Former Senate Leader, Victor Ndoma-Egba, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) in this interview with journalists in Calabar, speaks on Nigeria’s challenges and strides at 60, positing that multiplication of states had created inefficiency in governance with attendant corruption. He also bares his mind on the controversy surrounding appointment of substantive Chief Judge in Cross River. JOSEPH OBUNG reports .
Nigeria marked 60th Independence anniversary few days ago. How has the country fared infrastructural and socio-economically?
We actually have two outstanding achievements. Firstly, we survived the civil war and secondly we are still one country. Now, to assess ourselves, we need to go back to our peers as at 1960, talking about Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, India. Brazil and Indonesia had worst forms of military rule ever experienced. When they were setting up defence industry in Kaduna, it was the same time they were setting up the Brazilian the equivalent. Today, those ones have gone beyond producing arms to producing aeroplanes and rockets. Ours is still struggling, so it is not military rule that has placed its hook on our neck. In 1960, Nigeria had three regions. 1963 saw the creation of Midwest, we now had four regions. In 1967 we had 12 States and we went on to 19 states, from there to 21 and by 1996 we had 36 states. That is, in 36 years, we were creating an average of one federating unit every year. India still has the same number of states or provinces as they call them. Brazil created one additional state. All other countries maintained the same number of federating units as they had in 1960.The implication is multiplication of cost heads and increase in the ratio of recurrent expenditures. Corruption is a consequence of inefficiency. This multiplication has created inefficiency and the consequence is corruption that we are crying about. In a nutshell, the structure where we moved from three regions to 36 states cannot deliver the progress that we can see. Secondly, is the political will and vision. My consolation is when we look at the new emerging states, it means that it can be done. Sad as our history is, there is still hope.
Could you score the Muhammadu Buhari administration after five years in office?
The President Muhammadu Buhari administration is however fighting hard to change the not-too-good narrative. To assess Buhari’s administration, you will need to recall the depths we were in, that we need to get to the surface before we can build up. For the past five years, President Buhari administration has done much to take us to the top, especially fighting hard to check corruption in the country because if corruption is reduced considerably Nigeria will go a long way. Security is still a challenge but not at the level it was before with a substantial portion of our territory occupied by the terrorists, hosting flags and with their own government. Bombs were dropped indiscriminately everywhere then including in the Police Headquarters, the United Nations building, Churches, Mosques, markets and elsewhere with rapidity and audacity. Schools were often invaded with children kidnapped. But the Buhari administration has put an end to all these and the battle to finally eliminate Boko Haram and bandits, has been fierce. There has been remarkable delivery on infrastructure, the Onitsha and lkom bridges, roads, rail, upgrade of airports, etc. We however expect much more given our severe infrastructure deficit. The infamous oil subsidy has been removed. The Treasury Single Account (TSA) is being effectively implemented. Corruption is still endemic but its infrastructure is being systematically degraded. What we require is patience. Certainly, President Buhari’s government will deliver.
What is your take on the controversy in the Cross River Judiciary? The Cross River government is believed to prefer Justice Maurice Eneji to Justice Akon Ikpeme although the later is said to be the most senior judge in the state. The State House of Assembly has said Ikpeme’s rejection is partly because she is from Akwa Ibom by birth.
I have never heard that there was zoning in the Judiciary. You cannot jump the queue in the legal profession because it is more about seniority. The issue of seniority is not debatable, it is how the profession is structured. For instance, Paul Erokoro and I were called the same day and there was this argument for a long time as Paul said, he is my senior because E is before N, and I said no, I was called as Egba not Ndoma. That argument went on until the issue of Senior Advocate came in and settled the matter because I became a Senior Advocate before him. So we follow seniority. I was still in school when Sir Justice Darnley Alexander, a West Indian was brought in to be the Chief Justice (as they were then called) of the then South Eastern state after Brigadier UJ Esuene, then military governor, removed Justice P.O.E. Bassey, the first indigenous judge. A Nigerian of Akwa Ibom stock, Justice Udo Udoma, was Chief Judge in Uganda, Akinola Aguda was Chief Justice in Botswana, Omo Agege’s father was Chief Justice in Gambia, even our own Okoi Itam was Chief Justice of Gambia. If you put all our laws together the way I understand those laws, if you aggregate them, a woman can choose her husband’s place or her place of birth but she has to be consistent. She cannot, today, say ‘I am from Akwa Ibom’ and tomorrow she says ‘I am from Cross River’. Mrs Ngozi Okonji-Iweala, who is from Delta state, became a minister representing Abia because from her records, she has been an Abia person. Why then should a lady, who spent all her life in Calabar and her working life with the government of Cross River state, married to a prominent Efik whose children are Efiks, a Cross River by marriage, not be Chief Judge because she is from Akwa Ibom state by birth? Even if Akon is 100 percent Ibibio, by marriage she is a Cross Riverian. If we can accept someone from the West Indies as Chief Justice, Igbo person as Solicitor General, Ghanaian as head of DPP, how come we cannot accept somebody whose husband is Efik and children are Efik. The constitution is very clear and it says the next most senior judge should take over when there is a vacancy.
Have you spoken with the governor on the matter?
Yes, we spoke. When Akon was to be sworn in on acting capacity after heated arguments from interested parties, I was abroad then and the Governor called me and we were on the phone for almost one hour. He didn’t want to swear her in and I gave him all the reasons why he must swear in the woman. If I have spoken to you, Kanu Agabi, Paul Erokoro and everybody who has a say in this matter has done the same, I begin to wonder why he shouldn’t heed. I even said swear her in, let her CV show that she was a one time a Chief Judge, then promote her. I see no reason why Paul, Kanu, myself and other senior lawyers in Cross River would appeal to the authorities and say, ‘please take this woman to the Court of Appeal’, and they would say no. I said, swear her in as substantive Chief Judge first, promote her to the Court of Appeal and then Eneji moves in, and everybody will be happy. This would have been a win, win situation.
But there are insinuations in some quarters that those who support Ikpeme may have pitched tent against the government?
No, no, no. Nobody has anything personal against the governor but you are a governor by virtue of the constitution. Yes, he swore to an oath to defend and protect that constitution. All we are saying is abide by the constitution and do the correct thing. You cannot make people suffer because you have a personal preference. It is not the first time it is happening, it happened in Imo state and what did they do, they just retired the person who made himself available. I told him you are endangering Justice Maurice Eneji, you are not helping him. The constitution says the NJC recommends, you appoint. You cannot appoint without the NJC’s recommendation. I told the governor the NJC will not concede an inch of its constitutional territory to him. I know those old men, I have been a bencher for 29 years so I sit down with them and I know how they think…they still do what they want to do.
What are the implications of this lingering controversy?
Implications are far-reaching. As it stands today, the litigant is helpless. If your landlord wants to throw you out from his house and you have your receipts showing you actually paid your rents, but he tells you that by so and so date he would throw you out. You will be helpless because it is only the Chief Judge that can assign the case to a judge. If a Police wrongly detained Mr A, and I rush to court on his behalf, of course he would remain in the police custody for a longer time because only the Chief Judge can assign the case. If cases are not being assigned, what will you do? Those who want to apply as SAN must have done a number of cases within a given time so if they have not done the cases from now to that time, in the next four to five years, you will not see Cross Riverians who are eligible to apply for SAN. Again, lawyers have no other source of income other than going to court and very soon you will see them riding keke NAPEP (tricycle). So the legal profession in the state will be dead if we continue in this way. I was born in the profession and I am 42 years in the bar this year.
Do you see rejection of Akon Ikpeme as discrimination against the women-folk? And will this development not discourage inter-state marriage?
Rejection of Ikpeme on the basis of where she comes is a precedent capable of dismantling the family structure put together by God. Besides anything, Akon Ikpeme’s father was a permanent secretary in the then Cross River and was a DO of Ikom. Akon Ikpeme has Cross River blood maternally. Come to think of this, the Speaker of the State Assembly who presided over Justice Ikpeme’s disqualification married from Akwa Ibom. In our family, for instance, my father married a West Indian for sixty something years, Prof Rowland Ndoma-Egba’s wife is Ibibio, my wife is Igbo, Knut’s wife is from Delta, Roy’s wife is from Oron, my last sister’s husband is Yoruba, so what are you telling us. The family ought to be protected by everybody. You don’t use politics to divide families. If you are a real man, your duty is to protect a woman, that is, if you are truly a man.
