The Reality Of The Rule Of Law Always Fluctuates In Nigeria By: Y.A, Usman Esq

Apparently, it is a common statement that, under the rule of law, every individual is subjected to the law and no one is above the law.

The term “rule of law” carries different meanings but these meanings clearly point at the same direction. The rule of law may mean “rule according to law“, that is, the rule of law requires both individual and government to exercise their power in accordance with well-established laws. It also means “rule under law” which means both individual and government are required to exercise their authority under law; no individual is above the law and no branch of government can act outside the law.

From these meanings, it shows that, law stands as a master while individuals (ruler and ruled) act as servants to it. Aristotle in his words said:” law should govern and those in power should be servants of the laws“. Plato holds the same view with Aristotle and said:” where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that gods shower on a state. ”

At this juncture, it is apt to know that, in every modern society, democracy and the rule of law work hand in hand, which results to what is called good governance.

The questions to be asked at this point are: do we practice a democratic system of government in reality? If yes, does the rule of law exist at all?

Undoubtedly, it is only the Nigeria’s history that can give accurate answers to these questions .But before that, let us briefly look into the wisdom behind what Ben Nwabueze said in his book, “Constitutional Democracy in Nigeria “. He said:” the rule of law is the pillar of constitutional democracy of great importance”. My own take from this statement is that, democracy can exist only in a country where rule of law exists, otherwise there would not be good governance, and this is because, without democracy, the rule of law will remain an article of faith.

It is important to note that, the rule of law and democracy are interdependent, that is, one cannot exist without the other. Dr. Charlie Nwekeaku while describing both concepts, said:” the rule of law is a road, on which democracy plies”. The terrible, violent, unsecured and unpredictable state of nature are factors that brought men together ,under a social contract, and surrendered their powers and rights to their representatives to form the government personal and these men retain power to renew or withdraw their mandate to continue to govern, if their aims are not achieved. Democracy guarantees equal participation of all citizens in governance, provision, promotion and sustenance of the rule of law.

While looking into the Nigeria’s history, the true pictures of the following facts would be known:

1. Whether democratic system of government is really practiced in Nigeria or not, and
2. Whether the rule of law exists or not.

To determine the first leg of these issues, history has it that, since the present democratic dispensation in 1999, Nigeria has experienced some challenges which are very strange in a democratic system of government. What we believe is that, the democracy provides fundamental human Rights, such as right to life, right to dignity of human person, right to personal liberty, right to fair hearing, right to private family life, right to freedom of religion, right to vote and be voted for in election, right to freedom of expression, among others, and if a citizen cannot enjoy them, there is no democracy in such a country. Here in Nigeria, people cannot freely elect their representatives in government as well as control the government. People are beaten up in the polling units, and cannot confidently vote for men of their choice because they’re afraid of being battered by political thugs. Also, ballot boxes and INEC staffs are forcefully taken away to thumb-print ballot papers in favor of the ruling party. Considering this, one may ask: is there democracy? If people are disenfranchised for no genuine reason and prevented from active participation in the electoral process, then its result is never democratic.

In respect of the second leg, it is obvious that our leaders in Nigeria claim by word of mouth to adhere to the rule of law and the constitution but they always disregard and disrespect court orders, judgment, and the constitution .In the case of FRN vs. WALTER ONNOGHEN, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division ordered the Code of Conduct Tribunal to temporarily stay further proceedings in the case the Federal Government instituted against the CJN, but the CCT went ahead and made an order which the president relied on to suspend the CJN ,despite different interim injunctions restraining all parties from taking further steps in the matter, pending the determination of legal issues surrounding the legal propriety of the trial. It is my considered submission that, president Muhammadu Buhari acted according to the order of court (CCT) that favoured his will and disregarded the one against his will. Also, in a just recent case between the Governor of Kano State, and the Emir of Kano State, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, Governor Ganduje disregarded court order and took a step in appointing new Emirates. Kano State High Court issued an order retraining the Kano State Government and all respondents from appointing four new Emirates in the state pending the determination of the motion on notice but this was not obeyed.

Also, in refreshing our memories with the case of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA vs JAMES ONANEFE IBORI & ORS (2008), Ibori was arraigned before the Federal High Court, Kaduna, on charges of corrupt enrichment, money laundering, amongst others. The defendants filed an objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court to try them upon the count charges. The trial court demised the objection. This was allowed on appeal, and the case was transferred. At the end of this case, Ibori got the judgment he wanted and was acquitted of those charges against him. This led to a lot of criticisms.

Not only this, recall, during the administration of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007), there was flagrant disregard for the rule of law. A foremost instance was the regimes penchant for disregarding and outright disobeying court orders and judgments; this was exemplified in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in favour of Lagos state government over the withheld council fund by the federal government. The Lagos state government had gone to the Supreme Court for the interpretation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whether the Federal Government has the legal right to withhold funds from the Federation Account meant for any of the three tiers of government for any reason. The court ruled, in its wisdom, in favour of the Lagos state government. It was reported by Nwankwere in 2007 that, the federal government under Chief Obasanjo refused to release the accumulated fund, on the ground that the creation of the additional 37 Local Government Areas in the state by the state assembly was illegal even when the same Supreme Court had earlier ruled in favour of Lagos State. This was done with impunity setting very poor and dangerous examples for governance. The lower house was also not spared as Obasanjo maintained constant hostility to the then speaker of the House of Representatives.

Section 1(1) of The Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended provides for the supremacy of the constitution. The Section says:” This constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons and throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” Does the constitution really rule or it is just a formality? In Nigeria, where a hungry man is imprisoned for five years, just because he stole one thousand naira and a rich manis who steals one hundred million naira would be acquitted —- in Nigeria, where one can boldly say that, wherever there is outright rigging and manipulation of election results, law enforcement agencies are even part of the weapons used in humiliating and abusing human rights and civil liberties, especially those of innocent citizens and political opponents of the ruling party.

It is said that, medias are the purveyors of information on both the rule of law and democracy .The constitution, under its fundamental objectives provision provides in section 22 that ” the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all time be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people.’’ This right is not given to our media, thus, the government doesn’t act according to the law which is the constitution. It is submitted that, since the constitution has lost its supremacy; the rule of law is then regarded a dead body that has not been buried.

No individual or government is above the law. History tells us that, the applicability of the rule of law is fluctuating which can be seen in the following cases:

In the case of Director of SSS v. Agbakoba (1999)3 NWLR (Pt.595), p.314SC, the plaintiff/appellant brought an action for a declaration that the forceful seizure of his passport by agents of the State Security Services (SSS) was a violation of his right to personal liberty, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of movement as guaranteed by the Constitution, as amended and for an order of mandatory injunction directing the defendants/respondents to release the passport forthwith. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it held, inter alia, that the respondents were liable and were ordered to release the applicant’s passport forthwith.

Also, in All Nigerian Peoples Party & Ors Vs. Benue State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors. (2006)11 NWLR (Pt.992), p.587 the appellants sponsored candidates for election into the Office of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Kwande Local Government Council of Benue State. After the elections, the results were collated and the officials of the respondents on 28/04/2004 declared the results of the poll and gave the copies of the certificate of return to agents of the appellants, the police and other agents present at the collation centre. To the appellants’ greatest surprise ,instead of the 1st respondent publishing the result and declaring same in the Gazette as required by law, they announced the following day over the state radio that the election had been postponed indefinitely. Aggrieved by this action, the appellants filed a suit in the State High Court. The State High Court said it has no jurisdiction. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was held that the Nigeria Constitution is founded on the rule of law, the primary meaning of which is, everything should be done according to law.

In Peter Obi v. INEC (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 869), p. 436 at p. 616, the appellant aggrieved with the declaration of Dr. Chris Ngige, as the Governor of Anambra State by INEC, filed a petition at the Governorship and Legislative Houses Election Tribunal, challenging the declaration and return of Dr. Chris Ngige, as the candidate who won. The tribunal upheld the appellant’s petition stating that he was the candidate who was validly and duly elected. Dr. Ngige dissatisfied appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the tribunal.
Consequently, Peter Obi took the oath of office as the Governor of Anambra State on the 17th day of March, 2006. In 2007, INEC announced that the election to the Office of the Governor of Anambra State would be conducted on the 14th day of April, 2007. The appellant, that is, Peter Obi been aggrieved, commenced an action at the Federal High Court against INEC asking the Court to declare that his tenure of office as Governor of Anambra State began to run from the date he took the oath of allegiance and office on the 17th day of March, 2006. That he, the incumbent Governor has not served his four-year tenure of office. The trial court held that it lacks jurisdiction, since the suit is related to election matters. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial court that it indeed lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. It was held that, the four-year term of the office of Peter Obi, as Governor starts to run from the day he took his oath of allegiance and office. The decision of Supreme Court in this case was actually the rule of law itself.

To enjoy good governance in Nigeria, our laws must be supreme, but our laws can only get supremacy if the three organs of government work independent of one another, this is with proper checks and balances. In a country where the Chief Judge is appointed without following the laid down procedures, but by the influence of the governor or president, can the judiciary be vibrant, fearless and incorruptible? The accurate answer is ‘NO.’ Without  judicial independence, there would be no life for the rule of law.

In conclusion, Nigeria is a country where law can only be given a chance to rule, when the said law is in favour of those who are in power. In a situation where a particular law will rule against them, such a law would be disregarded and blind eyes will be turned at it in order to allow them to go scout free without facing the wrath of the law. If this subsists in a country like ours, we will definitely continue chasing after good governance to the last point without being caught.

By: Y.A, Usman Esq (Ar–rohees) ,Email: rohees9090@gmail.comPhone: 07033589425