Follow Us on Google
Patience Akpuru-Egwuwa
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Paul Ananaba (SAN), has described the fine imposed on the lawyers involved in the quest to review the Supreme Court judgment on the Bayelsa State governorship election as a step in the right direction. In this interview, the senior lawyer expressed optimism that the apex court was poised to restore the dignity and sanctity of the judiciary.
Recently, the Supreme Court penalized some senior lawyers for asking the apex court to review its decision on the Bayelsa governorship election. Do you think that the apex court was harsh in its ruling?
The ruling of the Supreme Court is exactly what the court is entitled to do on any application brought before it. I think we are in a situation where the Supreme Court needs to make definite statements or pronouncements because a situation where judgments passed are now subjects of review by the apex court will ridicule the entire judiciary. So, they needed to stamp their feet on the ground. That is my own understanding of what they did.
It is also a wakeup call for lawyers and their clients that it is not every matter that they should take to court, especially the Supreme Court. Before a lawyer takes a matter to court, he should be convinced of the law backing it. That is how it ought to be so that we don’t have unnecessary cases delaying the important ones. It is also injustice to such persons.
The fine may appear harsh, but that is what the court does to restore its dignity and sanctity. The court in essence was saying that they ought to have known better because to whom much is given, much is expected. That is what they were trying to do. Everyone has learnt lesson from that. Even those who wanted to go and ask for a review of the presidential election will take a cue from what happened because that one is enough to destabilize the country. As it is now, I am sure we are passing that phase now.
So, what are the situations that warrant such applications for review?
There should be need for it. Are we saying that there is need to review Bayelsa, Imo, presidential, Kano, Katsina, etc. is that what we are saying?
But people are still making arguments on that case of Imo state?
Those are people arguing, but these are senior lawyers before the court. They shouldn’t be among those arguing. They should be part of those who know. That is what the Supreme Court is saying. We already know that election proceedings have been altered by the Fourth Alteration so that after 60 days, you cannot come back and talk about that same election again. It is constitutionally time-bound. So, what are we reviewing? Are we reviewing the constitution or the decision of the court? You cannot review the decision without reviewing the constitution.
In very rare cases where there is clear error, you can bring it before the Supreme Court and then they will look at it. Not when everybody is or the drumbeat is let’s go to the supreme court and review. So why will the Supreme Court fold its hands and allow that to happen. They will just be duplicating work for themselves.
I have a case in the Supreme Court that is 10 years old now and it has not been heard. Since 2010, and we don’t even have a date yet. My clients are foreigners and they keep asking me questions about the matter.
How long did the matter travel before it got to the Supreme Court?
The matter was in the lower courts for five good years. The matter started in 2005 and got to the Supreme Court in 2010. As it stands now, we don’t even have a date yet. We may not even get a date this year. You can now see the enormity of the situation; and these election matters continue to distract the Supreme Court and push our case further to 2021, 2022, 2023. And by 2022, a fresh set of election matters will begin. They will begin to fight for party structure, fight for nominations and then the elections.
What do you think is the way forward?
The way forward is that not every matter needs to go to the Supreme Court. Very few cases should go to the apex court. The other cases should end at the court of appeal. They are unnecessarily burdened. As we speak, we don’t have more than 14 justices at the apex court, when they should be 21 as provided by the law.
So why then are we short of judges?
It is because we have not appointed more judges.
Why are we not appointing more?
It is simply because we have not just appointed more.
Is it that the government is being unserious or what?
The National assembly recently called on the Federal Government to appoint more justices at the Supreme Court. I think it is because the House of Representatives is made up of many lawyers. They know the problem very well. Imagine waiting for 10-15 years to get justice at the Supreme Court, most of the people involved would have died. The matter would have lost value. So, the apex court should handle very few cases and the rest of them should end at the appeal court.
What other steps should be taken to enhance the efficiency of the courts?
We should embrace automation. Apply technology. We should stop recording with long hand. Serve processes through the internet. They are beginning to adopt that. Hear evidence with electronic recording. Employ more people to reduce the workload. Discourage frivolous applications, appeals that only end at wasting time; and penalize defaulters.
How do you see the call for immunity for NASS leadership?
I think there should be immunity for all heads of government; by that I mean the head of the judiciary, legislature and the executive. However, it should not be absolute immunity. I don’t support absolute immunity like what we have now for the executive arm of government. Immunity should be subject to; if there is any agency or authority that wants to prosecute a public office holder, they should apply to the court with the summary of what they have against the officer. The court of appeal should handle such applications and hear it as a court of first instance.
If they find enough evidence in the application, they can thereby grant the concerned authority leave to prosecute the said officer. Then the immunity can be lifted in that particular instance and the officer made to answer for the allegation made against him. I believe all heads of court, legislature and the executive should have immunity, but it should not be total immunity.
Will it help in the fight against corruption?
It will help the fight against corruption. Everybody knows that nobody is exempted even while you are in office. We should not allow you until you have taken all the money before charging you to court. Once the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) are convinced that they have enough evidence against any public office holder, they can proceed to court of appeal, get a leave to charge the person to court.
Some people argue that the fight against corruption by President Muhammadu Buhari has been one-sided. What is your take on that?
There are debates that are going on, but I don’t want to get into such debate; whether the anti-corruption war is one-sided. The point is that the people convicted have been taken through the process. If you go to court, you will see the statue of the blindfolded lady with a scale in her hand and a sword on the other hand. That is what justice means. It shouldn’t be about who is concerned. It doesn’t have to know who is involved; once it puts you on the scale and you are found wanting, it delivers justice with the sword.
Has that been the case in Nigeria?
We now see where we are. And that is why the Supreme Court is being ridiculed. So, we need to get back to the basics.
You don’t think we are making progress?
We are making progress, but at what speed and accuracy and with what effects? We should fight corruption with the bullet that it requires. If you want to shoot an elephant, you don’t use a Dane gun. The size of the animal determines the type of gun and bullet that should be used. We need to do a lot more in the fight against corruption. We need to invest more in the training of the prosecuting agencies. Make it a national affair. Give the agencies enough power and independence to handle their operations. Let the court and the lawyers work in the interest of justice.
Given the rate of insecurity in the country, some people have been calling for the sack of all the security chiefs. What is your take on that?
I don’t think that the sack of the security chiefs will solve the problem, even though I believe that they should be changed from time to time to make way for fresh ideas. I think that insecurity stems from bad governance. A gainfully employed person is less likely to get into crime. Improve the quality of living for the people. That way you will be able to sift the criminals from those who are being compelled to do the wrong thing. That is what I think should be done.
Then we should invest in orientation. Orientation should be embedded in our system. When President Buhari was the military head of state, Nigerians began to be disciplined in what we were doing. The National Orientation Commission should be up and doing; telling people the way to go. Our people need to respect other important things in life, not just money.
Recently, it was reported that a soldier fighting Boko Haram in the North East killed his colleagues and then, himself. The report said that the soldier was depressed. How does this make you feel?
Sincerely, I don’t envy the soldiers. Look at how hot the weather is. Here, I am in an air-conditioned room, but the soldiers are out there in the bush. They may not have eaten since morning. Their job is to use the gun in their hands and kill people. Do you know how many people they would have killed at any given time? And these are people created in the image of God. I think the military authority should look into their wellbeing and ensure that they don’t slip into such condition. They should review how they are being managed. Allow them take time off once in awhile so they can go home and see their families.
