It Was during the military junta’s era that some senior officers gleefully described themselves as “boys” of the head of state, General Ibrahim Babangida, who styled himself as ‘president’. The nation never knew then that he was in love with that title because of his hidden agenda to transmute into a civilian leader under his so-called transition programme.
It is understandable when soldiers refer to themselves as “boys” of their superiors. It comes with the territory because of the command structure of the military. It is, however, anathema for such to happen in a democracy, where the rule of law and not of might, as the Court of Appeal said in the Amaewhule versus Fubara case, prevails. Democracy promotes equity, justice and fairness.
No other professional should know this more than a lawyer, who should be the promoter of these virtues. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Many lawyers, particularly those holding political offices, have become the defenders of inequities and all other wrong values. It is worrisome to see these lawyers act this way. The law may be an ass, but a lawyer should not turn to that animal because he wants to please his principal.
Incredibly, before our eyes, many attorneys-general (AGs) are becoming the “boys” of their governors, thereby jettisoning the demands of their calling to always stand for what is just, right and true. There are AGs at the federal and state levels as stipulated under Sections 150 (1) and 195 (1) of the Constitution.
Like his counterpart at the national level, an AG is the chief law officer, and not the chief might officer, as many of them are turning into, of a state. As chief law officer, the AG’s duty is to promote law and order, justice, equity, fairness and good governance, as well as ensure that the rights of the citizenry are upheld.
Read Also: Nigeria deploys satellite communications assets against terrorists, bandits – NigComSat boss
Most importantly, he must stand for the rule of law, and compliance with court orders, rulings and judgments. The AG is not his master’s boy, he is his principal’s adviser, confidant, guide and guard. He is expected to play an effective role in governance by acting as a restraint so that things do not tip over. Sadly, the reverse is the case these days. Many AGs act contrary to the dictates of their office. They run down judges and judgments, which do not favour their principals, without any qualms. What is more, they unilaterally declare such judgments not binding, as if they are appellate courts.
Where they should advise the governor to obey a court judgment, they encourage him to disobey it, with an assurance that nothing will happen. What manner of AGs are these? The people are wondering. Is it in this same country where we had AGs under military rule that stood up to their principals that we are now seeing senior lawyers desecrating the same office? From Edo to Kano to Rivers, their AGs have made caricatures of this revered position.
These AGs have one or two things to learn from the late Bola Ajibola and the late Olu Onagoruwa, who were federal AGs under military juntas. Ajibola and Onagoruwa were not afraid to correct their principals – Generals Babangida and Sani Abacha, whenever they did something wrong. They upheld the positions of the Bar in everything they did. Onagoruwa, especially, publicly disowned eight decrees enacted by Abacha because they would stifle the people’s liberties. Before then, he had directed the release from detention in May 1994 of Turner Ogboru, in line with a court order. How many of today’s AGs can act likewise?
Those were AGs in the true sense of the word. They looked military rulers in the face and did what was right. It is unfortunate that under democracy today what we have are lily-livered AGs. AGs who rather than boldly advice their governors to obey court judgments would encourage them to do otherwise because the verdicts did not favour them. The job of the AG is not to do his master’s bidding, it is to ensure that the right things are done all the time. Whether a court verdict favours a governor or not, the AG must have the courage to tell his principal to obey it and then appeal.
It is unbecoming of any AG to unwittingly tell a governor not to obey a court order. The AG who does this is attacking the Constitution which calls him the keeper and defender of the law. The post of AG is delicate. It requires a person of integrity, gumption, high moral and ethical values, transparency and accountability to run the office. Where any of these attributes is lacking, there will be problems.
More than any other person, AGs should know that they cannot sit on appeal over any judgment. The right thing to do is to, as lawyers would say, “go upstairs” (higher court). AGs cannot in the process of exercising their right of appeal constitute themselves into authority, and be making wild claims about the judge and the verdict. It must be said here that the AG who cannot look his principal in the face and tell him the truth, the bitter truth about a judgment, is unfit to hold office. AGs are not boys, they are expected to be men of timber and calibre, apologies to Chief K.O. Mbadiwe, of blessed memory.
