You have to read The Merchant of Venice to underscore the import of that cry – A Daniel come to judgement by Shylock the main character in William Shakespeare’s yet epochal classic, and how it could be the final refrain in the Anambra Central Senatorial zone seat, which has been vacant for about two years, owing to several court disputes. The summary: Shylock, was a rich Jewish money lender in Venice. He made cut-throat deals and practically squeezed the anatomy of his victims for maximum effects. Antonio, a rich merchant in the same city, who was the direct opposite, opposed Shylock’s Semitic ways, thus attracting a bitter hatred of the Jew.
Now, the plot thickened when Antonio had to rush to Shylock to raise a loan for a friend, Bassanio, who needed money to court a Venetian princess, Portia. Shylock seeing this as an opportunity to deal with his arch-enemy, made a deal to slice a pound of flesh of Antonio in the event of a default. Taking it as a joke, without knowing the real intention, Antonio agreed, as he was sure that his ships at sea, carrying his merchandise would have returned on time with more than enough to repay the loan.
Unfortunately, his ships wrecked forcing him to default. Bassanio, who learnt of the calamity, had to abandon his mission half-way, but missed the deadline for the repayment of the loan on return. That practically put the life of Antonio in Shylock’s hands and he would have nothing in place of it.
So, the drama began in the court in Venice. All pleas to Shylock for mercy, including offer of 10 times the bond value, even from the Duke, who presided over the matter, but could not intervene to reverse the terms because he was bound to obey the law, failed.
Implacable, pitiless and determined, he needed nothing more than what the bond provided. By my soul I swear, there is no power in the tongue of man to alter me. I stay with my bond,” were his words to underscore his resolve. So, why waste time?
Then Portia, who invariably, was the cause and source of the entire sad episode, and who later came in disguising as a man and the judge to execute the bond, in another powerful speech aimed at saving the situation, reminded the Jew that mercy was even mightier than the power of life and death of a king. But it cut no. “My deeds upon my head! I crave the law, the penalty and forfeit of my bond,” Shylock insisted.
Bassanio, had even attempted to get Portia bend the law a little to save his friend. “To do a great right, do a little wrong. But she would have none of it.
No power in Venice can alter a decree, lest it be recorded as a precedent, with which many errors would be committed in future against the state, she argued.
Hearing this, Shylock cried in reference to the biblical Daniel’s penchant to give sound judgements: “A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel! O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!
Thoroughly sated, he made with his well-sharpened knife for Antonio, only to be halted: “Tarry a little. There is something else. This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood. The words expressly are ‘a pound of flesh.’ Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh. But, in cutting it. If thou dost shed one drop of Christian blood, thy land and goods are by the laws of Venice, confiscate unto the state of Venice.” That did it.
Now, does this equate to the situation under reference? To a large extent, I think so. I don’t want to state how Chief Victor Umeh’s penchant for going for the maximum benefits of any political situation, including the story behind his ascendancy to the office of the national chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), from a mere treasurer of the party and the use to which he put that office, depicts him as a political Shylock per se.
That is the story for another day. Besides, there are a number of persons, from Chief Chekwas Okorie, founder and first national chairman, former Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Prof. Chukwuma Soludo, oil magnate, Chief Ifeanyi Uba to tell it better.
But, like Shylock flaunted his bond before the court in Venice, insisting that only its full interpretation and implementation would satisfy both the law and his own personal quest, Umeh, has similarly told any willing listener that the verdict of the Court of Appeal in Enugu, which sacked Iyom Uche Ekwunife as the senator representing Anambra Central Senatorial seat, was an open and shut case and invariably, the end of the matter.
Not only was Ekwunife removed in a judgement a lot of people, including some sound legal minds found both curious and outlandish, but the appellate court, went further to bar the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), from participating in the rerun election it subsequently ordered, in a manner that would have made his going to the upper legislative chambers of the National Assembly, a fait accompli, since there is hardly any other party capable of challenging him.
Let me confess, boldly that I’m one of those who feel that there is something wrong with the document Umeh is flaunting, even if not legally, as it seemed in the case of Shylock, but morally and thus, he should not be the beneficiary of this situation.
For instance, I feel that Ekwunife, who during her short stay at the Senate, captured the chairmanship of one of the most powerful and prestigious offices in the red chamber – Petroleum Upstream, would have given a better representation than Umeh, given his uninspiring record in the APGA top job, where he practically crashed the fortune of the party, which under Okorie, was already making waves in far-flung parts of the country, to a one-state affair.
Beyond that I appreciate the reasoning of many, who insist that the appellate court judges nullifying the election because Umeh complained that the PDP did not hold a valid primaries to pick its candidate as akin to an uncle demanding that a marriage should be nullified before a priest because the bride price was not paid in the presence of the bride’s father. What else qualified more to a meddlesome interloper and a busybody?
It is in this context that I find it not too difficult to align with those who believe that the recent judgement obtained by Dr. Obiora Okonkwo, one of the aspirants to the senatorial seat as a Daniel coming to judgement.
Every politically conscious Nigerian has seen the powers of pre-election matters. We have seen how cases concluded even by Supreme Court and beneficiaries enjoying the fruits were practically uprooted by the effects of such matters on conclusion. Starting from Rotimi Amaechi, former governor of Rivers State, to Okezie Ikpeazu who was only saved by the skin of his teeth to Herman Hembe and a surfeit of other cases, the force of pre-election matters are quite evident.
Surprisingly, Umeh, who was insisting a few days ago on AIT that the latest judgement amounted to nothing because the Court of Appeal had given him judgement which was superior to that Justice John Tsoho of the Abuja Federal High Court, cited the injustice done to Okonkwo in the processes he filed in court. Today, he is recanting. Phew!
It was surprising that neither he nor his interviewer made any reference to it in his AIT outing. He is presently insisting that the January 13, 2018 date set for rerun must hold. Of course nobody needed be told the reason for his haste, just like Shylock in the Venetian court. He believes he holds the aces, once there is an election and his road to Abuja is clear. But he forgets the law is an ass. Let us see how it will turn out this time.
Let us see how the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), which Okonkwo has approached with Tsoho’s orders to issue him with certificate of returns, will discountenance that in preference for Umeh’s desired rerun, at least, without another court’s pronouncement. Let’s see if that will not amount to cutting the flesh without spilling the blood. Let’s see another Umeh magic.
- Igboanugo, a journalist writes from Lagos.
