…Says Nigeria can’t get new constitution without law mandating reformation
From Ogbonaya Ndukwe, Aba
The Chairman of Aba branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Innocent Egwu, is seeking a review of the Nigeria’s judicial system.
He said that the continued use of obsolete, outdated laws bequeathed and adopted from Nigeria’s colonial masters in present day matters, has created a gap between the people, the judiciary and the constitution, thereby causing suspicions of corruption after every judgment, especially on election matters.
Egwu, who spoke with Sunday Sun in Aba, explained in details his argument and proffered solutions for better understanding.
Nigerians are always on edge whenever the courts are mentioned on adjudication. As a legal practitioner playing critical role at the Bar, what do you think has brought this mistrust in the nation’s judiciary?
In every sphere of life, trust and belief are of utmost importance among people living together and having a common goal. However, I must say frankly that the belief that we will always succeed, no matter our input or attitude towards any issue has played a role in the stand that if we lose, then everything is finished. We must have that at the back of our minds that if the justice system collapses, everything is gone, so the belief that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man is still intact. Every government and its society are reckoned by the belief and strength of the judicial system. When you lose hope in the judicial system of a society, all hope is lost. When you say that the judiciary is the last hope of the common man, it is not just that the common man gets justice there, it portends that the judiciary is where one resorts to, in an effort to have anomalies either done to him or the entire society restored. In governance, it is in the judiciary that both anomalies arising from the executive and the legislative arms of government are addressed. When a people lose hope in such an important organ, then they’re finished. Those of us in the temple of justice, still have hope and I will want to see all Nigerians have similar hope and understanding about the real issues here.
You may be right, but considering some recent judgments, especially on political issues, do you see the judiciary as being fair?
Yes, we are concerned about issues rising from some judgments, but that is not to say we have lost hope. Casting aspersions on the court judgements, especially that of the Supreme Court, sends a message about our society. The Supreme Court is final, not because it is infallible, rather it is infallible because it is the final court? Sometime in the past, we used to appeal unfavourable Supreme Court of Nigeria judgments to the West African Court of Appeal (WACA) and from WACA to the House of Lords. And in each of those appeals, the decision of the Supreme Court, could be reversed by WACA, while that of WACA can be reversed by the House of Lords. That is to tell you that the Supreme Court is not infallible. There could be mistakes here and there, but such mistakes should not be misconstrued to mean that all hope is lost. So, I still insist that our courts, in fact, the Nigerian judiciary, remains reliable, although they are manned by human beings, who could make mistakes.
It is being alleged openly that judges manning the various courts across the country are carrying out directives from the executive arm, which appoints them and so, not making just mistakes? What’s your take on this line of belief, being a lawyer that works daily with the judges?
At least, we have seen judgments delivered by the Supreme Court recently. How many of them did reflect to this unfounded allegation? The problem is that many of our people have limited knowledge of the law and try to apply such ignorance most times. To me, that allegation is an opinion of those who think so. The decisions of a court are based on the evidence made available and placed before it and how they were presented. It is unfortunate that people just pre-empt the courts, try to use their layman’s knowledge to determine how cases would be decided and when it did not go as they expected or thought, they turn around to allege that someone in power or the government influenced such a case. However, when it favours them, they will accept it as justice. That is the situation here. Nigerians have refused to pay attention to the law and the evidence available before drawing their conclusions against the judiciary. Public perception about a particular case is very much different from the facts of the case brought before the court. Court of public opinion is not a constitutional court. In public opinion, people look at issues from what they know, while a competent court, looks at what the law says and pieces of evidence before it. It is not driven by emotions and sentiments. One cannot be outside a court with zero knowledge of the legal issues involved in a case and decide a case where the facts before the court are saying otherwise. The court is not a Father Christmas, it cannot give you what you did not ask for, if it is done by pleading. There is something Nigerians must understand about the court, it is a place where one must follow rules and do things appropriately to avoid messing up a case. Most times, some people may seemingly have a good case, but the presentation could be wrong. If the caption of the pleading is wrong, then there is also a problem. This is why one sees cases that was lost by a lawyer gets won by another of his colleagues. Such disposals do not make the judges become biased or confused, it is a matter of presentation. Nigerians must understand that the decisions of the courts are based on the evidences and facts brought before them and their presentation. There is a huge difference between society’s opinion of justice and what the law says about the sought after justice. The public perception most times do not correspond with the laws available.
In every matter, there are always issues relating with the substance, real facts, are you saying that such issues ought to be ignored in pursuit of the technicalities, when being presented?
I think frankly, that the word “technicalities” is being misunderstood or probably, wrongly made use of. What the layman sees as technicalities in judgment may actually not be that in every form of it. For instance, in filing an election petition, the law has prescribed how it should be presented. If one fails to present it by way of petition and does so through originating summon or by writ of summon, definitely the case will collapse and that is not technicality, at all. Every issue of life has rules guiding it and must be followed. The law has procedures for every legal issue and such must be followed to the letter as prescribed. If one institutes a divorce proceeding by originating summon or any other means outside the approved channel of petition, such person cannot expect the court to begin to entertain his or her actions after abandoning the rules and applying what he or she was best instead of what the law says? No matter how merits in a case, wrong presentation/commencement will make it fail. There are no two ways about it. People may call it technicality which is not. It is just like taking a case to a court that lacked the jurisdiction and when it is struck out the person will say it is technicality. What the layman calls technicalities are different from what it actually is because real technicalities are part of the law.
Nigerians, including prominent lawyers, are calling for reforms of our laws. Do you support such calls for reforms?
Yes, law is a living organism and must grow along with the society or such society will be engulfed in confusion when caught off with new developments. With technology breathing down our necks and modernization catching up with us like Time’s Winged Chariot, we need urgent, serious reforms to stay ahead or meet up at least with what is trending. If not, we will get to a state of total confusion for everyone. So, reformation of the judicial system and our laws is very necessary.
What is the position of the Aba Bar today in the country, where did you meet it and where are you taking it to?
Right from the start, NBA Aba branch has been foremost among the best in the country. In alphabetical order, we are number one and have consciously maintained our position beyond that. I do not want to arrogate to ourselves as being the most vibrant Bar branch, but we are at that level because our works speak. We are ranked among the top 10 by all indices of measuring NBA top branches. Aba is ahead in many areas.
What makes you think so, what is your input in the areas of human rights and societal development?
Coming to our human rights pursuit records which you asked, our records in the fight for human rights are top-notch. Our rights activism and activities are one of the foremost in the country. Since I assumed leadership, a year and six months ago, we have engaged in notable national human rights activities. Last December, 2023, our human rights committee organized an event that took us out to the streets to sensitize residents on issues relating to obeying the law and rights of citizenship. We do not joke with such issues because knowledge of the law, people’s rights and their limits help to reduce crisis that could come from societal ignorance. From our engagements, our people have started understanding the use of engagements in relationships and realizing that everything is not achieved by violence. Their knowledge of the laws of engagement is improving, as more individuals are now understanding the part and path of the law. This is related to the approach being engineered by our human rights committee. We had also held a town hall meeting in June 2023, inviting all major socio-economic sectors of Aba. We engaged in visiting the Aba Correctional Centre to assist in releasing over 30 inmates detained without due process. In the centre, many detainees were seen to have been incarcerated unjustly with their matters unattended to, cases abandoned. Our human rights committee got mobilized to ensure that such handicapped detainees were released. We are also involved in dialoguing with the authorities of government in their relationships with the people. We play our roles in the society without fear or favour. While the NBA Aba branch is in the forefront of activism required of the branch, we do not forget the fact that we are not a trade union rather a professional body with regulated activities. So, in areas where we are supposed to intervene, we have sustained the tempo and taken us higher. We have moved to ensure that Aba remains a peaceful environment. We are seriously engaging in the areas necessary, though people in the streets may not know the engagements of the NBA in certain sectors of our society. We will keep doing our best.
There is this allegation that the judiciary is the biggest danger to democracy in Nigeria, following how election cases are decided, what’s your take?
I must say that such notions are false and wrongly perceived. The judiciary is rather protecting our democracy. For me, I think the judiciary is already doing what people who understand what we’re practising are asking for. By its constitutional mandate, it is there to checkmate the executive and the legislative arms of government, to ensure that things are done according to the prescription of the Constitution. From the question you asked, I heard you say that people are complaining that three or five persons, will sit down and upturn what three million people have done in terms of voting for some candidates, but this is a huge misconception. The judiciary is not there to upturn what three million people or whatever number must have done. Rather, it is there to ensure that what was done, was done according to the law. Our judiciary is not the enemy of our democracy. The judiciary is not there to upturn what the three million people must have done, but is there to validate what the three million people must have done. Nigeria’s democracy is a constitutional democracy and is anchored on our constitution. So, if three million people did what is unconstitutional and produced a winner, it is the duty of the judiciary, to now tell the three million people, you’ve done well, but you didn’t follow the constitution which is the guide to whatever you do. So, are you saying that the judiciary should follow three million wrong people and accept their unconstitutional decisions just because it came massively? That’s not the law. The law is not looking at the majority. It is looking at what is stipulated. You see, it is a pity when a society gets to the level of not believing their leaders, even when their leaders are right. This is why the National Orientation Agency (NOA) must rise to do something about some of these issues. Our biggest problem is that our society believes things they know nothing about. We need to be enlightened to the extent that society should know those things that are not done according to the law. Some people may have the general perception that someone did not win an election, like in the 2023 presidential election in Nigeria. Some people believed that another candidate won, but was that really what happened? What were the facts and evidence before the court? Let me reiterate that society needs to understand the law before casting aspersions on judges and before those who come out victorious in court cases. I’m not a member of the bench, but it is my duty even as a Nigerian, or a member of the Bar, to look at every judgment dispassionately before saying that the judiciary is wrong or right in so many cases. Some people are saying that votes not transmitted through the IREV during the last presidential election are illegal votes, but was that what the law said? That INEC suggested what to make use of, to make an election free and fair doesn’t mean that the law is restricted to such. What people should ask themselves is this, did the law say that not using IREV will annul election results? The law is looking at substantial compliance. Yes, the law knows the importance of the machines, but did it says without it everything is wrong? Those are the issues people must understand.
Considering these loopholes, do you now see reasons for the reformation of our legal system?
Frankly, it requires very drastic reformation. There’s something called received English laws that were operational in England as of 1900. We made our own laws adopting those laws that were operational in England as at then, and they became operational here. After we gained independence, we lacked laws and needed laws. Do you know that these received English laws are still operational in some parts of this country, even when those that we received them from have either reformed or thrown them away as obsolete? So, you see us operating on some obsolete laws that even those who gave them to us will wonder how we are, when they hear we are still operating them. I know that a whole lot of such laws were removed as early as 1963 in Western Nigeria. The East did a lot on that as well, but some of them are still there. Even some of the laws made by our own people that are not part of the received English laws are obsolete as well. The problem is that politicians are really in charge. Most of these laws are presented from the nursery stages as Executive Bills where some people already have a target. They’re influenced by politics. Before sending the Executive Bill, the Executives will, first of all, look at how it favours them before pushing such to the National Assembly. There have been certain proposals and pronouncements on electoral reforms even in the Electoral Act of 2022 as amended that were left non-obligatory, because it could undermine some people in power. All we need is the will power to make some of these things effective. There had been this call for constitutional review to make the constitution more Nigerian. Some people said they need a new constitution that emanates from the people, but people must realize that there must equally be a law that will mandate the formation of any Constitutional reform. You can’t organize such a thing without a law guiding it.