Participants in the just concluded 2015 annual law week of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Owerri Branch, have urged lawyers to ensure free, fair and credible elections.
The theme of the law week was “ 2015 general elections in Nigeria: the task before the legal profession.”
Imo State governor, Owelle Rochas Okorocha urged lawyers to help proffer solution to the country’s problems.
He said: “When God chooses a man, there is nothing anybody can do about it, I respect lawyers because they make and unmake the Nigerian state. So, the fear of legal profession is the beginning of political wisdom.”
He expressed concern that the campaigns are moving away from issues, rather, the focus is now on ethnicity and religion.
Okorochas said the Police, the Army, the Department of State Security (DSS) and money would play crucial roles in determining who wins elections. To the governor, whoever has control over them usually wins.
The branch Chairman, Mr. Stanley Chidozie Imo said lawyers owe a duty not only to their clients, but to the country to uphold the rule of law and deepen democratic ideals and norms.
Justice Mary Peter–Odili of the Supreme Court, who chaired the event, urged lawyers as ministers in the temple of Justice to always assist the court to arrive at the ‘justice of the matter.’
Justice Odili said: “Firstly the role of the legal practitioner when faced with the disputes that would naturally occur at the end of the political battles in the fields of play precisely at the polling booths, the ward level, the local government and the state level collation centres as the case may be. The election proper cannot be complete without taking into consideration the pre-election dissatisfactions, which may or may not be possible disputes warranting a recourse to the law court
“Therefore, a responsibility is placed on him not to take on a brief that would only lead to an irritation of the courts as the perceived dispute, when looked at properly, may not be more than a whimsical fancy of a politician seeking notice. When such a presentation occurs, it behoves the legal counsel to render the required advice and urge the client to seek mediation outside of the court or to forget the perceived wrong, which would take the party nowhere.
“For the umpire, judicial officers presiding in the various courts to which these disputes would be presented, there is a duty to ensure that the courts are not made an arena for frivolous petitions or processes that merely pander to the vanity of a particular legal practitioner seeking to display his legal prowess or knowledge of the law or allow a politician to create unnecessary tension with a pending legal process, which is dead on arrival. In this case, the Judge is enjoined to terminate the process firmly and without temporising.
“On the other hand would be a political dispute properly before court and one for which a decision would be made either way. There is no gainsaying the fact that justice must not only be done, but would be manifestly seen to have been done as the old adage goes.
“There must be the fact within the sight of the judge at all times, that justice and peace go together none going alone because when justice is compromised, peace can never be and no one including the judge, ‘ is safe in the environment that no longer knows peace and tranquility.”
Examining whether there is conflict between the provisions of Sections 285 (6) (7) and 36 of the Nigeria Constitution, former Deputy Director, Nigerian Law School, Enugu Campus, Prof Ernest Ojukwu (SAN) said: “If two ideas, beliefs, stories, etc. conflict, it is not possible for them to exist together or for them both to be true.” Can Sections 285(6)/(7) of the Nigerian Constitution exist side by side with Section 36?
Prof. Ojukwu said: “International Human Rights norms accept that the right of access to the courts is not absolute and that the right could be limited by matters related to issues of court procedure and limitation rules and have set some guidelines on which to base a review of national laws and practices on this derogation
“Examples or the criteria for validating such laws and rules against access to justice have been provided by the United Nations ( UN) Human Rights Committee and European court of Human Rights as stated above. Using such criteria, one can conclude that Section 2R5 (6) and (7) of the Nigerian Constitution does not conflict with Section 16 of the Nigerian Constitution, but are permissible limitations under International Law on the right to access to justice.
“Section 285(6) and (7) as stated earlier were inserted in the Constitution as an amendment to legal regime to cure a mischief brought about by a gap that tended to foist all Nigerians political leaders that were not chosen through the will of the people, the stolen mandate as it has been described. The trial and appeal limitations provided by the law give equal opportunities to both parties in an election petition. The period provided is reasonable and practicable; it does not “restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence or the right is impaired.” The provisions are also appropriate between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved.
Speaking on the legal profession and the task before it in the 2015 elections, the Keynote speaker, Justice P. C. Onumajulu, who is a former Chief Judge of Imo State, identified general task for all legal practitioners, lawyers at the Bar, the Bench and the general counsel.
He said: “The term legal profession refers to the profession of persons, who are lawyers which in turn refers to persons who have had courses of training in law and have been inducted into the profession by being ‘called’ to Bar and therefore, entitled to practice the profession of law in and outside the courts. The lawyer is a versatile professional for he may be a judge, a private, official legal practitioner, a teacher of law in an institution a director or secretary of any, corporation or other public or private body or institution, a civil servant, an office holder in any capacity etc.”
He continued: “The lawyer at the bar in his duty to the court, must show absolute and total respect to the courts and tribunals before which he appears and assist such tribunals to discover the truth of the matter in litigation by frank, truthful and honest statements. correct procedural steps and justifiable actions. He should not hide facts to mislead the courts of tribunal.”
“The duty to his client is to strive for honesty, and to the best of his ability and learning, to put across the case of his client to the court to give sound legal opinion and be courageous. He must know that election matters have limited tenure and span, and interest of justice demands that a complaint against an election by way of an election petition should be expeditiously heard and disposed of by the judge to enable the parties to such a petition know, in good time their relative positions. Time, therefore, is of strict essence in election matters. Thus, election petitions should be devoid of procedural clogs incessant and protracted adjournments that cause delay in the disposition of substantive issues and disputes therein
“This is where the judge has a great task to face and in performing this task he must eschew all forms of bribery and corruption. He must be prepared and able, in spite of all odds, to dispense justice timeously, judiciously and judicially, avoiding in the process, all manner of technicalities that affect the merits of the petition before him because his role requires a high degree of honesty, integrity, transparency, courage and above all the fear and faith in God,” Onumajulu said.
Former Director-General of Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Prof. Epiphany Azinge (SAN) said there was the need to examine the role of the Bar and Bench at this critical period of the national history.
“It cannot be denied that many lawyers are already looking forward to the flurry of actives that will characterise the forthcoming elections in the nature of election petitions. For many, the prayer is that the harvest should be plenty and bountiful. Some are eager to invoke the jurisdiction of tribunals for minute and insignificant reasons all because they want to partake in the sharing or redistribution of the nations cake, for others their claim to fame is the posturing of being close to one or two judges in an election tribunal.”
Azinge continued: “There is no denying the fact that lawyers and judges have not fared well as far as public perception of their role in election petitions is concerned. This image must change. In some instances, post election violence have occurred because lawyers rightly or wrongly have advised that an election was not free and fair. We must be conscious of our responsibility to the wider society and not to ourselves, our advice and actions should be such that we can defend whenever called upon to do so.”
Allegations of judicial corruption, he said, resonates more in election petitions. “Judges must be careful not to be compromised by politicians. Politicians are naturally loquacious and therefore, cannot keep a bargain that transactions between parties are confidential. Win or loose at tribunals, politicians normally quote chapters, verses and footnots of their dealings with interested parties. So, it is not in the interest of counsel or judges to have dealings with politicians. I hope that 2015 will mark the beginning of judicial rebirth and that lawyers and judges will stand up to be counted as contributing positively not only to the integrity of the electoral process, but also ensuring that judgments of election petitions are unimpeachable,” he said.
General Mohammadu Buhari, he said, at the Abuja Accord for non-violence on January 14, delivered a scathing indictment on the judiciary in handling of election matters, saying they must strive to do their job to the best of their ability. “Even at that, our judiciary remains one of the best in the world. It is my considered opinion that politicians should be careful on how they tarnish the image of the judiciary before the global community,” he said.
Azinge said it is the responsibility of counsel to explain judgment of courts to their clients to avoid reckless and sentimental imputations by disputants. “As at the time of preparing this address, the judicial workers were still on strike on. The timing of the strike is not too good for the nation. Firstly, it may not allow the impaneling of election tribunals and secondly most of pre-election matters in court many not be concluded before the election. I want to appeal to all well-meaning Nigerians to see to the immediate resolution of the issues the judicial workers are agitating for,” he said.
Financial autonomy for the judiciary, he said, is not a matter for debate. “Indeed, states that are yet to buy into that policy should rethink and act immediately,” Azinge said.
Tangentially related to this, in the words of Azinge, is the crisis rocking the judiciary in Rivers State. “This is not the time to reflect on arguments on both sides of the divide, but to clearly indicate that the image of the Nigerian judiciary has been badly dented by this episode. How can we sell the message that the judiciary is the last hope of the masses when the judiciary cannot resolve its own problem. I think the proper message to the judiciary is “physician heal thyself,” he said.
He appealed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria to ensure that the matter is speedily resolved. “May I also invite all well-meaning members of the bar and bench to intervene and bring this matter to an end before the election starts on February 14. Everybody is invited to assist to ensure that we do not end up becoming a failed state. As always, lawyers have a role to play in ensuring that the right things are done by the appropriate authorities,” Azinge said.
