at the Centre. We do not need 36 or 42 useless ministries and ministers at the Centre. We do not also need the hundreds of bureaucratic agencies at the Centre. There is no justification for the Federal Government to retain 53 per cent of national revenue to itself while the 36 States are together left with 22 per cent to share among themselves, yet the burden of development is on the States and far less with the Federal Government. The States are the basic agents of development. They are the ones that need the 53 per cent that the federal government presently takes and recklessly spends without any significant impact on national development.
What of calls for devolution of powers?
Devolution of powers will reduce contests for positions at the centre by the different ethnic groups. This will solve the aspect of marginalisation that borders on lopsided appointments. The devolution of responsibilities to the states will end the aspect of marginalization that borders on lopsided or lack of allocation of federal projects in states. The devolution of resources to states along the lines of fiscal federalism will end resource marginalisation and agitations for resource control. The devolution of powers, responsibilities and resources will enhance political autonomy, good governance and accountability in States. There is no doubt that the present allocation of powers, responsibilities and resource is a hindrance to nation unity, cohesion and development.
There seems to a face off between the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). How do you think this will impact on the anti corruption war of the federal Government?
Both institutions have denied any rift or face-off between them, but this is unfortunate if it is true. The office of the Attorney General of the Federation and the Acting Chairman of the EFCC cannot work at cross-purposes for the anti-corruption fight to succeed. Yes, the EFCC must have operational autonomy and independence, but the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney-General are extensive, such that the EFCC cannot ignore it as a subordinate institution.
Why did the Rivers State government embark on the construction of a building for the Federal High Court?
This is part of the strategic vision of the Governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike to strengthen and reposition the judicial system and make Rivers State a regional judicial hub. You know too well that availability of reliable and effective dispute resolution mechanisms are a necessary condition for the socio-economic progress of any society. Yes, the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, and even the Court Appeal are all Federal courts, but the judicial services that they render are for the benefit of the residents of Rivers State. Therefore, providing the right judicial infrastructure and environment for these courts to operate optimally and render speedy, efficient and robust judicial services is in the best social and economic interest of Rivers State and its citizens. Take the Industrial Court as an example. It is a Federal Court no doubt, but with an exclusive jurisdiction over labour and industrial relations disputes involving both the private and public sectors. Does it not bother you that an industrialised city like Port Harcourt does not have a division of this important court? Outside Lagos, where in this country should this court be operating before Port Harcourt? As we speak, over 90 percent of the causes in the Yenagoa Division of this court are from Rivers State.
What else is Rivers doing to improve the administration of justice?
A lot. Quite a lot! Recall that before Governor Wike came in the state’s judiciary was in its weakest condition. Being a man with strongman mentality, the former Governor did not believe in the necessity of the courts. He therefore enforced the closure of the courts for about two years until he left office simply because his attempt to side-step due process and impose an unqualified person as the State Chief Judge was resisted and frustrated by stakeholders through the courts.
How did Governor Wike address this challenge?
When Governor was inaugurated, one of his first pronouncements was to reopen the courts and they have remained open, never to be closed down again under his watch. The next thing he did was to ensure the proper, meritorious and lawful appointment of the State Chief Judge and that of the President of the State Customary Court of Appeal. Now tell me, where in this country do you have a complete non-indigene, a person who is not related to the State either by marriage or by birth as the Chief Judge of the State? It is in Rivers State and under Governor Wike’s fidelity to the law, due process and good conscience. Having restored administrative sanity to the judiciary, Governor Wike proceeded to fulfill some of his cardinal promises to the judiciary that border on ensuring speedy, effective, efficient and just administration of justice.
What did he do in this regard?
First, he ensured that the judiciary was, for the first time in history, placed on first-line charge on the consolidate revenue fund of the State. With this, funds accruable to the judiciary are released directly to the State Chief Judge for the administration of the courts, and this has impacted positively on the entire judicial system and justice delivery across the State. The second was on the provision of judicial infrastructure. Apart from ensuring the comprehensive rehabilitation of existing court buildings across the State, Governor Wike is also constructing new and additional modern courtrooms for judges and magistrates to accommodate the expanding need for judicial services in the State. Go and visit the judicial headquarters along Azikiwe road, Port Harcourt and see things for yourself. The third area of intervention was on the welfare of magistrates and judicial officers.
What has he done to improve the welfare of judicial officers in the State?
Good, as we speak, Governor Wike is the only one among his contemporaries to have provided new Honda Salon cars and Ford SUVs to all the magistrates and judicial officers serving in the State’s judiciary to enhance their comfort and mobility in the discharge of their judicial duties. Again, Governor Wike recently announced the introduction of a home ownership scheme for judicial officers and brought the Chief Justice of Nigeria to flag-off the construction of the first phase of this scheme, comprising of 24 complexes of luxurious 5-bedroom duplexes with all the appurtenances in the government reservation area of Port Harcourt city.
