The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Sagay

  • Supreme Court: Wike attacks Sagay

    Supreme Court: Wike attacks Sagay

    Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike has attacked Prof Itsay Sagay (SAN) for criticising the Supreme Court judgment affirming his election.

    Wike, in a statement by his Commissioner for Information, Dr. Austin Tam-George, accused the lawyer of re-litigating a settled matter.

    The statement reads: “Prof Itse Sagay, one of the most opportunistic enablers of the corrupt regime of Mr. Rotimi Amaechi in Rivers State, seems to have found the courage to step out of his closet.

    “In a widely reported statement yesterday, Sagay launched a bitter and completely unwarranted attack on the justices of the Supreme Court judgment for affirming Nyesom Wike as the duly elected governor of Rivers Statement.

    “Prof. Sagay alleged, without any shred of proof that ‘everybody knows that people like Wike climbed into the governorship seat over dead bodies and over blood of human beings. There were no elections, they wrote the results; the evidence is there.’

    ‘’For a trained lawyer, Prof Sagay has lost his sense of irony. He criticises the legally sound and unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, by resorting to the silly and unsubstantiated hearsay mindlessly peddled by the APC.

    “In the twilight of an unremarkable career, is Prof Sagay seeking to be the dubious originator of the sick jurisprudence of “Everybody knows”, even without evidence?

    “Is the Supreme Court no longer supreme in its judgments? Why is Sagay re-litigating a settled matter in the streets in such a disgraceful manner?

    ‘’Prof Sagay may wish to re-read the history of the people of Rivers State. We never give up our sovereignty.

    “We condemn this orchestrated campaign of calumny launched by the APC and its cowardly surrogates against Nigeria’s justice system, which is the bedrock of our evolving constitutional democracy.

    ‘’Working with other Nigerians and our sister states in the Niger Delta, the government and people of Rivers State will continue to defeat the dark political fundamentalism of the APC.

    “We call on the international community to restrain the APC from its desperate attempts to politically dominate our people and plunder the resources of our land.”

  • Sagay slams S’ Court, SANs over election petition, anti-corruption war

    Sagay slams S’ Court, SANs over election petition, anti-corruption war

    •Says Wike, others climbed on dead bodies, human blood
    •Accuses SANs of siding with treasury looters

    The Head of Presidential Anti-Corruption Committee, Prof Itse Sagay, yesterday raised fresh concern over recent rulings of the Supreme Court on election petitions, particularly those of Rivers and Akwa Ibom states.

    Sagay, who spoke with journalists at the Palace of the Olu of Warri, Delta State, warned that the rulings, which gave victory to candidates regardless of copious evidence of irregularities and heavy human and material casualties, constituted a dangerous precedence in the history of elections.

    He said; “the judgements are very perverse, particularly relating to Akwa Ibom and Rivers. Everybody knows that there were no elections in those two states.

    “Everybody knows that people like Wike climbed into the governorship seat over dead bodies and over blood of human beings. There were no elections, they wrote the results; the evidence is there.

    “So, what the Supreme Court has done is to set the clock of electoral excellence and fairness and credibility back by, I do not want to say a thousand years, but certainly it is taking us back to where we were before Jega came in and sanitised the system. “We are going to have primitive and barbaric electoral culture; ‘kill as much as you can, destroy as much as you can, create as much catastrophe, but if you can find yourself on that seat, you are confirmed, regardless of the means by which you got there’.

    “That is a very major setback to democracy and the rule of law,” he stressed,

    Comparing the present Justices of the apex court to the past era, he said: “I remember 15, 20 years ago we had a Supreme Court that was the best in the world – better than the one you have in the US.

    “That was when you had Justices (Kayode) Eso, (Andrew) Obaseki, (Adolphous) Karibe-Whyte, Bello (Muhammed) and so on. Those people brought a culture to the Supreme Court and most of us thought when they left the culture would remain but it hasn’t.

    “New people have come, much younger people, and they have different approach to life because I don’t understand why you would have law, which is in conflict with justice and you prefer to apply that law – technical law, which is in conflict with justice, as we have seen in the case of Akwa Ibom and Rivers and a few other cases.

    “So, I think their orientations are different. I think the older ones who are gone believed that justice was number one. In such a case, you ask where does justice lie? They now interpreted the law in line with justice.

    “But now what we have is a group of people in the Supreme Court, who do not care where their legal interpretation is leading them. Once you have a divorce between law and justice, the whole legal system will break down and that is what has happened.”

    Meanwhile, Prof Sagay has also called for disciplinary actions against Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and other senior lawyers found to be encouraging corrupt politicians and looters of the nation’s treasury.

    He said: “There are some senior lawyers who have totally departed from anything that the calling of the law profession requires. They have thrown in their lot with the looters and have become, I won’t call them fellow looters, but definitely, they have started enjoying and sharing in the proceeds of crimes of these looters and because of that they are absolutely now against the anti-corruption law.

    “There is need to have these Senior Advocates thoroughly disciplined and if they would not accept discipline, they need to be removed from the profession before they bring more disgrace to the profession and at the same time drag this country down economically.”

  • Anti-corruption war: Perpectual injunctions shielding high-profile persons will be vacated — Sagay

    Anti-corruption war: Perpectual injunctions shielding high-profile persons will be vacated — Sagay

    The Federal Government is putting in place measures to remove perpetual injunctions stopping the trial of former Plateau State Governor, Chief Joseph Dariye, and other high- profile persons in the country.

    Also, the government has identified and educated a group of judges to handle anti-corruption cases, with a view to enable them demonstrate a high level of expertise and further fast-track the hearing and adjudication of cases relating to misappropriation of public funds among others.

    The Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee on Anti-Corruption, Prof. Itse Sagay, disclosed this yesterday in Lagos, during the 2016 January Members Evening, a programme organised by the Institute of Directors (IoD) of Nigeria.

    While delivering a paper titled: ‘’Integrity and the Administration of Criminal Justice Law in the Fight Against Corruption,’’ Sagay said the idea would help in speeding up the trial of politically corrupt individuals among other people convicted of gross financial malpractices.

    He said the government is interested in probing high-profile looters who have stolen several billions of naira, and not those who stole, for instance, millions of naira or chickens.

    He said the Supreme Court has left one out of the eight  high-profile corrupt cases the government is investigating on technical grounds.

    According to him,  problems such as incompetent prosecutors,  filing of preliminary injunctions by lawyers prosecuting the cases on behalf of his clients, especially past and present public officers,  frequent adjournment of cases, among others, have stalled the efforts of the government to bring corrupt people to book in Nigeria.

    He said there cannot be more than five adjournments in the life of a case, observing that anti-corruption cases were found to have been adjourned severally, with negative implications on Nigeria that lost several billions of naira to corruption.

    Sagay said cases are being delayed for two, three, five years or more, due to frequent filing of preliminary injunctions and adjournments by some legal practitioners.

    ‘’ A group of judges, with proven expertise in the areas of trial and adjudication of corrupt public officers, has been identified and educated by the government to handle anti-corruption cases. The fact that the judges are selected does not mean others are corrupt.

    “When cases are delayed as a result of preliminary injunctions, or adjournments, it is either the person that is standing trial is dead, or the judge presiding over the case has retired. When this happens, another judge is bound to take up the case. This results in another round of delay,’’ he said.

    He said some Senior Advocate of Nigeria(SANs) threaten and intimidate judges, arguing that the development is not healthy because it hinders expiation of judicial matters.

    ‘’ Some SANs specialised in the area of intimidating judges. When that happens, the accused becomes politically rehabilitated. The result of all these is what we refer to as ‘prosecution fatigue’, he said.

    The former Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Benin, said there are many civil servants in Abuja who cannot explain how they got money to build their houses.

  • Corruption: How to increase conviction rate, by experts

    Appellate courts have been urged not entertain interlocutory appeals emanating from corruption cases in defiance of clear provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.

    Experts said the ACJA should be further amended to provide for sanctions for non-compliance with its provisions.

    Besides, the Federal Government should initiate the amendment of the 1999 Constitution to incorporate the provisions of Section 306 of the ACJA.

    These are contained in a communiqué issued at end of a one-day workshop on sections 306 and 396 of the ACJA in Abuja.

    It was organised by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS) and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Corruption (PAAC).

    Speakers, including Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), represented by PACC chairman, Prof .Itsay Sagay (SAN), and Attorney-General of the Federation Abubakar Malami (SAN), said the federal Government considers the Act an important platform for reform of criminal justice administration.

    The communiqué reads: “The Act must be given purposive interpretation and application by the courts so that cases are adjudicated with the urgency required.

    “The courts are enjoined to give literal interpretation and full effect to sections 306 and 396 of the Act so to avoid unnecessary and frivolous interlocutory applications which are meant to delay trials especially of corruption cases.

    “The courts should adopt the wasted costs mechanism to deter counsel from seeking frivolous adjournments.”

    Participants urged the judiciary to develop a strong national judicial policy which should prohibit the abuse of interlocutory applications and injunctions.

    The communiqué, signed by CSLS President, Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George (SAN), added: “The Federal Government should make adequate budgetary allocations to enhance the implementation of the innovative provisions of the ACJA including payment of witness expenses, training and motivation of prosecutors, investigators and judges in the light of the huge workload occasioned by the Act.

    “Public commentators should desist from blanket condemnation of judges as there are still many hardworking and incorruptible judges in the country.

    “The Federal Government should endeavour to pay the salaries of judges regularly and make provisions for their security and retirement benefits.

    “States of the Federation which have not already done so should domesticate the ACJ Act using the Federal Act as a template.”

  • The Sagay committee

    The Sagay committee

    A pragmatic approach to crack corruption

    President Muhammadu Buhari moved another step further in his government’s anti-corruption war with the constitution of the Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption, headed by a prominent professor of law and civil rights activist, Prof Itse Sagay. Femi Adesina, the president’s special adviser on media and publicity, said the committee’s brief is to advise the government on the prosecution of the war against corruption as well as the implementation of required reforms in the country’s criminal justice system.

    Other members of the committee are Prof Femi Odekunle, a professor of criminology at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria; Dr (Mrs.) Benedicta Daudu, an associate professor of international law, University of Jos (UNIJOS); Prof E. Alemika, professor of sociology also of UNIJOS. Others are Prof Sadiq Radda, professor of criminology, Bayero University, Kano; Hadiza Bala Usman, a civil society activist while Prof Bolaji Owasanoye of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies would serve both as member and executive secretary of the committee.

    One area of the committee’s brief that interests me is that having to do with the reform of the country’s criminal justice system. Without doubt, unless something drastic is done about this, we would only be moving in circles on the anti-corruption war. As things stand, our criminal justice system appears inadequate to tame the corruption monster. Where it is not, some judges have made a mess of it in a way that gives criminals and the criminally-minded undue protection.

    The celebrated Halliburton scam is a case study. This is a scandal that allegedly involves several prominent Nigerians, including former heads of state. As a matter of fact, this seems the very reason why we are making progress in reverse on the matter. Today, the case is ordered reopened; tomorrow it is ordered closed. So, we have been going back and forth on a matter for which some of our big people should have been left to rot in jail as a result of their involvement in the $182m bribery scandal. The latest information is that the United States is insisting that the case be reopened for it to return the $130m in its coffers to the Federal Government.

    Without doubt, the judiciary has been complicit in some of the corruption cases such that it is even possible to smell a rat in some of the decisions taken on some of them. Of course judges are also part of the society; and may not necessarily be immune to what obtains in the society. But then, it is because we hardly punish corruption, especially at the top. If we do, judges who hawk injunctions would think twice before doing so. Imagine the last time, shortly before the general elections when the chief justice warned judges against unethical practices, the warning sank and that was part of what ensured the sanity witnessed in our courts in many of the cases brought by politicians, with many of them ready to bribe God if he would make himself available to be bribed.

    It is only in this country that people who are to be investigated for corruption would rush to court and ask for injunction not to be investigated and the court would grant the injunction. This is one of the few countries where the courts would waste a lot of time trying to decide whether James Ibori and James Onanefe Ibori are one and the same person, even as the substantive matter is yet to be heard.

    The point is, for the country to make progress in its anti-corruption battle, the government has to be systematic in its approach. Otherwise, those who looted our treasury would continue to flaunt the ill-gotten wealth to our chagrin and nothing can be more disheartening than that for victims of treasury looting. I could feel the tears welled up in the eyes of one of my readers a few weeks ago when he sent an sms concerning a particular oil baron in the eastern part of the country who still goes about with a retinue of official security men, with siren to boot, even when we all know the damage he has done to the nation through fuel subsidy racket and other scams. Hopefully, President Muhammadu Buhari’s directive that security men attached to important personalities be pruned will reflect on the number of security details protecting this oil baron. I can only imagine the millions of other Nigerians who are weeping silently over similar unfair and unjust protection of treasury looters.

    Apart from systematically approaching the issue for maximum benefit, there is also the need to reinvigorate the anti-corruption agencies. The way they sometimes lose important cases in the courts seems to show that they lack the requisite professional expertise to successfully prosecute especially high profile cases. And it is some of these big fishes that we need as scapegoats to show the government’s seriousness in this matter and drive home the point that, truly, no one is above the law. That is not the case for now as these big people often buy justice and only get a slap on the wrist for serious crimes committed against the state.

    The courts too must be strengthened with the needed modern facilities provided to assist them in the administration of justice. Moreover, judges found wanting, especially with regard to corruption should not only be retired, they should also be made to face the law. There is a lot to do if the country is to make any serious dent on corruption.

    All said, however, given the credentials of most members of the committee, there is no doubt that they have the essentials to make a success of their assignment. The chairman is himself a man of proven integrity, and one who should know where the judiciary is being abused to miscarry or delay justice.

    President Buhari must realise that his integrity is at stake in this matter. Indeed, it is this question of integrity that has made three influential international development partners, the Ford foundation, MacArthur Foundation and Open Society Foundation to establish an Anti-Corruption and Criminal Justice Reform Fund with $5m to assist in the implementation of key components of the Action Plan and the work of the Presidential Advisory Committee. The government must realise that this is an unusual partnership and must therefore strive to ensure there are results. It is doubtful if any international organisation could have extended such assistance to the immediate past Federal Government to tackle corruption. On their part, the committee members must realise that all eyes are on them to see what they would make of the assignment.

    My daddy is gone!

    Finally, my dad died on August 11, after battling with death for about one week. It was exactly eight days to his 80th birthday. He took ill on August 5, was rushed to a hospital, appeared to have recovered and was returned home, only to be taken back to the hospital the next day when the sickness relapsed. In our efforts to get him better medical care, we changed his hospital. But death, that necessary end that will certainly come when it will, according to Shakespeare, came and snatched him away at about evening on August 11.

    For the benefit of readers who had been wondering why this column had been off in the last two weeks; this explains it all. I spent the first week trying to assist so that the old man could make it, and the next, when he didn’t, trying to recover from the shock. What could have come as an 80th birthday present by way of celebrating him on this same page would be published shortly before his burial. My only regret is that he is no more alive to read or feel it.

    I say thank you to all those who have been calling to commiserate with me. It was an experience indeed.

  • Sagay heads anti-graft advisory panel

    •Govt floats $5m justice reform’s fund

    President Muhammadu Buhari yesterday named constitutional lawyer and human rights’ activist Prof Itse Sagay as head of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption.

    The panel as its members:  Prof. Femi Odekunle,  a professor of Criminology in Ahmadu Bello University; Dr. Benedicta Daudu, an associate professor of International Law in University of Jos and Prof. E. Alemika, a professor of Sociology in University of Jos.

    Others are: Prof Sadiq Radda a professor of Criminology, Bayero University, Kano, Hadiza Bala Usman, a civil society activist and Professor Bolaji Owasanoye of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), who will double as a panel member and its executive secretary.

    The committee’s brief, according to a statement by the Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Mr. Femi Adesina, is to advise the Buhari administration on the prosecution of the war against corruption and the implementation of required reforms in the country’s criminal justice system.

    It also has a mandate to develop comprehensive interventions for achieving recommended reforms

    The statement reads: “In support of the Federal Government’s efforts, an Anti-Corruption and Criminal Justice Reform Fund has been established by three international development partners namely the Ford Foundation, MacArthur Foundation and Open Society Foundation.

    “The $5 million fund is to assist the implementation of key components of the action plan and the work of the Presidential Advisory Committee.

    “The fund will be managed by Trust Africa, an international development Civil Society Organisation (CSO) with programme presence in more than 25 African countries.”

     

  • Solanke, Sagay scold judge seeking Aregbesola’s removal

    Solanke, Sagay scold judge seeking Aregbesola’s removal

    FOR championing the initiation an impeachment process against Osun State Governor Rauf Aregbesola, two Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), Mrs. Folake Solanke and Prof Itse Sagay have come hard on Justice Folakemi Oloyede of the state’s judiciary.

    They said Justice Oloyede displayed gross ignorance on the process and removal of a sitting governor.

    In a joint statement titled: “The petition presented by Justice Folahanmi Oloyede to the Osun State House of Assembly for the impeachment of Governor Rauf Aregbesola”, the two legal giants described as embarrassing for the judge to have plunged into the murky waters of partisan politics.

    The statement reads: “We note with deep consternation and concern for the dignity and sanctity of the Judiciary, the petition recently sent by the Honourable Justice Folahanmi Oloyede to the Osun State House of Assembly, for the impeachment and removal from office, of Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, Governor of Osun State.

    “We are disturbed by the source of this petition because it reveals the embarrassing and gross ignorance of the Judge regarding the process for the impeachment of Governors.

    “We are also disturbed by this apparently reckless descent of a judicial officer into the murky waters of partisan politics.

    “The process for the removal of a governor by impeachment is clearly set out in Section 188 of the Constitution.  It states as follows:

    • 188 – (1) The Governor or Deputy Governor of a State may be removed from office in accordance with the provisions of this section.
    • (2) Whenever a notice of any allegation in writing signed by not less than one-third of the members of the House of Assembly is presented to the Speaker of the House of Assembly of the State and stating that the holder of such office is guilty of gross misconduct in the performance of the functions of his office, detailed particulars of which shall be specified….”

    “Justice Oloyede is clearly not a member of the Osun State House of Assembly.  She is not even a member of a Civil Society Organisation.  She is in fact, a member of the judiciary, the third arm of government conferred with the responsibility of the interpretation of laws, including the Constitution and the issuing of orders, judgments and sentences.

    “Indeed, it is the duty of someone in Justice Oloyede’s position to preside over a case for the determination of the issue, whether a purported removal of a governor by impeachment is valid or not.

    “It is therefore a cause for great embarrassment and shame that a judge of the High Court is ignorant of the fact that she cannot initiate impeachment proceedings against the governor.  This raises a question whether she is fit to hold the office to which she has been appointed.

    “From what has been stated above, it is quite obvious that the Osun State House of Assembly acted in gross error in entertaining  Justice Oloyede;s petition. That petition is an illegal document which should have been disregarded with contempt by the House.

    “By setting up a committee to investigate the allegations in the so-called petition, the House itself was displaying its ignorance of the impeachment process.

    “Even more fundamental is the question whether a judicial officer should be publicly engaged in a bitter public confrontation with any other arm of government, particularly the executive arm of government headed by the target of her tirade, the governor, who appointed her into office.

    “Specifically, is a judge permitted to make public political comments and engage in public diatribes against the government and the governor of the state in which he or she is serving?

    “The code of conduct for judicial officers is replete with provisions requiring a judicial officer to act with dignity, decorum and a high standard of conduct. The preamble of the code, for example, provides that a judicial officer should actively participate in establishing, maintaining, enforcing and himself observing a high standard of conduct so that the integrity and respect for the independence of the judiciary may be preserved.

    “Again, Rule 1, Paragraph 2 of the Code provides that a judicial officer shall respect and comply with the laws of the land and conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.

    “By Paragraph 1 of Rule 2, a judicial officer is enjoined to be true and faithful to the Constitution and the law, uphold the course of justice by abiding with the provisions of the Constitution and the law.  He or she is enjoined to acquire and maintain professional competence.

    Finally, by rule 3(b)(ii), a judge in excising his constitutional right of freedom of expression should always conduct himself in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of his office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

    “Now, one may ask; by issuing this angry accusation of fraud, misappropriation of funds and general denunciation of the Governor of her State to the House of Assembly, has Justice Oloyede acted with decorum? Has she conducted herself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the Judiciary? Has she acted with integrity and impartiality with regard to a possible future party in her Court? Has she been true and faithful to the Constitution? Has she conducted herself in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of her office? Should she engage in an open confrontation with her appointor and the head of the executive branch of government?

    “If the answer to all these questions is NO and if she has desecrated the temple of justice and brought down the dignity and respect for the judiciary, what is she still doing on the Bench?

    “Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this episode in Osun State is the apparent silence of the National Judicial Council (NJC) in the face of gross breaches of judicial etiquette and code of conduct by Justice Folahanmi Oloyede.

    “If this open display of indiscipline and crass irresponsibility by Justice Oloyede is left unpunished, the National Judicial Council will be guilty of gross dereliction of duty and the Judiciary in Nigeria will face a bleak future.

  • Between Sagay and Falana: the law, the people and the social cannibalism of corruption (1)

    Between Sagay and Falana: the law, the people and the social cannibalism of corruption (1)

    The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2

    Doctors are just the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you too.
    Anton Chekhov, Russian dramatist

    On Saturday, July 13, 2013, I gave a public lecture at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) under the auspices of the Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism. The lecture was titled “The Freedom of Information Act and the Dictatorship of Corruption and Mediocrity”. In the extensive research that I conducted before writing and delivering the lecture, I came across many facts, figures and statistics that both depressed and enraged me to no end. Of these, no item among my discoveries was as depressing and infuriating as my finding that a Sub-Committee of the House of Representatives had issued a comprehensive report on the oil subsidy mega-scam of 2011 in which the names of all those who had wrongfully and illegally benefitted from the scam had been published, together with the astronomical sums that each of these Nigerians had looted. I swear that before conducting that research for my lecture, I had been completely unaware that the names of the mega-scam looters were known, that they were not shadowy figures who had forever disappeared into the night of personal anonymity and legalistic oblivion. But together with my astonishment that these men and women were known and indeed meticulously identified, there was also my greater frustration that they had all without exception tied up the cases pertaining to their prosecution in the law courts by all manner of so-called “interlocutory injunctions” and “stay of execution” writs. That was in the year 2013. Two years later, the cases are still tied up in the law courts and not a single one of the men and women indicted in that oil subsidy mega-scam has either paid a kobo back or gone to jail. Their lawyers and the judges before whom their cases are being tried have seen to that; they have provided what seems to be a permanent and impregnable juridical cover and protection for these men and women whose looting of our national coffers has caused untold suffering and hardship to millions of Nigerians. In this context, the law may be said to be the last refuge, the last redoubt of the looters who, as human vampires, are sucking the blood from the economic arteries of our national commonweal.

    If the language I am using here seems too emotive, too sensationalistic, I plead guilty to the charge. Even more, I plead guilty to the charge of deliberately clothing myself in a long tradition of savage linguistic and literary critique of lawyers and the law as moral cesspits wherein some of the most unscrupulous and cynical professionals can be found. This is the context that makes the extraordinarily ferocious attack on lawyers in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part Two, that supplied the first of the two epigraphs to this piece seem not too harsh, not too extreme: “The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers”. This was said by a character in that play against the background of a looming uprising of the people against centuries of oppression by their social superiors in which lawyers had played a significant role in maintaining the legal infrastructures and practices of a dog-eat-dog social order. I quote the words here in the hope, the wish that the lawyers and the judges who have for long prevented the men and women bleeding our country and its resources dry may perhaps get a glimpse of the sentiments that some of the world’s greatest literary minds have expressed about them and their kind.

    The second epigraph from the great Russian dramatist, Anton Chekhov, seems a tad gentler in its critique of lawyers and the legal profession on the same count of being always prone to acting as accessories to cynical, merciless robbery: “Doctors are just the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you too”. However, if we juxtapose this ludic and playful Chekhovian quote with the one from Shakespeare’s play, we can see that lawyers, like incompetent and conscienceless doctors, kill too. They “kill”, not directly and interpersonally but by the indirect and epiphenomenal effects and consequences of the legalistic protection and cover that they give their clients, the looters who, it seems, can never be successfully prosecuted in the law courts of the land.

    If all this talk about “killing” seems unwarranted in its application to lawyers and judges that are, after all, merely practicing their lawful profession (no pun intended), please consider the N2.53 trillion naira that was looted in the oil subsidy mega-scam; consider too, the fact that thanks to lawyers and judges, not a kobo of that loot may ever be recovered; and finally, consider the number of lives that could have been saved or made richer and more fulfilled if a fraction of that N2.53 trillion naira had been productively spent to create jobs, build roads, improve hospitals and clinics and raise the quality of teaching in our primary and secondary schools. And indeed, there are no literal cannibals anymore, if ever they existed as a distinct social or “tribal” group; what we have now and have aplenty, thanks to many of our best trained lawyers and judges, are social cannibals who have not the slightest inkling that they are “killing” hundreds of thousands, millions through the sense of total protection that they feel when they loot, and loot, and loot yet again.

    At this stage, it is perhaps time in this discussion to bring into our conversation two lawyers who indeed recently have had much to say on these issues. Moreover, they are eminent, progressive and patriotic lawyers. These are none other than Professor Itse Sagay and Mr. Femi Falana, SAN. In an article published in The Nation on Sunday, July 19, 2015, titled “Politics, Public Service, Morality and Integrity in Nigeria”, Sagay more or less admitted that the law and the manner in which it is applied in our law courts at the present time make it near impossible to recover stolen loot and put an end to rampant corruption. Indeed, so sanguine was Sagay on this point that he was quite willing to go as far as to suspend the protection of the individual rights (of looters), if any headway is to be made in the struggle to recover stolen loot and curb corruption in our society. Perhaps it is best to hear directly from the Professor himself on this point:

    “There will a need to amend our laws to strengthen the state at the expense of individual liberty at least for a short while, if we are to get to redemption point. All legal provisions permitting preliminary objections to prosecutions for corruption must be repealed from our laws. The power of any court to issue an order of injunction against a trial for a crime, particularly corruption, should be repealed. Interlocutory applications, in cases concerning corruption, should be banned.

    You cannot read such words from the pen of a lawyer who is also a teacher of lawyers and still repeat, like a robot, the savage indictment from Shakespeare, “the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers”! For in the struggles against the social cannibalism that is at the root of the corruption that has penetrated so deep into the political, economic and juridical order in our country, some of the most eloquent voices have, in fact, been that of lawyers. As everyone knows, Sagay and Falana have been frontline professional and intellectual activists in those struggles.

    And indeed, the main point of my bringing Sagay and Falana together in this piece is precisely to try to reconcile what seems to me to be a tension, a contradiction between recent pronouncements of both men on this issue of the seemingly immovable obstacle that the law and its operations in our country pose to the fight against corruption by the new administration of President Buhari. On the one hand, Sagay says laws must be repealed and that we may even have to suspend protection of individual liberty, at least for a while. But on the other hand, Falana says that the enabling acts have now been enacted by the National Assembly and that all that is required now is for the bills to be forwarded to Buhari for them to be signed and made into effective laws. How did I come by this information? Well, Falana himself through an email forwarded to me a speech that he recently gave that contained these claims. The speech was a keynote address that he gave at the 7th Annual Distinguished Lecture of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (Lagos Chapter) on Tuesday, July 21, 2015. The lecture bore the title, “Involvement of the Nigerian people in the anti-corruption war”. Here’s a relevant quotation from the lecture:

    “While the decision of the Federation (sic) Government not to interfere in the work of the anti-graft agencies is a welcome development, the National Assembly should forward to President Buhari for his assent the Witness Protection Bill and the Whistle Blowers’ Bill. The National Assembly deserves commendation for enacting both laws together with the Administration of Justice, 2015.

    Under the new Act, the granting of stay of proceedings and other delay tactics have been banned in the trial of criminal cases. Accordingly, a criminal trial shall be concluded within 6 months unless there are exceptional circumstances which may prolong any trial beyond that period. Indeed, the elevation of trial judges to the Court of Appeal will no longer lead to fresh trial before other judges as judges will be given the fiat to conclude part heard matters.”

    Have the issues raised in Sagay’s article been resolved by the revelation of the passing of new laws by the National Assembly in Falana’s lecture? And is this a matter to be settled only by and among lawyers? These will be our starting points in next week’s concluding piece.

     

    Biodun Jeyifo

    bjeyifo@fas.harvard.edu

  • Cardinal Okogie, Sagay, others demand cut in NASS members’ remuneration

    Cardinal Okogie, Sagay, others demand cut in NASS members’ remuneration

    •We’ll act based on committee’s report- Alasoadura

    Retired Catholic Archbishop of Lagos State, Anthony Cardinal Olubunmi Okogie, Constitutional lawyer, Prof Itse Sagay and several other prominent Nigerians  want  members of the National Assembly to emulate President Muhammadu Buhari and Vice President Yemi Osinbajo  by  slashing their salaries.

    The  President and the  Vice President  last week announced that they were slashing their salaries by  half  as part of the effort to  reduce the  cost of governance.

    Cardinal Okogie hailed  Buhari’s initiative  although  he wondered why the President and  the Vice President “ didn’t tell us about their allowances.”

    “Public officers in the country should compare their salaries and allowances with what is obtained in other climes and adjust theirs. We have to do this honestly and frankly, because these are the areas all the monies that should be for the development of the country and the people are going into,” he told The Nation by phone.

    He said : “It is unfortunate that they are collecting big salaries and bogus allowances when many workers are being owed salaries.”

    “A lot of people are being retrenched in their places of work every day because the economy is inclement to both the entrepreneurs and the masses. Is this not the simple reason the challenge of armed robbery, kidnapping, assassination and terrorism is on the rise in the country? “

    For his part, Prof Itse Sagay said any reduction being planned by members of the National Assembly should be rigorous and far-reaching.

    His words: “The slash in the salaries and allowances of members of the National Assembly should be more rigorous and far reaching. They collect about N150 billion per annum.  Somebody said that what each of them gets every month is in the region of N29 million per month, albeit mine showed something above N15 million.

    “There should be a drastic reduction in all their allowances, which include one for hardship. So it is hardship to be working in a offices fitted with air conditioners?  They should not be getting more than one third of what they have been getting and if they refuse, we should make them to be working on part-time so that what they would be getting would be on the basis of the number of times they sit.”

    Former Inspector General of  Police ,Alhaji  Ibrahim   Coomassie, said that the salary cut should affect not only the federal lawmakers but also  state governors   and their deputies “ towards reviving and revamping our ailing economy.”

    Lagos lawyer,Chief Ladi Williams (SAN), said  that as far as he is concerned,salary cut is not enough.

    ”Salary cut may appear palliative, because it doesn’t solve all the nation’s problems. They must forget their wardrobe allowances car allowances and the rest of them,” he said.

    “  We are entering an era where self-sacrifice, and not money, should be the issue in the interest of the nation.  What the National Assembly members are getting is too much. What is allocated as constituency allowance alone is far more than what a large number of the population get in many years if not their lifetime.

    “It appears the downward trend in the price of crude oil is to teach us a lesson as a nation. The National Assembly members should accept 50 percent cut in salaries and crack down on frivolous allowances.”

    Another Senior Advocate,Mr. Niyi Akintola  believes that far-reaching decisions have  to be taken with a view to  solving  the various  problems  facing  the nation.

    To fix the problems, Akintola said  government  should address financial wastes , which he described as too many and too glaring.

    “The problem of the nation is not about salary reduction. So, it does not matter whether the National Assembly slashes its salary or not. After all, how much is the salary? The problems we have are all the wastages in the country. The wastages are too many and they are glaring for everybody to see.

    “Do we need all the ministries that we have? The answer is no. Now, there are about four ministries that have been created out of one that was doing the same job before. Aside from this, you also have many top officers and aides, many of whom have nothing doing .

    “When a governor is going out, have you tried to count the number of vehicles in his entourage? There is no governor that has fewer  than 100 policemen around him, when the masses have nobody to respond to their security needs.”

    Speaking on what to expect from the members of the National Assembly, Senator Tayo Alasoadura, representing Ondo Central said  that the Senate will hinge its decision  on salary cut on the recommendations of the committee it set up to advise it.

    He said: “we are now waiting for the recommendations of that committee. It is what the committee advises that we would do. You know that it is easier for the executive arm to sit down and come up with such  a decision.

    “But for the National Assembly, such decision is not what the president can decide unilaterally on behalf of the 109 senators and 360 House members. I am sure that we would come with a decision on that when the committee submits its report.”

  • Sagay: Saraki’s election has brought shame to Nigeria

    Sagay: Saraki’s election has brought shame to Nigeria

    Eminent Law professor Itse Sagay believes the election of Senate President Bukola Saraki and his deputy Ike Ekweremadu by some senators smacks of legislative impunity. In an interview on Television Continental (TVC), the senior advocate  is of the view  that the emergence of the duo of Saraki and Ekweremadu cannot pass for a victory for democracy but a victory for impunity, fraud, desperation and indiscipline.  JOSEPH JIBUEZE monitored it.

    Saraki’s election fraudulent

    If you look at the moral point of view, that purported election was fraudulent. When you purport to hold an election deliberately in the absence of your opponent, knowing that he is absent, and intending to win at any cost unopposed by ensuring that absence, that constitutes fraud. Not only that, I think it’s an act of gross indiscipline, not just against his party, but against the whole country because we are all stakeholders in the electoral process, in who becomes the Senate President and we all felt cheated because there was no proper election. Again it’s also an act of gross impunity. In effect, he was saying ‘I know my opponent is keenly interested in contesting, I know my opponent is not here yet, and therefore, I will rush an election in his absence in order to be certain of victory at any cost.’ It’s absolutely unacceptable in a decent democracy.

    Assembly Clerk culpable

    To start with, there is an aspect of deceit in the whole thing. That’s why I think it is also illegal and fraudulent. The APC Senators were told that the President was going to have a meeting with them and that they should all gather there (International Conference Centre). Clearly, in such circumstances, the last thing they would think of is that there would be an election in their absence. So, there was fraud. Who was responsible? Somebody summoned that meeting. The Clerk of the National Assembly was fully aware that only PDP senators  were present in the Chambers. A sprinkling of APC members there were there and trying to remind him and he ruled the person out of order. So, for me, that gives the impression that the clerk of the National Assembly was involved in the conspiracy. That is the impression. What is more, even if that did not happen, I will accuse him of involvement because he knew without being told that only one party was present and that surely cannot have been the spirit of the Constitution when it says that once the proclamation has been made, members of Senate who have just been elected would then appoint their officers. That’s not what it intended. It didn’t intend that some people would be diverted away and one party would then come there in their absence and fraudulently elect somebody of their wish in the absence of the hapless group that has been deceived out of the Assembly. Who do I blame? I blame the clerk of the National Assembly, because he’s the person responsible for all this. He might have been pressured and all  that, but nothing would have happened if he did not participate in the conspiracy. So I blame him primarily.

    Quorum for electing principal officers

     

    There is the law, and there is the spirit of the law. If you practice the law, or implement the law, or enforce the law without the spirit, it is void. It’s just like a body which doesn’t have a soul or spirit, that body is dead. The law says that a quorum is one-third, and that when you are taking decisions, unless it is exceptionally stated, generally when you are taking decisions, then a simple majority is all that is required. Those are the dry letters of the law. In this particular issue, we have a new Senate being proclaimed. We have a Senate which has many parties. What has happened is that the party that has the majority was somehow deceived out of  the premises and other people went behind and surreptitiously and fraudulently purported to have Senate proceedings going on. That fraud cannot be legitimate regardless of the technical words of the Constitution, because the spirit is not there.

    The legitimacy question 

     

    Certainly, Senator Saraki cannot enjoy any legitimacy because he is there by fraud; he is there by impunity; he is there by the grossest act of indiscipline of the worst type of political culture. So, he lacks legitimacy. He may be sitting there now but nobody has any respect for that seat as long as he sits there because he has brought shame on the whole country. Now, as far as I am concerned, this people have a right to go to court, because a fraudulent election cannot constitute a legitimate basis for establishing Senate leadership. It was a fraudulent election. What really happened yesterday, in my view, is not a victory for democracy, but a victory for impunity, a victory for fraud and a victory for political desperation and indiscipline, and it must not stand. If we in this country are to go with the new change brought by the fresh breath of air that is blowing across the country, if we are to sustain it, then what happened yesterday must be swept away because it is contrary to the fibre of the whole Nigeria.

    Alleged moral “baggage”

     

    My opposition to his sitting illegitimately in that office is not because of his (Saraki’s) “baggage”; he may not be my first choice. But if he had won legitimately, in a fair, square and equitable way, I would have no objection. Yes, he has a huge baggage. Presently as far as I know, he’s under investigation and possibly a lot of inquiry by the EFCC. The matter has not been cleared. Normally, it would be better for the first arm of government – that is what the legislature is, and he is the third most senior political personality in the country – for that person to have a clear table; not to have any baggage hanging around his neck, because if you have a heavy baggage like that hanging on your neck, and you’re presiding over such an important establishment, then that establishment is also going to carry that heavy weight of a burden along with you, and it will necessarily affect the respect and intergrity which his decisions will have and the whole process of operation of that institution will be impeded by that heavy load.