This week, we are featuring a lawyer who is the Chairman, Nigerian Bar Association, Asaba branch, and also a pastor with the Church of God Mission. He is – Barr Azuka Maduemezia. He has been in the legal practice for more than 18 years, as he speaks on the legal profession, electoral reforms in Nigeria and other issues. Excepts.
There has been the proposal to hold all elections in Nigeria in one day. Meaning, the presidential, gubernatorial and other elections should hold in on the same day. What is your take on this?
First, as Chairman of the NBA, Asaba branch, I am an opinion leader and I must stress that everything I say is my personal opinion, not the opinion of the branch. Having said that, I’ll be logical and frank.
You raised a salient issue: the idea of holding all elections in one day. In this day and age, when people should be forward-thinking, it is hardly reasonable for anyone to suggest a one-day national election. I believe the proposal is motivated by selfish or partisan interests.
Some proponents claim cost savings or that it will reduce manipulation, but I reject cost as a sufficient justification: whatever is worth doing must be done properly. I will give you reasons and instances why you cannot hold all elections in one day in Nigeria.
Presently, the way our system is organised- the Executive arm executes, the Legislative arm makes the laws, and the Judicial arm interprets the laws. Each arm has checks and balances so that none overrides the others. The essence of checks and balances is that, each arm prevents the overreach of another.
I am aware people have gone to court to challenge electoral results, and the courts have given judgements one way or the other. I am also sure you know the constitutional provisions that dictate the terms of office for elective offices, at least for the President, which is two terms of four years each. There are certain things that nature and constitutional arrangement have set; you should leave them alone. Even in foreign climes more advanced than ours, they do not hold all elections in one day. You must leave room for exigencies.
Are you telling me that, during an election, God forbid, if an electoral officer collapses and dies, we should not have contingencies? Or if the system is fully computerised, computers are not always reliable. In the Nigerian election, the number one man wents to vote, and his name may not be captured; the election still goes ahead. He could have cancelled the election, but that does not always happen. Some circumstances present themselves; a one-day election for everyone is not ideal and not practicable.
Many people say it will reduce manipulation. Some believe that because presidential elections are held on one day and governorships on another, incumbents can influence subsequent polls. They think lumping everything together will limit the tendencies where Abuja might influence the outcome in states like the Delta.
That is the only excuse I hear for the proposal, and rightly so, it is the rationale behind that suggested reform. But we are a people guided by laws and rules. If wishes were horses, beggars might ride. You do not throw away the baby with the bathwater because the bathwater is dirty. If an incumbent wants to control elections, they can do it any day, though it will reduce electoral vices. It is a good suggestion, but the principles that will make it work are wrong.
Do you think the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has the capacity to organise all elections in one day?
INEC could do it if it wants, but it is not practicable because there is no supporting law.
The Constitution is supreme. The same people clamouring for elections to be held in one day are the same people urging the candidates they favour to go to court. You cannot go to court, win in court, and still expect to start from where your predecessor, or the person you ousted, stopped, and then take your own four years. It’s simply not possible, practically speaking, to hold all elections in one day in Nigeria.
If you look back, I once cited an example with Peter Obi. It happened to Peter Obi when he was the Governor of Anambra State. It also happened to several other people. You understand me? So, the law is what we stand on, and we are clamouring for citizens to obey the law. We cannot pass one law only to disobey another without repealing the existing one. So, this idea is merely a wish; it is not practicable.
Practicable? Well, for it to be practical, too many things need to be done, like amending our laws. It also has to pass through the hierarchy, up to the Supreme Court. Outside legislation, when you look at how laws are formed, judicial pronouncements are part of it.
For those areas where the law does not adequately cover, the judiciary interprets and fills in the gap, and it invariably becomes law. The judiciary has held over time that people should complete their tenure, especially when it is still running. No interpretation says, for example, you won an election four years ago, and in that same election four years ago, you didn’t win, and you went to court, and the case spanned into the fifth year after your tenure had ended. Then, in that fifth year, you got judgment. The law says that it’s merely an academic exercise. The best you can get is your salaries and entitlements for those years; you can’t go back because your original tenure has ended. A new person who didn’t even contest that election with you is already there. So, how are you going to remove that person?
For now, our judicial precedent is that the best you can get is your benefits.
We’ve not yet graduated to the level where such things are rectified. You can now see the reasons why we cannot hold elections in one day, because there are many circumstances that complicate it.
There’s also the clamour for compulsory online transmission of results, like with INEC’s system during elections.
It’s a good development.
The Nigerian Bar Association, Asaba Branch, has already been practising electronic voting for more than eight years. We do it in the comfort of our offices; you can see it live as you are voting. Yet, some members still say it’s not foolproof, because there are people at the backend. For anything to work, there must be trust in the system. Even if Nigeria adopts it, it’s wonderful, but people will still complain. We have started, but we’ve not yet reached where we want to be.
During the last election, there was an electronic means of transmitting results, but it wasn’t fully consistent. We still had to go to the collation centre. These things should be fully automated. You should know who won an election immediately after voting because the system should generate and announce it automatically, just like a calculator. Once you input figures, the result appears instantly. That’s how it should work.
However, this too has to go through the process of law reforms.
That’s one good thing about the new electoral reforms being discussed: it will also help reduce financial costs, though not entirely. I’m not a computer expert, but I know these things cost money. Don’t assume that because it’s digital, it will be cheap. You will have to pay technicians heavily to manage the system. And trust me, they won’t be ordinary people. Even if they were before the engagement, they become special because you must keep them in a confined environment for a particular period, where they are isolated from the public, so they can focus on their duties and minimise external influence.
Just as people now visit polling units asking, “Who is the IPO? Who is the ZI? Who is the coordination officer?”, they would soon start asking, “Who is at the backend?” So, these backend technicians must be confined and treated like judges, secluded, not doing certain things, and their identities should not be publicly known. Still, nothing is completely foolproof. What we can do is to minimise irregularities, and once Nigeria begins to reduce them, we’ll start getting it right.
With Professor Joash Amupitan, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and law professor, now Chairman of INEC, do you think his legal background will bring any real change or improvement to the commission?
Well, I always tell people: Nigerians are too quick to assume others will fail instead of believing they will succeed. Apart from being my senior colleague, he is a professor of law, a lawyer first. Integrity lies on your head as a lawyer. Society expects much more from you. Even at home, people expect more from a lawyer. That’s why law students dress differently; they always wear suits, and they always appear formal. People already expect something positive from you, whether it’s easy or not.
So, we grew up with that mentality that society’s burden is on our shoulders, it’s our responsibility to succeed. Every lawyer knows that once you’re appointed to any position, the bar is higher. As an individual, the new INEC Chairman should perform better, but as a lawyer, even more is expected of him, because he stands on a higher pedestal.
The fact that he is a lawyer means he should do better, and I believe by the grace of God, he will.
However, I have reservations about the President appointing the INEC Chairman. He who pays the piper dictates the tune. INEC cannot truly be independent when its head is appointed by the President. How can you be independent when you are subservient to your employer?
Ideally, the INEC framework should be designed so that Nigerians themselves can vote for the INEC Chairman. There should be open applications for qualified individuals, not through political influence. We don’t need an Electoral College for that. The law should stipulate clear criteria. For instance, candidates must be of a certain age, possess a degree, professorship would be an added advantage. If from the civil service, they should have retired from level 15 and above. If from private practice, they should have practised law for at least 20 to 30 years, or be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria or a retired judge.
From the pool of applicants, select the first twenty, make the process public, and invite them for screening, just like a job interview. There should be no campaign or lobbying.
But the problem is, as I often say, Nigerians are their own greatest enemies. Even before the process begins, we start focusing on the negatives rather than the potential positives. If such a person is appointed through public participation, he is accountable to Nigerians, not to the President. Currently, the INEC Chairman holds no obligation to citizens because it’s the President who appoints and can remove him. So, loyalty tilts upward, not downward.
Someone might ask, “Won’t that create two Presidents?” No, it won’t. The INEC Chairman is not the President. The people would have placed the person there, making it harder to manipulate. Such a person would be accessible to all presidential aspirants and accountable to the electorate, not to one individual.
It takes courage to act independently in Nigeria. Out of 36 INEC Commissioners, only one, specifically, the INEC Commissioner for Abia State, once took an action that shook the entire country. One out of thirty-six, is that a pass mark? Think about it.
Now, some people have proposed that State Independent Electoral Commissions be scrapped and INEC should conduct all elections.
Well, that would require a constitutional amendment. It might reduce external influence but not eliminate it. If you centralise control, you simply move influence from multiple points to one. Instead of ten sources of pressure, you’ll now have one.
Frankly, most things we do in this country, both in government and as citizens, are driven by selfish interest. If you say governors shouldn’t influence state elections, then be ready to also scrap local governments and states altogether. Let everything come from Abuja. But that defeats the purpose of federal character, which, though imperfect, has its own advantages.
If you change the system drastically, many people will be cut off from governance. Someone in Abuja cannot know the realities of local communities better than the people living there. It’s like someone abroad telling you how best to rule yourself. So, I think the current structure is fine. It shouldn’t be scrapped. Instead, it should be monitored more closely, with stricter measures against electoral malpractice.
For instance, anyone caught committing electoral offences should be tried like a common criminal. How many people have been convicted of snatching ballot boxes? Isn’t that striking? Why is that? It’s not that they aren’t prosecuted, it’s that before cases get to court, they are already off the hook. Because you must first investigate before you prosecute.
No one wakes up one morning to steal a ballot box without collaboration. Both the person who stole and the one who commissioned him should be punished.
But usually, only the petty offender gets caught, and even they are later released.
Until Nigerians begin to take part in issues that concern them, not just through protests or newspaper commentary, we will not progress. No one wants to die for the truth. But give the same power to the man on the street, and he may do worse.
We’ve stayed too long under bad governance, surviving on crumbs, that we now behave like chickens following corn, even after being flogged. That’s how we’ve been conditioned.
If professors and credible people start contesting at the local levels, things will change. But they don’t. Everyone sits back complaining. They refuse to participate in the grassroots process. Even when some join political parties, they withdraw after one or two setbacks. Yet, those councillors and chairmen went through fire to get to where they are.
Let’s discuss the President’s exercise of the prerogative of mercy. Some people are asking: Why pardon those allegedly convicted of serious crimes? What about their victims and families?
Well, Nigerians are an emotional lot, and we don’t read. Everything we do as a nation is in the Constitution. You may argue we don’t follow it 100 per cent, but that doesn’t mean we should discard it. Now, over time, the Prerogative of Mercy, that’s under Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution for the President and Section 212 for the Governors, gives absolute power. My brother, that power is absolute; it is an absolute discretion. The President or the Governor can grant pardon to anyone.
First of all, in exercising that discretion, he has advisers from a committee set up for that purpose. Many times, the President does not even know those people personally; he’s too busy. That is why it’s supposed to be a leeway, a relief for some people who have found themselves in certain corners where even the judiciary does not know how to handle their cases, in exceptional circumstances.
I mean, like when it’s glaring to the world that there’s nothing more the law can do, yet something must be done in fairness or compassion.
Some people have found themselves in certain situations where the judiciary doesn’t quite know how to handle what we call “exceptional circumstances.” Exceptional circumstances, yes. I mean, I like when it’s glaring to the whole world that, “Ah, this person, there’s nothing we can do if we must follow the law.” This person must go down, and our hands, as old judges, are tied. So, the only hope left is a presidential pardon. That’s exactly what it’s meant for.
But even at that, you might approach the President, and he could say, “No, I don’t want to.” Some governors, too, three, four, five years, they’re still not doing it. It’s supposed to be done yearly, but they refuse. Those who want to do it may say, “Remove this name, move that name, add this one.” It’s entirely at their discretion.
So, when you start to ask, “How will the person feel?”, you’re not doing it because of that person. You’re not even doing it because of society. You’re doing it to show that this man is President and that it’s okay for him to exercise his powers and privileges. Only the President and the Governor can do that.
The prerogative of mercy, they can grant it. And it also gives hope to the condemned prisoner that one day, he might be pardoned. So, he lives right, he behaves himself.
You understand? No matter the offence he’s committed, if he changes and becomes a better person, it’s possible. For example, say in Nigeria we are battling a particular disease, and someone in prison, condemned to die, discovers the cure, say malaria. And this person, due to his research or training, finds that cure, and it’s tested and confirmed. He’s scheduled to die in a month, but he has found the cure to malaria. The only way that man can live is through a pardon. The President, even at best, still has the right to say yes or no.
It’s like a father exercising his right to provide for his child. Is that bad? Is that wrong? No. Is that good? Is that positive? Yes.
So, it’s not a subject for us to become emotional about and start saying, “Ah, why now? Why didn’t you do it like this?” No. It’s his power. That’s why he’s the President. That’s why he’s the Governor. It’s his prerogative.
And what is your take on sovereignty of nations, presidential powers, and US Donald Trump’s, recently pronouncement on Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern, over genocide against Christians?
If you understand the concept behind the sovereignty of nations, you’ll realise that what Trump said was merely a statement. The only way he can carry it out is by force or with the consent of the Nigerian government.
If it’s without consent, then it must be by force, and if it’s by force, that means war.
Many people don’t understand these things. No matter how wrong you are as a father, nobody can come into your house to correct you without your consent. If they try it, there will be war. So, what Trump is really saying is, “Nigeria, prepare for war.” Because when you fight a war, it’s not between you and the citizens, it’s between you and the highest power. You may not like it; you may even support it. But there will always be collateral damage in war.
Now, let me come back to the issue of sovereignty of nations. I know Nigeria has entered many treaties, but Nigeria will never just sit idly and watch Trump come in. No matter what happens, even if he wipes off Nigeria in twenty hours or two days, Nigeria will fight back.
Don’t forget the war between Russia and Ukraine. Nobody gave Ukraine a chance. Whether Ukraine was getting external help or not, they stood their ground. Even Biafra, people thought it would end in one month, but it took Nigeria three years to crush Biafra. So, there’s no such thing as a weak power. And that brings me to my opinion that the “sovereignty of nations” is just a wish. Stronger nations swallow weaker ones. They are not truly sovereign. There’s no real concept of the sovereignty of nations, no matter how many treaties we sign.
If a strong country coughs, the weak one catches a cold. So, it’s just a mere statement that Trump made, and Nigerians overreacted.
But I know this country, and I want to believe that, yes, we’ll get external help, just as China has said. But let me remind you: nobody goes into the forest to fetch ant-infested firewood and then expects that lizards won’t visit their kitchen.
I remember once, when the Nigerian government went to the same United States to complain about our leaders, saying that our President, Goodluck Jonathan, wasn’t doing well and asking them to help us. That’s only one side. Politically, it might be a strategy, a political move.
Let me tell you something. Nigeria is largely made up of three regions that contest for political power: The East, the North, and the West. Or if you like, North, South, and West. And you and I know that the
And what’s your take on those calling on America to come address the issue of genocide against Christians in Nigeria?
Let me remind you, America never goes anywhere without something to gain. In every place they’ve gone “for peace,” have they ever left? Look at all of them. In some of the places, they’ve been there for years. It means there’s something more to it.
I hope people realise that there’s gold in the North, even though nobody talks about it, just as they talk about oil in the South-South.
We are aware that subsidiaries of the NBA, like FIDA, for instance, offer pro- bono services. At the branch level, does the NBA offer same services to those who can’t afford legal representation?
Yes. As a matter of fact, the Office of the First Vice President and the Third Vice President of the NBA are solely dedicated to human rights issues. At the branch level, the Vice Chairman is the head of the Human Rights Committee, and we’ve been doing a lot.
As a branch, we’ve represented many people. Personally, as Chairman, and through our Human Rights Committee, we’ve taken on cases pro bono, which means without collecting any fee. Sometimes judges refer cases to us, and we also receive petitions directly from people. But we don’t do it for every citizen; we do it for those who are poor, who genuinely can’t fend for themselves. It’s not right to represent someone without a real connection to their situation, just because you want to. You’d end up depriving another lawyer of work. So pro bono is meant strictly for those who cannot afford legal services.
We also work closely with Legal Aid and Legal Hub Delta. Legal Hub is particularly focused on migration issues, forced labour, human trafficking, and related cases. It’s a brainchild of NAPTIP and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).
We have about forty trained members who have attended seminars on handling migration cases, victims of trafficking, forced labour, people who travel legally but whose passports are seized abroad and led into prostitution, and so on. We call them Victims of Trafficking (VOT). Some of these cases come to us directly from IOM and NAPTIP. We handle the civil aspect because the criminal aspect is for the police or immigration, but the civil side often gets ignored.
For example, a woman who’s worked in Spain for seven years and hasn’t been paid because her madam in Nigeria keeps her salary and remits a token to the family, claiming to recover travel costs. These are the cases we pursue. We go after the madam’s cars and properties to compensate the victim.
Have you treated such cases in Asaba?
Yes, we’ve handled one, though not to a full conclusion. The main challenge we face is awareness. We do a lot of awareness programmes.
I’ll tell you from experience, government is not Nigeria’s problem. Nigerians themselves are the problem. Just as our Constitution says, “We the people…” Nigerians have not decided who they want to be. We still live in mediocrity because leaders come from the people.
When you start a case, it’s the same poor person who’ll come back to beg you to drop it. You call them to give evidence, and they vanish. You spend your own money to represent them, and will you still spend more chasing them? That’s why most rape cases don’t go far unless the government is directly involved.
We even handled a case of a young man who travelled through the Libyan route. He got stuck in Libya but managed to work and send money home, between seven to ten million naira over five years, to his pastor in Nigeria for safekeeping. When IOM helped him return, the pastor began giving excuses and couldn’t account for the money. The case got to my desk.
We intervened, called the pastor, explained the legal implications, and the pastor admitted to giving some money to the boy’s sisters. When the sisters came, I was disappointed; they were involved in vices and I could not trust their words. So we agreed that the pastor should refund ₦3.5 million, which he eventually did. But the boy told me, “Oga, you can’t stop me. I’ll go back to Libya. I’m tired of Nigeria.”
When you hear that, it’s sad. But that’s not the general view. I’m not tired of Nigeria. I believe in the country’s growth. I’m making my money here. Let me tell you, if you’re a lizard in Nigeria, you’ll still be a lizard in Canada. You can’t become a crocodile there if you weren’t one here.
People say, “I want to relocate.” Watch it. There’s no inner peace and fulfilment. Yes, you may earn enough to feed yourself and your immediate family, but to have enough to invest back home, that’s rare. I’m not saying don’t travel, but if you must, travel right. Don’t use dubious means and put Nigeria in a bad light.
Does the NBA Asaba branch have mentorship programmes for up-coming lawyers?
We hold training regularly. We have the Young Lawyers Forum, where up-coming lawyers can join. I was once a young lawyer, and I benefited from it. The association provides an enabling environment for everyone to grow. You just have to keep learning, because the day you stop learning, you start dying professionally.
