 |
| Barr Monye |
NIGERIA IS NOT WORKING-MONYE
Barr. Ralph Monye is the Chairman of
the Nigerian Bar Association, Plateau state chapter. In this interview with
African Drum, he expresses disenchantment in the way and manner democracy is
practiced in Nigeria in the last 19 years among other issues. Enjoy the excerpts.
What will be your assessment of democracy in
Nigeria since the advent of this democratic dispensation in 1999?
It would have been better to break them down
through every regime. However, talking generally about how their performances,
some of them have fared well while some haven’t. For instance, I know that late
Yar’Adua had very good intention for this country but death took him away.
Again, it is
better to have one year of democratic dispensation that ten years of military
rule. Although during the time of military presence in Nigeria, we didn’t have
all these killings here and there. Today, life and death has become so
threatening so you discover that life has no meaning anymore. Someone’s life
can be taken as if it can be recreated the next minute. Citizens are being
killed on daily basis by some inconsequential human beings because they are
carrying guns. If you ask me of my view about democracy with regards to
herdsmen and farmers conflict, kidnapping, armed robbery; all that I will say
is that democracy has failed woefully. It will be shocking for me as a lawyer
to say that military dispensation is better than democracy. It would have been
better that during democracy we are having better life but that is not the case
at the moment
Let’s look at the issue of rule of law which
is one of the cardinal elements as far as democracy is concerned. How will you
say this has also fared in the last 19 years with emphasis to the current administration?
Well, that
is why I said it would have been better to break each regime. I still say
during the time of Yar’Adua, there was a rule of law and he obeyed the rule of
law. He tried substantially to obey. Similarly,
Goodluck did not make it a habit of being in fragrant disobedience of the
orders of court because when we asses rule of law it is basically to orders of
court. How are they obeyed? How is the government complying with orders of
court? So, if orders of law are complied to, then you can say that rule of law
has been obeyed, law and order has been in place. But because there is so much
disobedience of that, we can see therefore that the thing is translating in the
larger society that almost everybody is disobedient or everybody is not
interested in obeying the law. Rule of
law is not working because you can see examples of disobedience of orders here
and there by the ruling government and that is translating to other segments of
our society. So to me, rule of law is not enthroned.
Now, let’s look at the issue of the
looters list released recently by the federal government. So many people are
saying that the action has undermined the presumption of innocent until proven
guilty while others have said that the decision has undermined the functions of
the judiciary. What is your take on this?
I don’t want
to talk about who seems to be trumping on the list, particularly the
information minister who I’m aware is a lawyer of very long standing. So I am
shocked therefore that he is the one trumping on that list and bringing up
names and flaunting the names. The question is which court judged those people
and found them guilty? Where those people tried? Where they arraigned? Was there any defence? So how can you just
wake up and because you supposedly found a list or because you conceived in
your mind that some people have embezzled and accuse them of such and decided
to bring that list to public domain and say that they are the looters and
corrupt people. That is wrong and unfortunately, coming from a lawyer of high
standing; it is unfortunate to say the least. That does not say that one is
encouraging corruption or embezzlement, but we are against refusing to follow
due process. If you feel you have such list, you know what to do. There is the
court, the tribunal code of conduct and others. By the time these bodies sit
and consider this list and find these people guilty, you then have the backing
of law to flaunt the list but until they are found guilty, it is very wrong to
bring out any list. With the current development, it means the accuser has
become the judge, the prosecutor and become the defence at the same time. That
is not right because in our practice as lawyers, you should have an accuser, a
prosecutor, the judge and the person who has been accused has the opportunity
to defend himself. When all these things have worked together, then you now say
that the person has been given a fair trial. But as it is now, these people
have already been tried by the media and found guilty and not through judiciary.
So it is media trial where you have judged the person in public and at the same
time convicted him in public and the person has no opportunity to defend
himself.
In less than one year from now for general
elections would be conducted and INEC has already released its time table to
that effect but the national assembly readjusted that timetable a development
that has generated so much controversies and created loggerhead between the
legislature and the executive. Legally speaking, do you think the National Assembly
has the right to change the sequence of election?
The primary
duty of the National Assembly is not to re-order procedures and order; rather,
they can make laws governing anybody or any situation in the country. So
similarly, they can make laws governing the INEC. They have that power to do
something to regulate it but they have no right to make that procedural realignment
of the sequence of election. It is a matter of law so they should first of all
make laws to cover that. If they had done that i.e. making an amendment of the
INEC law, then they would have had the authority to realign the sequence of the
election. INEC that has been given the power to conduct election still remains
the body to do that. Therefore we have to look at the law governing the
electoral process and see who should do it. If there is a schedule of
election, then even INEC does not have that power to change it unless there is
an amendment.
Do you think the judiciary has
really helped in deepening our democracy?
When you say
that then you should know that according to court, it is like garbage in,
garbage out. It is what you bring to the judge that he will adjudicate upon.
You have heard some judges saying that their hands are tied. So if a good case
is brought to the judge, he or she cannot come into the arena to start changing
facts, otherwise he will be accused of being biased. Therefore, I do not know
how the court should deepened democracy if not through the processes that have
come before the court and the way they have been evaluated and defended.
Therefore if the court has given democracy a deeper meaning, it is because of
the files that have come before it but if not, it is also because of the files
that have also come before it. All are based on files because the court looks
at files that come to court because the parties that come to court and the
owners of the files. So if you ask me whether they have deepened democracy I
would say yes because it depends on the volume of the people that have come so
they should deepen democracy if the volume of work that has come and helped in
shaping or amending for the betterment of democracy.
Why I am still hitting on this is
because a lot of judges have been accused of issuing out what many observers
described as frivolous. Court orders
like injunctions and the rest have somehow stalled political process. It is the
reason why some are saying that indeed the judiciary to that extent has not
really helped in deepening democracy.
When you say
that it means you are generalizing
. Just like you have bad journalists, bad
doctors, bad lawyers, you may also have bad judges. Judges have their code of
conduct, some of them occasionally step out but of course a judge is usually
using the freedom to operate in the court. That is why they say the judge is in
control of the court. But they know that for you to issue out an order, all
parties must be given the opportunity to be heard. Most judges I know keep to
that tendency that they don’t even listen to exparte order. An exparte order is
an order made without hearing the other party. The judges are enjoined not to
issue such order. If you bring such an application, you are usually advised to
do put the other party on notice. Normally, some lawyers bring some exparte
request and then bring the one notice also but is now alleged urgency by
filling an affidavit of urgency. Even then when there is such urgency, the
judge for that reason of urgency could now arraign the situation and bring to
court so the court can give out an expertly order which is supposed to last
just for a few days. The only one that should last is the one that both parties
have been heard. Sometimes you can now ask for interlocutory injunction which
normally ends at the end of the case, then you could have perpetual injunction.
We have exparte, interlocutory and perpetual injunctions. Those are the
injunctions that could be given. While the one of exparte rate if it’s given
i.e. that injunction is meant to last just for a few days perhaps to allow
the interlocutory attraction to write him to come up for hearing so that the
subject matter would not have too much as to lead a situation of helplessness
upon the court. A good judge should know not to issue exparte rate order
needlessly or aimlessly. If there are judges doing that, you can take exception
to that. So some judges may be reckless to give such orders facing the
consequence but I would rather not do that and run down my career and not do
something that is against the code of conduct because they have a compliancy
code of conduct and they know what they should do and shouldn’t do. But
overall, judges are giving the latitude to walk in a way that their powers
would not be tempered with for the orderliness of the society.
 |
| Barr Monye |
On the issue of welfare of Nigerians,
especially the civil servants, what is your own take on that because the
agitation is 6,500 naira, but the government has not come up with any blueprint
to state the amount they will pay the civil servants. As a lawyer, what do you
think should be done?
There is no
amount that you pay Nigerians that will be enough. What we want is to just give
social welfare to Nigerians; just give good living conditions to Nigerians. You
pay a worker 65,000 or 67,000 for instance and then bring an unbearable
situation upon him in the market. That is like giving in one hand and taking
away with the other. A lot of things have changed and life has become so
complicated and so expensive. Therefore
you have not increased the welfare of Nigerians only by increasing their
salaries. To increase that salary to me is meaningless if you have not put an
enabling circumstance or conducive environment on ground to enable Nigerians
enjoy life without so much expense. Rather than increase, they should try to
bring down the inflation and the tough condition of Nigeria.
Recently, Mr President visited
Plateau state and thereafter, the media was awashed with the benefits of his
visit. What do you make of the visit of Mr. President to Plateau state and the
recent one to USA under the invitation of Donald Trump?
What
can be the benefit of the visit of the president to Plateau state when as soon
as he left or even while he was around, killings were going on. To me that has
diminished any gain if there is; rather it was a political gain. Politicians
have scored whatever thing they want to score by his visit. Certainly it was
not for the populace. I don't know what he came to commission here; he didn't
commission any federal project so one would have thought that when we see him,
his presence here would have brought good things to bear on the state that day.
Talking about the visit itself, who were those that interacted with the
President? It was the politicians. They were the ones hailing him and making
him feel so comfortable rather than hitting him with the facts that are on the
ground for him to know that Nigeria is in turmoil. He doesn't travel on road,
so he doesn't know what is happening. For instance, to travel from here to
Abuja is hell for anybody. Armed robbery, kidnappers, bad roads, herdsmen who can come on the road
and just start molesting Nigerians. They did not ask the President questions on
that and when we were there, they did not allow out to speak. They just chose
politicians, women groups, political groups, youth, elders and religious groups
to talk when doctors, lawyers, accountants were there to engage the President
and lay their complaints to him rather than making him feel so comfortable. It
is to this reason therefore that I do not think that the visit was beneficial
in any way.
Then
the America visit. Your house is on fire and you are going abroad to make
the whole world and giving them the impression that your house is okay. Nigeria
is not working. Those who are giving accolades to the President know what they
mean. They are doing this because they are living on the other side of the
divide. They don't know what Nigerians are going through every day. They move
freely on convoys, they are able to get food on their tables every day. So they
don't face any threat at all, they don't buy goods in the market, queue in filling
stations. We want a working president, someone who the people will feel his
impact. A President that will give the people rest of mind and make them feel
that life is worth living. How many people will be around to witness the
investments from the USA in Nigeria when there are incursions into the lives of
Nigerians? Any day you are on the road, you don't know whether you are going
safely either because of bad roads, armed robbery or kidnappers.
Post a Comment