Buhari: The ultimate democrat

By Tochukwu Ezukanma
There can be no freedom without the law. While it is the law that limits
our freedom, it is also the law that guarantees our freedom. When there is
no law to limit one’s freedom, there will be no law to guarantee his
freedom. Therefore, democracy, with its entrenched safeguards and
expansive latitude for individual rights and freedom must inevitably be
founded on the law. The constitution (the supreme law of the land)
outlines the structure and role of government and guarantees individual
rights and dignity against government oppression. The Nigerian president
is sworn to defend the constitution of Nigeria, and according to this
constitution, the primary purpose of government is the “security and
welfare of the people”.
President Buhari was under intense criticisms for what was seemingly a
breach of the law; his administration’s continued detention of
individuals already granted bail by the courts. To his critics, it was an
unacceptable, blatant assault on the rule of law. The president’s
defense of his action on grounds of national security did not impress his
critics. They argued that the president is a dictator and that his
disregard for a court ruling evinced his scorn for the separation of
powers and portends grave danger for Nigerian democracy.
In granting bails to the accused, the court was operating within its
constitutional purview. And, ordinarily, as no one is above the law, all,
including the president, should be bound by a court order. But what of if
the court order is in conflict with the president’s oath of office to
defend the constitution of Nigeria (with its fundamental objectives of
“security and welfare” of the people of Nigeria). In such a conflict,
who should have precedence? Surely, it must be the President, elected by
overwhelming popular mandate and not an appointed judge designated to
interpret the law. Moreover, while the rulings of the judges are
predicated on the narrow confines of the law and its technicalities, the
president has access to broader sources of information, and is privy of
classified information not available to the judges. Therefore, his
decisions on national security may take priority over a court verdict. So,
in ignoring a court order, in his determined commitment to the central
roles of democratic government, as stipulated by the Nigerian
constitution, President Buhari was not being a dictator, but a democrat,
essentially, the ultimate democrat.
In the United States of America, the courts have wide powers of judicial
review. Unlike in Britain, where an act of Parliament binds the courts, in
America, a court in deciding a case before it, can disregard an Act of
Congress that it considers inconsistent with the Constitution. However,
despite the enormous powers of the courts in America, a number of American
presidents have, in the past, defied court orders. For example, in
the1830s, President Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court order that
voided a bill ordering all the Indian tribes to move went of the
Mississippi River. More recently, President Bill Clinton defied court
rulings on affirmative action. These rare but necessary breaches of court
verdicts by United States presidents did not dismantle American democracy
or nudge the country into dictatorship. Therefore, President Buhari’s
disregard of bail orders was not tantamount to dictatorship, and was
definitely, not a threat to democracy in Nigeria.
Presently, our deadliest national scourge is corruption. The piratical
depredation – looting and tearing down – of this country by government
officials in concert with their political and business cronies is bleeding
the country to death. It has pervaded and perverted every Nigerian
institution, including the ordinarily most incorruptible, like the
judiciary, university and church. It has battered our morality, corroded
our will and distorted our values. It has caused us more deaths and social
disruption (though less conspicuously), and undermined the security and
welfare of the country than Boko Haram terrorism. If not seriously
checked, it will destroy this country.
A successful war against corruption will be remarkably splendid. It will,
among other things, result in a more equitable distribution of the
national wealth and the alleviation of the dreadful poverty of the
Nigerian masses; make Nigerian institutions more responsive to the needs
and aspirations of the people; elevate societal morals and ethics; enhance
social justice, political stability and the rule of law, etc. A litany of
the benefits of a victorious war on corruption reads like the electoral
promises of President Buhari. Invariably, for the president to uphold his
constitutional and electoral obligations to Nigerians, he must defeat the
monster of corruption. Normally, this should be done in strict adherence
to the standards of the law with its subtleties and technicalities and
copious scope for evading and frustrating prosecution. On the other hand,
this monster is entrenched, resilient and utterly ruining the country.
Therefore, fighting it demands urgency, vigor and the administration’s
willingness to subordinate individual rights to the public good.
In resolving this moral dilemma, that is, in striking the delicate balance
between the niceties of the law and the exigencies of the war against
corruption, the president’s moral and constitutional obligations to the
people of Nigeria should transcend a court ruling.
Tochukwu Ezukanma writes from Lagos, Nigeria
maciln18@yahoo.com
0803 529 2908