River State Political Conundrum: Political, not Legal Solution (part 3) – Richard Akinnola

It would be disingenuous for anyone interested in the Rivers state political crisis to dismiss the Ijaw angle to it. It is part of our ethnic politics.

Since 1999, this is the first time an Ijaw man has become a governor. As a matter of fact, realising this fact, both PDP and APC presented Ijaw men as their candidates. It’s therefore understandable if the Ijaws have decided to own this battle since Fubara is their own.

With due respect to the jurists at the Apex court, l humbly disagree over their order directing that the allocations of Rivers state be withheld.

In jurisprudence, there is what is called policy judgments, which are not necessarily based on legalese, even if there were compelling reasons to do so.

When you factor in the possibility of Ijaw militants going to the creeks to blow up oil pipelines as a reaction to the stoppage of allocation to their state that produces the oil, you would understand my fears. That would be bad for the country. Reason l disagree with that judgement. Not everything that is legal, that is expedient. If Fubara had acted illegally by presenting his budget to a wrong Assembly, why didn’t the court similarly void all expenses emanating therefrom, including but not limited to roads/bridges constructed with such flawed budget, be destroyed as they were products of illegal action.

In one of the Decree 2 cases , the military, through their counsel claimed that anything done under Decree 2 could not be questioned. Justice Pats Achalonu (JCA as he then was) asked that if a law says any pregnant woman must not deliver on the 9th month, should the court give effect to such an absurd law?

Even if the Supreme Court had found that the budget was illegal, why should the millions of Rivers citizens suffer for such an indiscretion? Shouldn’t there have been a policy judgment, looking at the extenuating circumstances and the possibility of resurgence to militancy that would cripple the economy?

It appeared this rationale probably could have weighed in when the Supreme Court was deciding the Awolowo v Shagari 1979 twelve two-thirds electoral impasse.

It appeared public policy may have played a significant role in deciding the twelve two-thirds political arithmetic by the Supreme court. An allusion to this was made by a one-time Federal Attorney-General, Dr. Nabo Graham-Douglas (SAN).

Late Dr. Graham-Douglas was the Nation’s Attorney-General at the transitional period when General Olusegun Obasanjo’s military government was planning to hand over power to civilian government in 1979.

In a paper he presented at the Sixth Commonwealth Law Conference held in Lagos between August 17 – 23, 1980, Dr. Graham-Douglas enunciated that public policy, rather than legality can determine judgment of a court.

Making reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in this celebrated case, Dr. Graham-Douglas stated inter alia:

“And here, referring again to Awolowo v Shagari, such was the intense interest generated by the case, and such was the extent to which the nation’s future depended, for better or for worse, on the judgment of the Supreme Court that not many Nigerians would have castigated the court for not manifestly taking into consideration, and predicating its decision, inter alia, on the repercussions of the decision and the manner in which it would either assuage or frustrate the public interest. Many would indeed have openly extolled the wisdom and courage of the court for such forthright rejection of absolute and unbridled legalism.

“For here was a nation which had been under military rule for thirteen years with varying periodic degrees of enchantment and disenchantment now ,in late September,1979,at the threshold of civilian administration once again and bubbling over with the excitement in anticipation of the 1st of October: elections had been held and the military were just as anxious to hand power back to civilians; the wind of change was blowing expectantly everywhere and everywhere preparations were at hand against the “D-Day”; Tafawa Balewa Square, like most part of the metropolis of Lagos, was bedecked with flags and buntings and other decorations; and while the appeal was being argued before the Supreme Court, filled the courtroom with the awful majesty as they heralded the pump and pageantry of the great day ahead and so on.

“And more than that, the Heads of State of the entire world without an exception had sent messages of congratulations and offers of co-operation to the President-elect; from the Yoruba “Western State”, as from other parts of the federation, Obas and natural rulers were either coming to Lagos to pay their respects to the President-elect or sending him messages of goodwill; the “market-women” of Lagos, a power in Yoruba political force had paid their homage and pledged their loyalty to the incoming President; and so on. And what was still more, a few days before the judgment of the Supreme Court, the out-going Head of State, General Obasanjo, had completed his handing-over of the reins of government to Alhaji Shagari.

“In these circumstances, if the judgment had gone against the respondents, there would be fresh elections (not necessarily before the Electoral College) and there would be no return to civilian rule in October 1; and the return to civilian rule could in the end be elusive. Against this background, if the judgment of the Supreme Court had been other than it turned out to be, this would not have been just an occasion of purposeless crass legalism but an abdication of one of the cardinal purposes of the judicial function, namely, not just the resolution of dispute between state and citizen or citizen and citizen but responsibility for the sustenance of social solidarity and guardianship of the public interest”. (Emphasis mine).

Having said this, the decision to stop federal allocation to Rivers state has the possibility of engendering restiveness in the creeks, inexorably leading us back to the militancy in the creeks, with its concomitant effects just because of one man’s megalomaniacal propensity. At the end of the day, the only way out is a political solution, otherwise, we are toying with another avoidable conflagration in Rivers state. May reason prevail.

(Concluded)