Innocent Egwu is the chairman, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Aba Branch. In this Interview with GODFREY OFURUM, he discussed issues on election petition, electoral laws and need to reform Nigeria’s judicial system and laws, especially the “received English laws” that were operational in England in 1900, but now obsolete. Excerpts:
As a lawyer, with your observation in the polity and interactions with many Nigerians, do you think citizens still have the belief and trust in the nation’s judiciary system?
Take it from me, that trust and belief is of utmost importance, despite election petitions and a whole lot of misunderstanding. I must say frankly that we still have that belief, because if we lose that, 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 is still intact. Every government and society is reckoned by the belief and strength of the judicial system. When you lose hope in the judicial system of a society, take it from me that 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, but it portrays that the judiciary is where you have hope of the restoration of all anomalies in society.
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 system then, they’re finished. Those of us in the temple of justice still have hope and I will hope to see all Nigerians have similar hope and understanding about the real issue here.
Considering some recent judgements, especially on political matters, do you think the judiciary has been fair?
I must say we have some concerns about some happenstances, rising from some judgements, but that is not to say that we have lost hope. When I hear people cast aspersions on the Supreme Court, it sends a message to me about our society. Do you remember the saying that the ‘Supreme Court is final, not because it is infallible; rather it is infallible, because it is the final court.’
There was a time when we had an appeal from the Supreme Court of Nigeria 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, but I still insist, no, that is not the case with us down here. All the courts in Nigeria remain reliable. So, the long and short of everything is that the Nigerian Judiciary remains reliable although been manned by human beings who could make mistakes.
There is this allegation that some of the controversial pronouncements by some of the judges were not mistakingly made, rather they were deliberately couched to favour some pay masters. What is your take on this allegation?
At least, we have seen recent judgements of the Supreme Court, how many of them reflected this unfounded allegation? The problem is with our people and their limited knowledge of the law, most times. That allegation is an unfounded and strictly an opinion of those, who think so.
The decisions of a court are based on the evidence available before it and how they were presented. It is unfortunate that people just preempt the court 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 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, as they know on the surface and give their judgement, while the real 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 decides a case, where the facts before the court are saying otherwise. You now see people telling others what the outcome of a case is on social media, when what they are saying does not align with the Nigerian Constitution or laws.
They just put up issues, draw opinions here and there and conclude the cases even before the courts start sitting for hearing. Anybody who is not a party to a suit may stay outside drawing his conclusions from a wrong perspective, thinking that such conclusions ought to be the outcome of a case.
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.
Nigerians must understand that the decisions of the court are based on the evidence and facts brought before it and the presentation. This is the problem in Nigeria. People stay outside the court and accuse judges of corruption without even knowing the facts before the court. They only hear what they feel should be the outcome of the case. There is a huge difference between society’s opinion of justice and what the law says about justice. The public perception most times does not correspond with the law available.
Are you saying that the substance of a case should be ignored in pursuit of the technicalities in the issue of presentation?
Let me be frank with you, I think the word “technicalities” is one word many Nigerians have come to misunderstand or probably made use of when it is unnecessary. What the layman sees as technicalities in judgement may actually not be technicalities in every form of it.
Now, in an election petition, the law has prescribed how it should be presented. Now, if a lawyer fails to present an election petition by way of Petition and goes ahead to present it by a way of Originating Summons or by Writ of Summons, definitely the case will collapse and that is not technicality at all.
Everything has the rules guiding it and must be followed. The law has procedures for every legal issue and must be followed as prescribed. For instance, if you want to institute a Divorce Proceeding, the law has said that it should be by Petition. However, when you go ahead to do it through Originating Summons or any other means outside the approved Petition, are you expecting the court to begin to entertain your actions when you abandoned the rules and applied what is best for you and not what the law says?
No matter how meritorious your case may be, because you have commenced it wrongly, it must fail and there is no two ways about it. You may call it technicality, but that is not it. It is just like taking a case to a court that lacked the jurisdiction to handle that case and when it is struck out, because of that, one will say it is technicality. If you have a land case in Isiala-Ngwa, why should you come to Aba to commence the case, when Aba has a different jurisdiction?
What the layman calls technicalities are different from what it is actually, because the real technicalities are part of the law.
Do you agree with people who are calling for reforms in our laws?
Yes. Law is a living organism and must grow just as the society grows or that society will be engulfed in a huge confusion when caught off with new things. With technology breathing down our necks and modernization catching up with us, like Time’s Winged Chariot, it is a no-brainer to call for serious reform, so that we can stay ahead of it or meet up at least with what is trending. If not, we will surely get to a state where everyone will remain confused. So, reformation of the judicial system and our law is necessary.
What is the current position of the Aba Bar in the country, where did you meet it and where are you taking it?
Right from time immemorial, we have been among the foremost. By alphabetical order, we are number one. However, we have consciously maintained our position beyond alphabetical order. I do not want to arrogate ourselves, as the most vibrant, but we are one of the most vibrant, because our works speak. You cannot count the ten most vibrant bar associations in the country without mentioning Aba. 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?
Coming to our human rights pursuit records, which you asked, our records in the fight for human rights are top-notch. Our human rights activism and activities are one of the foremost in the country. Within a year and six months of my administration, we have engaged in national human rights activities that are notable. Just last month, December 2023, the entire Aba saw our human rights committee coming out on the streets to sensitize our people about so many issues relating to obedience to the law and their human rights.
We do not joke with such issues, because when people are aware of the laws, their rights and where their rights stop, such awareness helps to reduce crisis that could come from the background of ignorance. So, from the things you see today in Aba, nobody will tell you that our people here are beginning to understand that issues are not solved through violence.
We had a human rights town hall meeting in June 2023, where we invited all sectors of the city of Aba. We equally engaged in prison decongestion and the last report of the NBA Aba Branch Human Rights Committee to the bar, contained their engagement and release of over 30 inmates from the prison, who have been detained without following due process.
There, you will see those incarcerated unjustly, their matters unattended to, their case abandoned, so our human rights committee engages in such issues to ensure that such victims are released. We are not found wanting in engagement in national issues, as it relates to the government and the people. We play our roles without fear or favour.
I still bring you to the question I have asked earlier.Where did you meet Aba NBA and where are you expecting to take it?
Well, I met the Aba NBA in the forefront of activism, required of the bar. Do not forget that we are not a trade union, we are a professional body and our engagements somewhere are regulated. So, in those areas where we are supposed to intervene, we do it. I have sustained the tempo and taken us higher. We have ensured that we are not found wanting in the duties that are ours. We have taken time to ensure that this place will not be a lawless zone. We are seriously engaging in the areas necessary. Some people in the streets may not know the engagements of the NBA in some sectors of our society, but 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 wrong and false. The judiciary is rather protecting our democracy. For me, I think that the judiciary is already doing what people, who understand what we’re practising are asking for. By its constitutional mandate, it is there to serve as a check to the executive and the legidlative 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 persons 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, it is anchored on our constitution.
So, if three million people did what’s 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’s 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 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 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’s my duty even as a Nigerian or a member of the Bar to look at every judgement 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 are illegal votes, but is that what the law said?
That INEC suggested what to make use of at the elections, to make it 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 anull election results? The law is looking at substantial compliance. Yes, the law knows the importance of the machines, but did it say without it that 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 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 when they hear that 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 received by 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 Executive 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 that were left non-obligatory, because it could undermine some people in power. All we need is the willpower 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 organise such a thing without a law guiding it.
