Yar’Adua and selective due process

One mantra of the present administration is its commitment to due process and the rule of law, which at face value, is very commendable. Without due process and the rule of law, society would be in chaos as there would be neither law nor order, much less justice and equity. Due process prescribes a pre-determined course for the flow of justice such that the poor and the rich, the lowly and the mighty, may without discrimination, have equal access. It would seem, however, that as laudable as the commitment to due process is, President Yar’Adua is either unclear in his mind as to what constitutes due process, or is being mischievously mis-directed by his officials and political cronies in the pursuit of the goal. For what we have seen so far are various conflicting and confusing interpretations and applications of due process that have left observers rather confused.

And sometimes, the regime seems completely unconcerned even when its officials violate due process with impunity in their day -to- day encounters with the governed. As an example of the confusion in the application of due process by the Yar’Adua regime, let us examine his handling of ASUU’s demand for the restoration of the 49 sacked Unilorin lecturers, and the return of NICON Insurance to Mr. Jimoh Ibrahim. In respect of the sacked lecturers, the president, speaking through his Minister of Education at the 37th convocation ceremonies for the award of Higher and Honorary Degrees at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka recently, dismissed the possibility of settling the lecturers’ dispute with the government out of court, claiming that such a step would compromise the government’s insistence on due process and rule of law. According to the minister, “ASUU is insisting that the case which is before the Supreme Court be politically settled out of court but the government in line with its principle of respect for the rule of law has advised ASUU to wait for the Supreme Court’s verdict and it will speedily implement whatever is the decision of the court.” The minister then proceeded to order that the salaries of any lecturer who participates in any form of strike to press for the lecturers’ demands be stopped immediately.

Let us contrast the above with the case of Jimoh Ibrahim and NICON Insurance. There is a subsisting case at the Federal High Court in Abuja between the Federal Government and Mr. Jimoh Ibrahim over the revocation of the sale of NICON Insurance to the latter. In spite of this subsisting case, the president ordered the return of NICON Insurance to the status quo and directed that the Federal Government and Mr. Jimoh Ibrahim settle out of court. The president further ordered the National Insurance Commission to communicate identified infractions to NICON who should then be made to address them, while both NAICOM and NICON were to sign a Memorandum of Understanding of good faith, and the Attorney General was to file the terms of the out of court settlement at the Federal High Court.

The steps taken to reach an out of court settlement in the NICON case are of course legitimate and patriotic. More importantly, they recognise that our judicial process permits out of court settlements, with the mutual consent of litigants in a case, at any stage of the court process. Out of court settlements are thus a component part of due proces and the rule of law in our judicial system. The pertinent question then is, if this process was recognizsed and applied in the case of Jimoh Ibrahim versus the Federal Government, why could it not be equally applied in the case of ASUU versus the Federal Government. Why would it be a violation of due process and the rule of law in the former case and not in the latter? It is clear from the above illustration that the twin laudable concepts of due process and rule of law are being interpreted and applied to suit the whims of government and certain powerful individuals rather than to uphold any ennobling standards of justice. Because the lecturers are at the short end of the levers of power and some individuals involved in their sack must never be seen to lose face, they are getting a jaundiced interpretation of the rule of law.

Maybe Yar’Adua is indeed committed to due process, but his powerful party men and others who surround him derail this commitment. Such derailment was evident, for example, in the recently concluded PDP National Convention. The president had made it clear to his party that he favoured that all candidates for the position of National Chairman be allowed to contest for the post, and there should be no screening to eliminate any candidates. He vowed to give every aspiring candidate a level playing ground. At the last minute however, his party governors rubbished this publicly stated commitment and made him to eat his words. They jointly agreed on one of the candidates as the anointed, and intimidated all the others to withdraw, even without consulting with many of them. Is that not a negation of due process? Due process in the democratic election of a party chairman cannot be said to have been followed when no election actually took place, and those preparing to offer themselves for election were forced to withdraw for a candidate anointed at a closed shop. Yet, the president acquiesced! What does that acquiescence do to his commitment to due process?

The implication of Ogbulafor’s anointing as the National Chairman of the PDP is that our nation is now being driven into the future by a reluctant driver in an ill-prepared vehicle. Both the government and the ruling party are being led by reluctant, unprepared persons. Yar’Adua never wanted to be president, but he was forced upon us. In precisely the same manner, Ogbulafor never expected to be chairman, as he did little more than pick up a form, yet he has been forced on the party. In his own words, “I never printed posters, I never made one advertisement, but here I am serving as the national chairman of our great party.”

No one as an individual would like to travel in a car, knowing that it has not been serviced for the journey, and that it is to be driven by someone untrained to operate it. Yet, as a nation, that is now our predicament. A least prepared president, and an even less prepared party chairman. Safe journey, Nigerians!

Coming back to the concepts of due process and the rule of law, one cannot but conclude that Yar’Adua’s understanding of them is that they should apply only to the high and mighty, and not to the generality of the people; that they should apply to rogue governors and thieving party stalwarts, but not to the innocent man picked up by a sadistic policeman on the road and locked up behind bars for days in a police cell.

Everyday, our police parade those they claim are robbery suspects and bind them in chains to be viewed in all our homes on television, yet some of these could yet prove to be innocent. Many of them are in fact summarily executed by the police, purely at their whims, without ever being taken to court. Is the Attorney General unaware of these? Do they conform to due process? The latest report of the Amnesty International describes the Nigerian criminal justice system as “an all-round conveyor belt of injustice”.

The report describes detentions of suspects in prison without trial for sometimes upwards of ten years, police torture to exact forced but sometimes false incriminating confessions, and extra-judicial executions. Are all these in conformity with Yar’Adua’s mantra of due process and rule of law?

The rule of law is a noble concept if it applies equally to all citizens. But when it is applied only to shield the powerful looters of the nation and protect the rich and the mighty, or subjected to subjective interpretations to suit the whims of government, it simply compounds injustice.