The state of insecurity in the country is becoming so pervasive that President Bola Tinubu threw his weight behind the establishment of state police to proffer a solution. In this interview with JOSEPH ONYEKWERE, the former Attorney General of Abia State, Awa Kalu (SAN) says those discouraging the state police system are pessimists, who spread fears that governors would hijack it against political foes. He also expressed his opinion on legal education and the judiciary. 

Do you think the planned state police system will help to curb the ravaging insecurity in the country, as those opposed to it argue that governors will hijack it against political foes?

My opinion is straightforward. The Bible says that if you continue to watch the weather, you will not sow. If you want to plant seeds, and all you do is every day you come and say, it’s very likely to rain, it will beat me on my way to the farm, you will not succeed. We must move in faith, philosophically speaking. And so, we must be able to tell ourselves that there must be a way out of this insecurity. You can’t get out of insecurity by being pessimistic. We need to jettison this argument about governors hijacking it and give them a chance.

There are 36 states in Nigeria where you have governors and the Federal Capital Territory, with a minister in charge. Those people govern their territories. So, we didn’t sit back and leave the offices vacant because we fear they will abuse them. The efficiency of state police will start gradually. It is not going to be a 100 metres dash. No, it’s going to be implemented state by state. That is to say, each state will accept it, take the risk, and run it. And if there is a price in the end, they will collect it. That’s where I am. I’m a supporter of the state police.

As a matter of fact, this is the only major federation known to me where you have to stay in Abuja and police my village. You cannot stay in Abuja and find out what is happening in my location. I am the one who can make that discovery. You don’t police communities from a strange land.

What legal frameworks/safeguards should be in place to ensure that it runs smoothly?

It is a constitutional procedure. The constitution assigns the powers of the police to a central authority, which is the federal government. So, to implement state police, there will be a devolution of that power. It would be stepped down from the federal level to the state. The contemplation is that the federal police will still exist, but each state will be able to have its own police structure standardised in new statutes. However, the content of that statute will be uniform.

It’s not for each state house of assembly to create whatever they fancy. There will be a national framework which will contain provisions that will standardise policing at the state level. That is what is anticipated and I think it’s a brilliant one. We are running a federation, but our own federation tilts towards unitarism. So, the matter will be transferred from the exclusive list to the concurrent list so that each state within specified horizons can stipulate what has to be done and what cannot be done.

In other words, this process has to involve the alteration of the 1999 Constitution?

There will certainly be an alteration. If you look at the constitutional structure of policing in the country, it is only the federal government that has authority to establish a police force.

Are you implying that the fear that state chief executives may abuse the police is unfounded?

Is the police that exists now not being abused? Does it make its existence unnecessary? Does it make it useless?
There are executive interferences with the existing police structure, yet they exist. So, we cannot run away from that fact.

The point is, if that happens at the national level, do we need to replicate it in states where the state chief executives may begin to use it to witch-hunt political opponents?

People are witch-hunting as we speak. We must accept the truth, which is self-evident.

Is this something that should be encouraged?

It is not to be encouraged. But I am saying that such an argument should not be a discouragement in setting up state police. If you know that it is likely to rain, you can buy an umbrella. So, the legal framework for state police should have guardrails. There are protective mechanisms that are being proposed in the statute and in the constitutional amendments to check such abuses, but note that there is nothing that cannot be abused when humans are involved.

This is because human beings abuse themselves, abuse or abuse their children, but it doesn’t stop people from having children. Let us face the facts.

It is the opponents who are propagating pessimism to discourage the idea because they don’t want state police. Some people don’t want state autonomy, but are encouraging local government autonomy. How do you insist that local governments must be autonomous, but don’t want the state itself to be autonomous? We have to look at our brand of federalism as a factor that encourages practices that may be abused.

Away from the issue of state police. This is a transition year for the NBA in terms of national leadership. There are concerns about election integrity, culminating in the Attorney General of the Federation suggesting a postponement.

What’s your view about the issue? 

My view is that the election should go on. If there is a procedure for the election, let it be followed. We are afraid of every single challenge in this country. If you’re afraid of heat, don’t enter the kitchen. So, the NBA election should continue, notwithstanding challenges or individual positions.

But the AGF who gave the directive is the leader of the bar? 

That is our tradition. If he has a position, let him state it. Let those who agree with him agree. Those who disagree should say so too. That’s why the bar is so vibrant.

But he and some of the presidential aspirants are expressing fear that the electoral process as it is today is not foolproof, suggesting it will be manipulated?

We have had manipulations over the years. Are we going to run away?

Should we continue those recurring manipulations?

No, we should not. All we will do is do our best to manage the process as determined by the NBA electoral process.
But that’s what the AGF is asking for: that the election should be shifted to fix perceived gaps and allay the fears of some aspirants?

Shifted to when? That is the problem!

Maybe a month or less.

Under whose leadership will the NBA exist for that proposed one month or less? This is because the transition period does not accommodate extension of tenure.

The AGF, as the leader of the bar under the law, can invoke the powers bestowed on him to appoint administrators.
For me, it is better to conduct the election and see the outcome than to suggest postponement based on fears of imaginary manipulations. We have had a hiatus before when the bar had no leader for years, and we managed to wriggle out of it. Do we want to return to Egypt? I think we should be making progress. So, whatever it is, let us conduct the election.

On legal education, there are calls to abolish the law school and allow the Council of Legal Education to set bar exams for students who can prepare on their own?

The problem has been with us for a long time and the reasons are obvious. I have served in the Council of Legal Education. I also serve in the body of benchers. I know where the shoe pinches. But if we want a holistic review of legal education, we should then take steps to embark on it. I will not support any piecemeal reform. If we are dissolving the law school, let’s first look at the alternative being offered. There are so many things that can be done.

Do we have anything to gain by abolishing the law school just for the love of it? We had problems when there was only one campus in Lagos. Now we have six campuses and are still grappling with problems. But they are managing to cope. If we close all these campuses, where do we go? I think the question should be: how do you standardise legal education? Do you standardise it by abolishing the law school or creating new ways of managing the legal profession? We have over 70 law faculties now. Can we do with less? Do we minimise the production of lawyers? This is because we are producing at the rate of at least 7,000 yearly. The economy is not expanding but retreating. Where will they all be absolved?

Our population is estimated at 240 million persons. The question is, does each Nigerian need his or her own lawyer? The compatibility and capacity to sustain them in a way that each lawyer will have dignity, and respectable level of existence is still a subject of debate. So, whether you’re abolishing the law school, establishing more campuses, or reducing the number of lawyers, the population of Nigerians is increasing. New skills need to be introduced.

We are simply marching backwards. If you look at the legal profession in 1960, you will discover that they are different from lawyers in the 70s, who are different from lawyers in the 80s, 90s, and so on. Now, there is advancement in technology. So, we have to develop a more sophisticated strategy for developing lawyers for the future.

What do you think about judicial disposition regarding political cases this season?

The mixture of judging with politics is an unholy one, and as some judges warned in the past, both cannot mix. A politician cannot sleep with a judge. Any judge who allows a politician to sleep with him or her will have very nasty dreams. Older generation of judges said so. Justice Adolphus Karibi-Whyte, as he then was, sitting at the Court of Appeal, said, if you want to dine with a politician, do so with a very long spoon. Unfortunately, some judges are ignoring those warnings.

I’m not going to point accusing fingers at anybody, as many are doing, because if we label all judges as corrupt, we are indirectly pointing fingers at doom. We cannot invite doom. I’ve done 48 years as a lawyer and seen many things that a few people have not seen.