By Linus Obogo
Saturday, September 15, 2007
In an irreconcilable opposite to Williams Shakespeare’s submission in Julius Ceasar that the evils that men do live after them, while their good deeds are often interred with their bones, former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s outlawry, while in office has continued to resonate in his life time, since his grudging and resentful exit from power.
In what seems a postscript of Obasanjo’s eight years in office, now regarded as a tale of unmitigated disaster with unwholesome consequences, the former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Chief Richard Akinjide (SAN), has declared the ex-president as a monumental failure and wished that Nigeria never experiences characters like Obasanjo as leaders again.
Speaking with Saturday Sun, Chief Akinjide who was Minister for Education in the first republic, while mourning Obasanjo’s shamming eight years as president, deplored his vile attitude to the rule of law, citing the gangsteric manner he used the EFCC to force elected governors out of office as well as his scorn for court rulings.
Regretting that Obasanjo should have been allowed to stay retired as a military man, Akinjide contended that his foray into politics and governance was the greatest disservice Nigeria ever had, adding that his siege military mentality accounted largely for his disaster in office.
According to him, “I hope that the Obasanjo era will never come back to this country again. And I say this without any apology. It was very embarrassing to some of us who are lawyers and who believe in the rule of law.”
Expressing shock at the manner the former president squandered all the goodwill, garnered both locally and internationally, Akinjide, who has become renowned for his 122/3 victory in the 1979 presidential election, said there could not be more damning verdict on Obasanjo for a misappropriated goodwill than his international snubbing during the 89th birthday of Africa’s living statesman and one of the world’s greatest leaders, Madiba Nelson Mandela.
“Look at the last birthday ceremony of Nelson Mandela, Obasanjo would have been one of the star guests at the event. But he was not invited. That was the judgment of world opinion on his performance.”
Dismissing suggestions of Obasanjo morphing into the next Yoruba leader, with the vacuum created by the uncertain health of Chief Abraham Adesanya, Akinjide countered: “I have serious doubt.
If you look at the first presidential election that brought Obasanjo to power, he did not have the vote of the Yorubas. The second term all the votes in Ogun State were nullified by the tribunal. Hence, in his two terms, he served without the votes of the Ogun people. So what does that tell you?”
In a manner unheard of, Akinjide, among other issues, tore through Obasanjo in this no-holds-bared interview.
Excerpts:
You were the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice during the Shagari regime. How would you assess the rule of law under ex-president Obasanjo, vis-a-vis his gangsteric removal of governors and disobedience of court orders?
You touched a very important point. Let me be honest with you, the rule of law under Obasanjo was a totally different matter. Obasanjo himself will not put his hand on his heart and say that he believed in the rule of law.
He has known nothing in his life but the military. As soon as he left secondary school, he joined the army. And that was what he did. Army does not know anything about the rule of law. He was reflecting his background.
You will see that immediately Yar’Adua came in, the first thing he said was that he will regard the rule of law as sacred. Soldiers don’t believe in the rule of law. They believe in the rule of the gun. They are dictators.
May I say that in other countries of the world, even in America, we have generals who became presidents. But the moment you take the oath of office as president, you must operate within the four corners of the constitution. But we have not been lucky to have people with that kind of attitude.
In our case, they regard the constitution and the rule of law as inconvenience, which should not be the case.
There cannot be democracy without the rule of law. The rule of law is sacred. If you can’t believe in it, you can’t be a democrat. I hope that the Obasanjo era will never come back to this country again. And I say this without any apology. It was very embarrassing to some of us who are lawyers and who believe in the rule of law.
The moment the Supreme Court, the court of Appeal, the High Court, even the magistrate court delivers a judgement, you must obey it. It can’t be disobeyed.
In a presidential system, there are three organs –the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, each of them has its separate functions. And the three must be sacred. Obasanjo did so much damage to his reputation. While it is not for me to say, however, when the history of the country is written, his eight years will occupy a “special” chapter.
Would you say we had democracy in the last eight years of Obasanjo’s rule, considering his utter disdain for the rule of law?
We had military rule in the last eight years that masqueraded as democracy. We have a Supreme Court which is well respected all over the world. I practised in England, The Gambia. I have been to America, Australia, Singapore, etc. Nigerian courts are well respected.
How do you want investors to bring their money here when they are not sure whether your government will obey the judgement of the courts?
Obasanjo did the greatest disservice not to Nigeria but to himself. Look at the last birthday ceremony of Nelson Mandela, Obasanjo would have been one of the invitees. But he was not invited. That is the judgement of world opinion on his performance.
When Obasanjo came to power about eight years ago, he came with a lot of good will, a lot of support locally and internationally. But within eight years, he squandered all. Why he chose to do such to himself, I can’t understand.
How would you rate Obasanjo as an ex-president and a politician?
He is not a politician. He is mentally a military man. He could not divorce his military command from politics. That was why he failed as a politician. I say it categorically that Obasanjo failed. He thought politics and military were synonymous. They are not.
The moment you venture into politics, you must forget your military thinking and attitude. You must obey democratic norms. You must know that the rule of law is sacred.
You must also know that the rules and regulations of your party are important and obey them. But people with military mentality don’t think this way. That was Obasanjo’s problem.
Do you still like Obasanjo?
Of course, I like him as a person. But not as a leader or a politician. Obasanjo is neither a politician nor a leader. He is a military man. He should have remained a military and retired as a military man. When he was invited into politics, he should have declined. Psychologically and mentally Obasanjo is not a politician. He believed in the command structure. I like him. If I see him, I’ll shake hands with him. I’ll like to have lunch with him.
You were one of the founding fathers of the PDP. What was your advice when Obasanjo was being recruited for the party?
For me, loyalty to my party was very important. At that time, who would have known what he would become? Nobody knew that he would turn out something else. Let me tell you another story which is perhaps, a little known to the public. I was on the committee which considered his impeachment. That committee created a sub-committee which I chaired. And it was that committee that submitted the report that saved Obasanjo from being impeached. So, I played some roles saving him from being impeached.
And you invariably contributed in putting the nation where it was under Obasanjo?
Well, by hindsight, you might say that. But you have to make a judgement in the light of the facts known to you as at then. You cannot make a judgement in the light of the facts known to you now. The facts you now know were not present at that time. I don’t regret saving him from being impeached. In the light of the facts available to me as at that time, we took the right decision. So, you must make your judgement on what we did in the light of the facts available to us at that time, not on the facts now available after those events. If I’m asked to save him from impeachment, I’ll still do it, if the facts available as at that time are still valid.
Considering the facts available to you now, if the same scenario plays up, will you still save him?
I’m not saying that I saved him single-handedly. The committee saved him. Your question is hypothetical. And I don’t like answering such questions.
Considering all that happened during Obasanjo’s eight-year reign, do you have any regret or owe the nation apologies over your role in his selection?
I refuse to answer that question. You are too clever. That is a very dangerous question. And I refuse to be trapped!
By saying you don’t want to answer the question…
(Cuts in) Don’t let us open old wounds. When you’re in a hole, you should stop digging. Don’t continue digging a hole for me.
Did you know Obasanjo so well?
I knew him very will. The Obasanjo I knew was a very good Obasanjo. I knew him when he was the garrison commander in Ibadan. He even made me the member of the Mess. He signed and gave me membership card. He used to come to my house in Ibadan. I knew him very well and I liked him. His first daughter married an Ibadan son. So he is also our in-law. It is against these backgrounds that you’ll understand what I did to save him. I don’t regret it. What I think had adverse effects on him was his going to prison. When he came back from prison, he became a different person altogether.
Could it be an ex-convict mentality or what?
I don’t know. I’m not a psychiatrist.
When you spoke a while ago, I could sense a tinge of regrets in your voice…
(Cuts in) No, you are wrong.
As one of the PDP founding fathers, things went from bad to worse, with Obasanjo as president, as some party members were literally chased out. The party was finally hijacked by gatecrashers. What do you make of Obasanjo as the PDP BOT chairman?
I ‘ll say let us wait and see. I won’t say more than that.
Is PDP still the same as when it was founded?
The party will regain its strength and its old image
With the vacuum in the leadership of the Yoruba race, do you see Obasanjo stepping in to replace the Awos, Ajasins and Adesanyas, considering his past?
I have serious doubt. If you look at the first presidential election that brought Obasanjo to power, he did not have the vote of the Yoruba. The second term all the votes in Ogun State were nullified by the tribunal. Hence, in his two terms, he served without the votes of the Ogun people. So what does that tell you?
The Yoruba are determined, courageous people. They pick their leader. You cannot force yourself on them. That is why it is difficult for any leader to emerge now. Also, states have been created. There are six states in the Yoruba race. At the time of former leaders, there was homogeneous Yoruba entity, with capital in Ibadan. But if you go to Akure now, they will tell you that they don’t want to go back to Ibadan. Same with other Yoruba states. They won’t want to go back to the old order.
The era of having a Yoruba leader, acceptable to all the Yoruba, I think, is gone. It will not come back. What we have now is a cultural group like the Yoruba Council of Elders (YCE) which must be non-political. The various Yorubas elements in the various states can be there.
Just as there is Ohaneze. It is not a political party. It consists of all interests. In the north, there is Arewa group which is also non-political. So, to think that the North will again have a leader like Ahmadu Bello, it is quite impossible. Or to say in the East, another Zik will emerge is a tall ambition. Perish the thought.
But there are critics who hold that the YCE is a creation of Obasanjo to checkmate the activities of the Afenifere which is an authentic Yoruba rallying point. Do you deny that?
It is not true. I am a foundation member of YCE. Obasanjo was not a member of the YCE. It is a mere media speculation. We had all elders from different political parties in the council. It was not a party affair. The era of tribal leadership is gone.
Chief Gani Fawehinmi is in court over Obasanjo’s Library Project, challenging the propriety or otherwise of that project initiated by Obasanjo while in office. As a revered legal giant, is Gani’s action justifiable in law?
Well, the matter is in court. I will not like to give any comment on matters in court. Let’s wait and see what the court will say.
Taking a cue from where Obasanjo ambitiously, but poorly cloned the library project idea, will you say he acted morally?
The idea is not anything Nigerian or African. It is got from America. And there, you don’t do such things until you leave office, because of both moral and legal implications of such action.
In running a government, there are laws and conventions. The convention is as strong as the law and must be obeyed. If you say that he should have waited until he left office, I will accept that.
Obasanjo assumed the role of an investigator just in the twilight of his administration, when he told the bewildered nation that Bola Ige was killed by drug dealers.
What do you make of that declaration?
It was a big embarrassment, not only to the government, but to the whole country. I have been the attorney-general of this country. I have been the president of the BAR. And I have been practising law for the past fifty-two years. I must confess that I’ve not seen anything like this before. The declaration was not only reckless, but irresponsible.
The whole Ige episode is a shame. Whoever murdered Ige will answer to God and his conscience and history. I don’t want to say more than that.
The President recently constituted a 22-man Electoral Review Committee headed by Justice Mohammed Uwais (Rtd). Considering the fact that election petitions are still pending in the tribunals, do you think that it is the right step?
In my view, President Yar’Adua has done the right thing. The international and local complaints about the fairness or otherwise of the last election demands that government overhaul the electoral system.
The role of the Electoral Petition Tribunal is different from what the President asked the Uwais committee to do. The tribunal will look into complains of the petitioners which is peculiar to each petitioner.
For instance, the complain of the petitioner in Calabar, Onitshia or Aba may be quite different from that in Lagos or Abuja. So I don’t see any inconsistency between what the President has done and the petitions at the tribunals. They are two different things.
Whatever recommendations the Uwais committee make will not affect the cases at the tribunals. And Chief Justice Uwais (rtd) is one of the most distinguished jurists this country has ever produced. I’m sure we are lucky to have him as the chairman of that committee. I am in full support of what the President has done.
The fact that petitions are still pending does not mean that government should come to a halt. There is no constitutional provision that if petitions are pending against an elected President, the functions of the government must come to a halt or paralyze.
What are your expectations from the Committee?
I don’t want to pre-empt the committee. Before I can guess, I want to know the terms of reference before them. You can’t talk of recommendations without knowing the terms of reference as well as the submission of the committee. Let’s wait. I respect the members of the Uwais’ committee. And I believe they will do the right thing.
Chief, the nation had hoped for a clean break with all the corruption and sleaze associated with the last administration. But here we are again assailed by a N628 million renovation scandal involving the Speaker of the House Representatives. What do you make of this?
You remember that I have been in the federal cabinet twice. I was the federal Minister of Education under Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. The father of the President Yar’Adua was also a minister in the cabinet. He was the minister for Lagos Affairs. Shagari too was in that cabinet. He was the minister for Works.
Under Shagari, I was the Attorney-General. Two of us were in Balewa’s cabinet when the government was overthrown. When the military left, myself and Shagari emerged again.
I must say that Tafawa Balewa was one of the finest leaders this country has ever produced. Go everywhere, including Lagos and even Kaduna, you will not see any property in his name. Same with Shagari. These were selfless leaders. The same thing with Yar’Adua who was minister for Lagos Affairs. He did not acquire even a plot of land in Lagos. Whereas as minister, he would have acquired as many as he wanted. Just compare these leaders with those that emerged after.
Taking a look at what is going in the country today and the bare-faced corruption and thievery that present day politicians have institutionalized, I will advise that never put a hungry man in charge of the kitchen. The acquisitive instinct has become obscene, it has become a scandal. I think that we are very lucky to have Yar’Adua as president today because he comes from an excellent family. He has a good pedigree. And he is well educated. He has no acquisitive instinct. If you ask Yar’Adua to disclose his assets upon leaving office I predict that he will come out clean.
After the famous two-third judgement, what was your relationship with Late Chief Obafemi Awolowo like?
My relationship before the case was excellent. During the case, it was excellent. And after the case, my relationship with Awo still remained excellent. I conducted the case in court. Awolowo gave evidence. I cross-examined him. And when he came out of the court, we were joking and chatting. He was a lawayer. A distinguished lawyer. He knew that I was doing my job. I also knew that he was exercising his democratic rights.
In a democracy, the rule of law is critical. Awolowo knew that. He therefore knew that what I was doing by conducting that case was an exercise of my democratic rights.
You cannot blame somebody for exercising his rights under the constitution. So Awolowo did not blame me. And I didn’t blame him.
He went to court to exercise his rights and the court delivered the judgement. You can’t blame the messenger. You may blame the message.
What was the message in this context?
The message as the 122/3 was the law of the country. I was the messenger.
Did he nurse any grudge against you following your role leading up to the judgment?
No. He did not. He himself was a distinguished learned gentleman. He was a SAN. Hence, he knew I was just doing my job.
Don’t forget that ten judges sat over that case. Three judges in the first court and seven judges in the Supreme Court. Of those ten judges, nine of them agreed that two third was right. Only one held a contrary view. That was democracy and the rule of law.
The moment the Supreme Court delivered the judgement, that was the end of the matter. So if you believe in the rule of law, you will abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court. The judgment was binding on all Nigerians and on all courts.
How many times did you have cause to shake hands with Chief Awolowo after that judgement?
Innumerable. In fact, he used to joke with me that my wife was his daughter and that he would take his daughter away. Not in connection with the case. My wife’s father comes from Ogun State. So I’d also joke then that, well, you can take your daughter but you can’t touch my children. I used to tell him that we Ibadan indigenes are warriors. That if you take my children with your daughter, the Ibadan people will declare a war on the Ijebus. So we would laugh. When I got home, I’d tell my wife that “your daddy wants to take you away. But don’t dare to go with my children.
The Niger-Delta crisis has become Nigeria’s running sore. What do you think is the lasting solution to the crisis?
Yes, it is an open sore on the face of Nigeria. It is an embarrassment. I’ll answer the question with two words- Do justice. The absence of justice has been the problem of the Niger-Delta. When the British came to Nigeria, they came through the Delta, because of the palm oil. That is why it was called Oil Palm Protectorate. The British needed the palm oil for their industrial use. So the area became critical to the European economy.
After that, crude oil was discovered. I don’t know whether the oil-palm or crude has been a benefit or a curse to the Niger Delta people. They have never really benefited either from the palm or crude oil. You remember that King Jaja of Opopo was deported to the West Indies because of palm oil trade. And also Nana of Itsekiri was deported for same reason.
Whether you call it palm oil or crude oil, it has been a curse rather than a benefit to the people. It is that curse that has to be reviewed. So justice must be done. But you need a good leadership to do this- a statesman.
We should have made a Niger Delta person the president of Nigeria. That, in a stroke would have solved the problem. Let me give you a precedent. It happened in Canada. When Quebec wanted to break away from Canada, it was the President of France, Charles De Gaulle who went to Quebec and made inflammatory speech that heated up the polity the more. The whole of Canada was in flame.
The collapse of Canada became imminent. But Pierre Trudeau was number three in the ruling Canadian party as at that time. Even though he was number three, he was picked to become the prime minister- the head of government because he was from Quebec. You now have a French speaking Canadian in charge. And that solved the problem.
We need a statesman of that statue to solve the Niger Delta crisis. So the successor of Obasanjo should have been from the Niger Delta region to douse tension as well as lasting solution to the region.
But in Nigeria, we are always talking of the North and the South. That is the open sore of Nigeria. Until we have a statesman who will say I am not a northerner, southerner, Easterner nor Westerner, that I’m just a Nigeria, then the problem of Nigeria will be solved.
If Obasanjo backed a Niger Delta man to be president, he would have been the president today. All you have to do is to explain to all other sections of the country.
Do you think he made a mistake?
I won’t say so. Rather, it was error of judgment. We need a leader who can solve the Niger Delta problem without bias. A true statesman is lacking in Nigeria- a Ghandi, a Nero, a Mandela. Obasanjo is not one.
Look at Mandela, he is the greatest living human being in the world today. Yet he has nothing. Go to his house in South Africa. He has no stocks or shares. We need a Nelson Mandela in Nigeria.
You were one of the counsels to Nigeria during the Bakassi case at the ICJ. Do you agree with me that you bungled the case, in the sense that you failed to apply your legal acumen to know that the case was slipping off your hand. And therefore you needed to have sought political solution to the matter at issue?
First of all, it is not true that the case was bungled. The case was handled on both sides by the finest legal minds in the international law available. Secondly, the case was not all about Bakassi. It was the whole of Nigeria boundary from Lake Chad to the Atlantic. People talk of only Bakassi, forgetting that the Atlantic section, where the oil is, we won it one hundred percent.
The lake Chad boundary, we won some, we lost some. That is the reality of the situation. What we must accept is that, Bakassi was ceded to Cameroun by the British since 1913. the treaty was signed by the British. Can we re-write that Treaty?
Can a visitor just yield you to another parents who are not yours?
We argued that. But don’t forget that the president of the court as at that time was a Frenchman.
Shouldn’t you have objected?
You can’t object like that. If there were good grounds for objection, we would have. What the law allows and which we did is to appoint a Nigerian as ad-hoc member of the court. And that was when Ajibola was appointed.
Camerounians too have the same rights. They appointed Senegalese a member of the court. I want to say categorically that we gained more from that judgement than what we lost. Originally, when Cameroun went to court they filed their case for Bakassi alone. They later amended their claims to include the entire boundary from the Lake Chad to the Atlantic. So it is not a Bakassi case, it is a Cameroun-Nigeria case.
What did we lose?
We lost something. We gained something. But in my view, what we gained was more than what we lost.
The British never liked us. Why would you have them sit in judgment over our case?
Yes they were against us even in that case. But we have no choice. The French were also against us. So they had a French as president of the court presiding and the British as member of the court.
Sir, in retrospect, will you thumb up that “I Chief Richard Akinjide played my role well. I’m satisfied with the outcome of the case at the ICJ?
Yes, I was on the case for eight years. I’m very patriotic. And I like the Niger Delta people. My legal career has benefited a lot from that area. Right from Calabar, Ikom, up to Benin. The whole of the Delta region. They were areas where I have practised law a lot. So why should I not like them? I have sympathy for them –both emotionally and professionally.
No comments:
Post a Comment