Venue: The Legacy Hotels & Suites on 12 November, 2016.
THEME: ‘Rule of Law In The Contemporary Democracy’
The Organizers,
Co-Presenters,
Special Guests of Honour,
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen.
First, I express my profound gratitude for your confidence to invite me to deliver this lecture on the above vital theme which I believe none among us can question its necessity vis-à-vis our contemporary society. Undeniably, the notice was quite short; nevertheless, the theme makes it so unique that no genuine democrats or legal scholars would take it for granted.
Interestingly, I recently published an article on related subject titled, “Untying Traditions, Sentimentality from Rule of Law” on page 18 of The GUARDIAN Newspapers edition of 02 November, 2016. Incidentally, or rather by divine providence, this presentation coincides with my birthday just few hours away; November 14, and therefore, pushes a mandate to consider public lectures on my future birthdays as a contribution to the society.
Now, the business of the day! The concept of rule of law in a democracy is principally anchored on the doctrine of supremacy of law and equality before the law. Taking a cue from a profound definition provided by the then United Nation’s Secretary General, Kofi Annan, rule of law is “a principle of governance in which all powers, institutions and entities, public and private including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards”. Thus, rule of law connotes a system of governance in which accountability, answerability or zero-tolerance is absolute.
In Nigeria, the 1999 Constitution is the grundnorm; that is, over-rider and powerhouse of all other laws. Suffice to say that any law without its root from or inconsistent with the constitution is ab initio null and void. Section 1(3) of the Constitution (supra) provides that, “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of its inconsistency, be void”. Essentially, the most active player on the rule of law theory is the judiciary which interprets the laws. Hence, an independent and efficient judiciary is a sine qua non to actualizing rule of law in a democracy. If not, equity and justice which are the core objectives of its philosophy will be defeated. To actualize rule of law in any society, the maxim, “lex autem non est personarum acceptor Deus” (law is no respecter of persons) is nonnegotiable; sacrosanct.
It therefore points to show that promulgated and judicial laws take supremacy over feelings, morality or traditions. Practically, what does this imply; laws of the country should be applied irrespective of whose ox is gored or person’s status, positions or appearances. Unfortunately, we have lately witnessed where a good population criticized action of government on account it was unprecedented (never occurred before) and therefore summed them as tyranny. Not really, rule of law denotes strict adherence to the provisions of law not minding if they have been complied with in the past. For instance, Section 308 of the constitution clearly provides that only the president, vice president, governors and deputy governors are covered by immunity from criminal prosecution in the country. By implication, all other persons, by the concept of rule of law can be arrested and arraigned. Anything else is tantamount to driftage. If the constitution unambiguously selected only four public officeholders, it means all others may be interrogated and prosecuted. As a lawyer, I am subject to the laws. As a journalist, I am liable if I break the laws. Same applies to a soldier, medical doctor, entrepreneurs, operatives, politicians and students as long as the person is sui juris (legally competent to assume responsibilities). Career advancement does not metamorphose to immunity from criminal prosecutions.
Furthermore, the doctrine of separation of power doesn’t mean the three arms of government would exist in isolation. The separation is only effective to an extent and not absolute since the three arms work together. The Constitution created and attached all the security agencies of the nation only in the executive arm for all the three arms alongside the general public. That is to say, the security agencies are under statutory duties to apply laws on all persons apart from the four officeholders covered by immunity as mentioned above. The ultimate goal of rule of law is to have a civilized society instead of anarchy. Characteristically, the perception, conception or notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ as dramatized in George Orwell’s The Animal Farm “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” is inconsistent with the policy. In other words, the notorious ‘sacred cow’ philosophy is impermissible. As stakeholders in a democracy, all individuals and government are under a duty to ensuring that actions are undertaken within the ambits of law. As citizens, normatively, we should conduct all affairs in accordance to the laws and obey court orders. If peradventure, ones rights are trampled upon by another, civility demands shunning all form of weird reactions or violence but seek for redress through the appropriate security agency or approach the court for civil action if unbearable.
By and large, rule of law in a democracy holds both the government and the governed accountable for actions. It means that government must conduct all its actions as provided in the enabling laws and where a court of competent jurisdiction makes a pronouncement, all parties including the government shall be bound by the rulings. However, this doesn’t mean that if for instance, A is detained over allegation of stealing a pen, and eventually, the court orders his freedom, the order covers all about him. Not at all, the order is only limited to the allegation of stealing a pen. If he is rearrested on other crimes like assault and battery, no injustice is done; the doctrine of rule of law is still intact.
Many have also reasoned that case-laws (judicial precedents) supersede statutory (enacted) laws; that may not entirely be a fallacy. Though the Constitution establishes and empowers the courts; nonetheless, the court interprets the Constitution. Hierarchically, what the court interprets from the Constitution is the law. When the apex court rules on a constitutional issue, the judgment is virtually final, except subsequently altered by constitutional amendments. If not, the doctrine of stare decisis will protect the judgment in perpetuity. In other words, the court exists to ensure that the statutory laws are appropriately applied for equity and justice knowing that humans are symptomatically endowed with freedom of reasoning and entitled to diverse interpretations.
Ladies and gentlemen, I understand this lecture is scheduled to be brief and interactive for our better assimilation. Hence, I will at this juncture draw the curtain to enable distinguished participants make contributions and ask questions if any. Nonetheless, I cannot afford to close without cheering up those of you that are students among us never to take your education for granted. Note that no amount of sacrifice is too big and nothing can replace education in your priorities. Definitely, you will face challenges along the line; might even be labelled proud alongside other names, but remain focused, and determinedly create the future of your dreams. If there is nothing you picked from the just concluded US elections, at least, take home that popular opinions about a person may not always decide. What ultimately matters is your perception about yourself combined with self-determinism. Thus, you’re your best friend alongside your worst enemy; your decision about YOU matters most. On this note, I thank you for audience. I wish you all the best and stay blessed.
Carl Umegboro, LL.B (Hons), ACIArb.
Public Affairs Analyst/Publisher