President’s appointments violate federal character principles, says Bankole

Section 13 subsection (3) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria said the composition of the government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also command national loyalty, thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or in any of its agencies. President Muhammadu Buhari has been severely criticised for allegedly violating this provision by appointing helmsmen to the key agencies of government and security structures mainly from the North. A Lagos-based senior lawyer, Bankole Kayode in this interview with JOSEPH ONYEKWERE examines the development. He also spoke on other topical issues.

What do you think of the skewed presidential appointments?
I believe that the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) and every well meaning Nigerian should be embarrassed by the appointments done by Mr. President, especially on the security apparatus. If they don’t rise up now to condemn it, they have lost their voice to criticise any president that comes out from other part of the country that would do so. It is they that would fight it to ensure that Buhari does the right thing. It is provocative. The consitititon is clear about giving appointments geographical spread across the country. But here we are with a president that will be appointing people from his own geographical location for whatever reason.

Are such appointment supposed to comply with the federal character principle?
Definitely! Section 13 subsection (3) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria said the composition of the government of the federation or any of its agencies and the conduct of its affairs shall be carried out in such a manner as to reflect the federal character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity, and also command national loyalty. Therefore, what he is doing, to me is indefensible. A situation where you exclude the South Eastern part of the country from the security structure, is telling them that they are indeed Biafrans and not Nigerians. I thought that the civil war has ended in 1970. I am feeling that though the war has finished, the battle is still raging underneath.

But the President had said in his foreign interviews that his actions would be guided by the voting pattern?
When I read the interview, which he granted when he traveled abroad, I thought that he was misquoted, until it started staring us at the face that he is hell-bent on carrying out that policy of favouring those who voted for him. He is the president of Nigeria and not for those who voted for him only. Are we by the stretch of any imagination saying that nobody voted for him in those areas? Are we saying that nobody voted for him in Bayelsa? Is it 100 per cent that voted against him in the South East, South South and South West? Did he get 100 per cent in Katsina his home state. I cannot understand all these. He came in with such a magnificient goodwill and he is gradually frittering everything away. Even the ordinary people on the street that felt offended by the level of corruption that prevails in Nigeria before have now seen a different way of corruption which is preventing people from benefiting from appointments that supposed to go round. Corruption is not only when you steal money or when you misappropriate funds. It involves when you do not play the game according to the rule – in this case the constitution.

Do you think this is part of the reason why we have the Avengers in the Niger Delta?
In fact, if it is not, this development has led to exacerbation of the restiveness in the Niger Delta. When appointment of the board of NNPC was announced and you see names, majorly from the North and the oil is gotten from the South South. The money that is used in running the economy of Nigeria is got from the South South. The money used in paying these people put in positions of power is derived from the South South. Don’t forget, Bayelsa and Delta States have not been paying salaries of late. All the oil monies, you take to the North and the appointments, you take to the North again. That is provocative and the earlier the president had a second look at it, the better for everybody.

As provocative as it appears, is that a justification for destruction of oil facilities?
Anywhere violence is carried out should be condemned. Violence is not justifiable in any way. But then, there can’t be peace without justice. A songwriter, Peter Tosh, said everybody is crying out for peace; none is crying out for justice. Peace can only be predicated on justice. Where ever there is injustice, people will start agitating and if you turn deaf ear, they go physical. And that includes going violent. When Obasanjo came in, the first place he visited when he left Aso Rock was the creek. He went to meet with the Niger Delta militants in the creek and ask them; what do you want? They told him what they wanted and he gave it to them. It was then he said, I will not tolerate militancy, hence he arrested Asari Dokubo when he was becoming nasty. It was understanding! Has president Buhari visited them in the creeks? No! Instead what we are hearing is that some ex-governors, governors and ministers and some ex-ministers are bring boys to the office of the National Security Adviser, where they are claiming that they can control the militants.

There is renewed agitation for restructuring. What is your position?
My position is that it is borne out of the trajectory of history of Nigeria. The history of Nigeria is that the white man did not consult us before he grouped us together. We did not know the meaning of the name, Nigeria. They only gave it to us. So, having found us grouped together by British imperial powers over 100 years ago, are we not supposed to reorganised ourselves? Are we supposed to live according to the dictate of the colonial masters who left us since 1960?

What do you think is the best way to go about it?
There are two ways that I will suggest. It is either we go back and dust the report of Justice Idris Kutigi conference and subject it to referendum or let Buhari organise his own, based on participatory democracy. Let people come out and vote for their representatives and let those representatives go and take all the past restructuring reports and reach a decision and pass it to various houses of Assembly.

How are we going to derive the power since there nothing like referendum in our constitution?
Well, let there be an executive bill to amend the Constitution, to create a situation where there will be referendum on this issue. Afterall, the Constitution has been amended more than twice.

Do you think the National Assembly will be disposed to entertain this executive bill going by the conflict between the leadership of the National Assembly and the executive at present?
It is the leadership of the National Assembly that has issue with the executive. That should not in anyway stultify the progress of Nigeria in deciding the terms with which we want to stay together. Except the leadership of the National Assembly want to be extremely selfish, that is when they are going to throw it out. Otherwise, this is the biggest clog on wheel of our progress as a nation. So, if we must keep Nigeria as one, we must discuss the terms of being together as one. If we don’t do it, whether we like it or not, one day, the bubble will burst.

Was Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) right in freezing the personal account of a governor?
The matter is subjudice. But from the affidavit deposed before the court, freezing of the account was as a result of court order, if what we read in Newspaper is anything to go by. If it is as a result of court order, my question is: do you institute another matter to challenge it or approach the court that gave the order to vacate it and if it refuses, you go on appeal? But here is a case where it is said that there is a court order and you went and institute another case. So can a federal high court upturn the decision of another court of coordinate jurisdiction? The answer is no!

Based on the provisions of section 308 of the 1999 constitution, where does the immunity of those it apply to end?
The President, his vice, governors and their deputies have immunity against prosecution in court. And the Supreme Court has said that nothing can take away that immunity. But when you are not being prosecuted rather there is an order of a court that your assets should be frozen, my own contention is that it is that order that should be challenged instead of starting another case all over.

Recently, we had a decision of a high court of Osun state authorising the wearing of hijab in public secondary schools and it is generating serious debates. What is your reaction?
Law is good if it promotes unity, progress and well-being of citizens. That is the reason we have rules of interpretation of statutes. There are certain laws that if construe strictly, will lead to anarchy while some will lead to absurdity. So, it is now incumbent on the judge to ensure that the law as enacted is not given interpretation that will lead to anarchy and absurdity. I doubt whether this position was canvassed at the court there. And who do I blame? The parties before the court there. If legal opinions were sought from constitutional lawyers; from the academia and from the intellectuals, I believe that that judgment would not have gone that way.

That judgment when read says that the Muslim girls have the right to dress the way their holy book has dictated and they also have the right to propagate their gospel even within the school. The Christians will also come to say that Matthew Chapter 28 gave them the mandate to propagate the gospel starting from Jerusalem, in all Judea and even to the ends of the earth. And within that context is located the schools. When you have the Muslims propagating their gospels and Christians doing so too within the same school, will that not lead to anarchy? I believe that the judge ought to ask himself if the decision is promoting equality before the law; whether it conforms with the fundamental objectives and directive principles that the state strives to achieve? Very soon, Muslims will demand in Bayelsa state that they wish to have Sharia court, and under the same law, they will not be refused. And other Southern States will follow too. Unfortunately, Aregbesola met a united Osun state, I doubt if he is going to leave it so.