Barrister Olatunji Salawu is a former assistant secretary of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) 2014-16. In this interview with KEHINDE OSASONA, he speaks about the constitutional crisis in the country, CJN Onnoghen’s travails and other issues.
Recently, the NBA issued a communiqué asking the EFCC to steer clear of lawyer-client relationships; do you align with that position?
Yes, and I also want to align myself with the court verdict decided recently by Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Federal High Court Abuja in matters between NBA and EFCC in respect of that matter.
The court stated that the EFCC does not have that power to compel lawyers to report or make open every transaction between them and clients like every other financial and non-financial institutions.
The legal profession is a privileged profession to some extent. There is a provision of the Evidence Act that says every communications between lawyer and a client is privilege that cannot even be disclosed under oath. That is the position of the law and that is the interpretation that the judiciary has also even given to it recently.
However, I am aware that there is an appeal by the EFCC in respect of the matter presently at the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, our regulatory bodies have its own rule of professional conduct.
In essence, I am not saying that lawyers’ is immune from crime. If as a lawyer, your dealing is in breach of the established rules, then you are violating the rules of professional conduct which has its consequences.
It should, however, be known that if it is in public knowledge that somebody that is supposed to preside over your affairs is now being questioned, then it also affect the fundamentality of that institution.
A lot of people say the judiciary has been gagged and activism reduced; what is your reaction to this?
My position on that is that judiciary rather than being a weak institution that people portrays it to be, is still the strongest of all the arms of government. Judiciary today; still remains the bedrock of the three institutions though not without its peculiar challenges.
The fact is that yes, it may not control the execution or the legislation, but through its pronouncement, it puts other arms in check. Let me give you an instance. The symbol of the judiciary is having a rough time now, but this can only be resolved through the judiciary itself.
Also, if the president today is removed by impeachment, where will he run to if he wants to challenge it? If the senate president is impeached, where will he go to? It’s still the judiciary. The election we are talking about, assuming the incumbent loses election, he would still go through the tribunal.
So, whatever the resolution of anything, it would also have to go through the judicial process. The final resolution of it would be what the judiciary makes it to be. So, we cannot be gagged at all, it is purely rule of law that is in operation. More importantly, we are an institution and institution is not an individual but it can be strengthened.
We have to, therefore, believe in the judiciary even though it has its limitation, like I said, because human beings operate it and humans beings are not perfect. As long as we don’t have perfect human beings, then the process itself will always be faulted.
What is your take on the current anti-graft war and whistle-blowing policy of the current administration?
Well, by my own assessment, we are also still evolving. If you recall, the whistle-blower policy was copied elsewhere outside our shores, but I think it is a welcome development in the war against corruption and blatant corruption system.
Corruption as it were does not happen in isolation. For every issue of corruption, there must be a link; I mean a chain from the giving end to the receiving end. That is where the issue of whistle-blower comes in.
For instance, if you move money, which is usually the most common financial corruption that we usually talk about, it must either pass through a bank or through somebody who must be in the know.
When people realise that if they expose any financial scandal, they may be rewarded, it makes exposing such act more effective because that intermediary or the link himself is already involved. So, for me it is a good strategy.
The suspended CJN Walter Onnoghen insists that CCT lacks jurisdiction to arraign him; what does the law say about this?
I will take the position of the jurisprudence of America realist school of thought Oliver Weben who is a major proponent in that concept. Their position is that what is law? That concept of what is law is wide and so it depends on the angle you are looking at it. According to him, what the court will say in fact is the law and nothing pretentious. So, it all boils down to judicial interpretation.
So, those who said they have powers under the constitution have a valid case. Mind you, the Code of Conduct Tribunal itself is not created by law, but by the constitution like the Supreme Court and other courts.
So, by judicial appointment, you are public officer and any offence or omission committed in respect to that the constitution makes it specifically that punishment should be meted out.
In the same vein, CCT as a body is performing its constitutional duty but people can argue and all of that, but, at this point what is important here is the CCT can at least determine its own jurisdiction that no one can take away from it.
Don’t also forget that CCT is also the only court that the constitution gives the power to put public officer on trial for wrong-doings. It’s just like you cannot challenge election result through the regular court, except through the tribunal.
What about the arguments being advanced by the National Judicial Council?
Well, are you referring to the position of the NJC before the suspension of the CJN or after the suspension? Let me point it out to you at this point that NJC had from the beginning created a stalemate.
Reason being that the man that is at the centre of the whole crisis is the chairman of the NJC. It is under his instruction that NJC could summoned, a petition must come through him. So, tell me, can you be a judge in your own court?
Like I said, it is the law that established the judiciary itself, it never envisaged a day when an allegation will come against the chairman of that body itself, who has power to summon and discipline.
Before now, NJC did not live up to expectations and that made the executive to act the way they did. But now there is an emergency, he was suspended whether rightly or wrongly, it is a subject of court interpretation. Effectively now, I think they are doing what they should do.
Nevertheless, I am optimistic that by the time the lacuna is taken care of and we evolve out of this, everyone would be better off. I also believe that this challenge will open a new vista for various amendments.
Amnesty International and CISLAC came out recently to condemn what they referred to as incessant rights abuses in Nigeria; do you subscribe to this?
As they say, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. If there is no abuse of rights, there would not be protection of rights. As long as there is power, there would always be an abuse of rights.
But standing up to challenge it makes it uncomfortable for somebody who breaches rights to feel comfortable in breaching rights. It would not be out of place to say here that everyone has right to peace.
But even in international politics, there is hypocrisy; some developed nations are sacred. They monitor and do all such things under the guise of protecting human rights. But, what they do and get away with, when they observe an iota of it in Third World countries, they become the police. Meanwhile, they do worse things vis-a-vis violation of human rights and what have you.
Thank God today that there are many avenues like going to international courts to make people answer for their misdeed. In all, I think society should be hinged upon fairness, equality and justice to create a balance.
