A Lagos lawyer, Akintayo Iwilade, argues that for the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) to become a truly democratic organisation, it should adopt universal suffrage for electing its national officers.
We have always preferred the reputation of being democrats to the notorious inconveniencies of practising democracy. Now we can enjoy the reputation without the inconveniences of practising democracy because we have trivialised democracy to the extent that it is no longer threatening to those in power or demanding on anyone – the late Professor Claude Ake
Except we urgently begin to exemplify true and unfettered practice of democracy in the running of our national professional association – the Nigerian Bar Association- our claim to being the ‘conscience of the nation’, ‘the voice of the voiceless’, ‘the bulwark against state tyranny’, ‘guardians of our nation’s democracy’, etc, might likely become untenable.
To regain our place among the leading ideological and organisational lights seeking to genuinely advance liberty, individual freedom and true social development and progress for all Nigerians, we must urgently recreate ourselves and unarguably become shining examples of what we advocate for Nigeria in the area of genuine and unfettered democratic practice.
Regardless of the many distortions the concept has undergone, one agreeable point is that democracy aims, among other crucial things, at enabling the people the unfettered freedom to exercise their inalienable rights to equal and direct participation in the actual choosing of those to lead them through free, fair and transparent processes. One efficacious way to pursue the attainment of this ideal is to give every member of every community the unfettered right to cast a single equal vote to determine who to lead them. Simply put, the way to democracy is to practise universal adult suffrage as one of the first preconditions for democratic progress- i.e; one person, one vote! one woman, one vote! one man, one vote! one lawyer, one vote!
In this wise, the delegates’ voting system, through which national officers of the NBA have emerged for over a decade, abysmally falls short of this pivotal democratic test. The system needs to be discarded if the national Bar is to become the democratic inspiration it ought to be for the rest of Nigeria. Representative voting is an aberration of true democracy or at best, an abridgment of it.
Many reasons have been adduced for the adoption of the delegates’ voting system in use. One is the need to avoid a re-occurrence of the Port Harcourt stalemate that saw the national leadership go into non-existence for some years. Another is the view that granting universal suffrage will make Bar elections rowdy, unwieldy and time-consuming. Other views have been canvassed, that universal suffrage will create a sort of ‘mob’ electorate who may dislodge the Senior Advocates from the leadership they hold and offer at the Bar. This latter point has, however, been most effectively demobilised by the deeply engaging thoughts expressed by eminent Prof Chidi Odinkalu (now Chairman, National Human Rights Commission) in his insightful piece, Modernising the Bar: A necessary debate.
Reacting to a view reportedly expressed by a former President of the Bar, Prof Odinkalu said: “In an effort to clothe an anodyne idea with an adverse animus enough to elevate it to a non-existent danger of existential proportions, the learned Senior Advocate attains undesirable genius with a line that gratuitously insults Senior Advocates and simultaneously gives offence to juniors in claiming: “The only way to dislodge the leadership offered by the rank (of Senior Advocate) is to go for universal suffrage where by way of example juniors who will then be in the majority can be persuaded to vote for the Chairman of the Young Lawyers Forum or any other aggressive junior or any of the midlevel seniors who are in the forefront of the clamour for universal suffrage”.
In dislodging the above argument, the Professor clarified: “This line of argument manages – rather painfully – to imply that Senior Advocates lack the capability to win through to the Presidency of the Bar, unless they are protected from competition and also that juniors lack the judgment to discern from among competitors the ones with serious credentials. Yet, it is clearly the case that even in the system Senior Advocates make up less than 18 per cent of the presumptive electorate and thus have shown themselves to be much more durable and competitive leadership materials – but not as a right of birth, tribal hygiene or patronage as the learned Senior Advocate implies.”
On the fears of avoiding a repeat of the Port Harcourt debacle and in consequence, uncritically sticking to the undemocratic delegates’ system, Odinkalu argued very courageously. “The benefits of the present ‘Jamboree’ are neither clear nor demonstrated beyond its historical links to an admittedly painful historical episode in Port Harcourt 20 years ago. But the world has moved on from 20 years ago. Do we have to get stuck in the past?”
On the biggest argument in favour of discarding the delegates’ system in favour of Universal Suffrage, Prof Odinkalu concluded: “If a lawyer pays practising fees and branch dues, which, in turn, are the mainstay of the NBA’s finances, why should he or she be compelled to proxy their votes to someone when they can, by themselves, exercise the right to decide who leads their Bar and how?”
No attempt is made here to add to the erudite Prof’s responses above as they are at once principled, profoundly analytical, and, as usual, delivered with uncommon and attractive erudition. However, on the fears that granting universal suffrage will make Bar elections rowdy, unwieldy and time consuming, we must say that to build an organisation that would be timeless, democracy’s tenets must be fully operationalised and practised no matter the inconveniences encountered in the process. If there are real or imagined inconveniences on the path to practicsing genuine democracy, it is the inconveniences that must be circumvented, defeated and put out of the way, not democracy itself. Logistical inconveniences are to be put out in favour of democracy and not democracy being put out, undermined or abridged in deference to or in uncritical fear of so-called logistical or veiled ideological inconveniences.
After all, these exaggerated logistical inconveniences are easily surmountable by a coherent deployment of technology and sincere administrative expertise in our electoral process. One way is to adopt a system that ensures elections into the national offices of the NBA are simultaneously held across all the NBA branches on any convenient day(s) designated and valid returns for each candidate for the said elections sent to a Central National Collation Centre funded, staffed and accountable to the NBA. Rather than having an unwieldy situation of having over 100,000 lawyers gathering at a single venue to elect their National Officers, elections into the national offices ought to be simultaneously held across the branches with the same structures through which branches have often held their local branch elections.
Results of every branch can then be sent to the Central Collation Centre to determine the winners through simple mathematical computations. But such elections need to be held on the basis of the fundamental acceptance and adherence to the principles of universal suffrage, i.e; every member of the Bar having a right to a single equal vote and nothing more.
Still on this exaggerated scare of rowdiness, I do not suppose anybody holds the thousands of learned men and women that constitute the NBA at the various branches, with as much baseless condescending contempt as to think they would be incapable of conducting credible elections for national officers in their branches just the same, or even better ways, as they have conducted their own local branch leadership elections.
As the NBA desires to lead the clamour for opening up Nigeria’s democratic space, so must it open up its own democratic space to allow every lawyer have equal rights and say in determining who emerges as their National Officers. The distortion of democracy continues to threaten the development prospects of Nigeria and as the clamour for true democracy promises to eventually become a more engaging, long and perhaps bitter one, credible organizations like the NBA must shore up their credibility by serving as moral guides who not only speak for democracy but practice it in a manner that inspires the Nation.
It was America’s former President Bill Clinton who admonished his fellow citizens, while presenting his first inaugural speech that; “our democracy must be not only the envy of the world, but the engine of our own renewal”. If this is true for America, which despite its enviable leadership in the world, continues to work at perfecting its democratic union, how much true it must be for our brutalized Nation? And how true this must be for the Nigerian Bar Association if it is to renew itself, revitalise its members, and open up its electoral spaces to broaden the progressive leadership choices available within it!
As we commence 2014 (another election year to decide the National Officers to lead, and speak for the Nigerian Bar), we should rethink the permutations that go into the selection of our officers at the National Level and take sincere steps to democratise the processes completely. The NBA must become a democratic oasis from which members and aspiring participants in Nigeria’s desolate governance desert can draw inspiration. More than speaking for democracy, we must practice it. More than theorizing on the concept, we must set examples in democratic conduct among ourselves and thereafter beckon on our country women, and men, to emulate us. More than saying we are Democrats, we must be indisputably seen to be so. And having enjoyed the reputation for long, now is the time to act and live up to it.
IWILADE Akintayo is a Lagos based Legal Practitioner.
