317
By Bayo Davids
Some lawyers in the Federal Capital Territory have advised President Bola Tinubu to show strong commitment to the observance of the rule of law and uphold press freedom as he gets down to the serious business of governing the nation.
In separate interviews with this medium, the legal practitioners counseled the former Lagos state governor not to walk the path of his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari, whose administration they said, was notorious for selective obedience of court orders.
Speaking with our correspondent, constitutional lawyer, Kennedy Khanoba expressed optimism that President Tinubu would not undermine the work of the judiciary given his background as “A core democrat.”
He said, “I believe President Tinubu will be different from Muhammadu Buhari in the observance of the rule of law. Tinubu is seen as a core democrat unlike Buhari who referred to himself as a reformed democrat. The military DNA never really left him as could be seen from some of the decisions he took while in office.
“My advice to President Tinubu is that he should make the observance of the rule of law the bedrock of his administration.
“Court orders should be obeyed holistically not selectively as was the case with the immediate past administration. No matter how unfavourable they may be to the government of the day, court orders should be obeyed.
“Obedience of court orders is what gives every citizen hope and that is what makes us equal before the law. You can’t be preaching equality before the law when you pick the kind of orders you have to respect, especially when it does not favour you. Disobedience of court orders does not engender good governance.”
Continuing, Khanoba pointed out the dangers of flouting court orders by a government in a democratic setting.
“This (not obeying court orders) will definitely scare away investors because they would not like a situation whereby if they have issues with judiciary or with anybody and the matter is adjudicated upon, they want to be sure that they would reap the fruit of the judgement. Tinubu like I said, will not turn out the same way as Buhari because he is a thorough-bred democrat who also fought the military in time past, especially during the National Democratic Coalition days.
Another Abuja-based lawyer, Kamin Asunugie allayed fears of possible replication of what happened during the immediate past administration when court orders against the Federal Government were arbitrarily flouted without consequences.
“Tinubu’s political background and career is not the same with Buhari, who came from the military and found himself in a democracy where power was thrust upon him by banal sympathy and the spirit of shared ancestral benevolence. Expecting that Buhari was going to be tamed by the forces of democracy into becoming a thoroughbred democrat was infantile in conception and antithetical with rationality. It was akin to expecting a leopard to change its spots at the mere sound of a gong.
“Conversely, Tinubu is a democrat and a politician par excellènce. By parity of reason, he could be seen as one more positioned to follow through with the doctrines of the rule of law and its twin-brother, the separation of powers.
“It must be taken as given that President Ahmed Tinubu would be different from ex-president Buhari in undiluted observance of the doctrine of separation of powers and the concomitant adherence to the principles encapsulated in the rule of law. It is only by a strict adherence to the two that democracy can blossom and thrive! Without that, what we have can only be a caricature of democracy!
“My advice to President Tinubu is that he should allow the judiciary to operate without intermeddling in its affairs. He must allow the press to flourish even when stories against his government are written and published.”
Taking a different stand entirely is Inibehe Effiong, a rights activist and constitutional lawyer, who argued that President Tinubu is unlikely to be any different from his predecessor in always upholding the rule of law.
“I am not sure there would be any drastic, fundamental departure from the culture of disregard for the rule of law. The Buhari regime was one that exhibited gross disdain for due process, fundamental rights of Nigerians, free press and he never believed in equality before the law.
“Tinubu does not appear to me as someone who would respect democratic institutions and allow them to function efficiently and independently.
“My suspicion is that we are going to witness a very gruesome state capture. Institutions that are supposed to be independent and function within the ambit of the law would have their independence contested and hijacked. We have to wait and see!,” he said.
Given the President’s announcement in his inaugural speech that “Subsidy is gone,” Effiong wants Nigerians to know that more shocking statements await them in the weeks ahead.
“Given the way he has started with the unilateral announcement of the removal of fuel subsidy, one wonders whether he really believes in the rule of law. The Appropriation Act which was passed has not elapsed. In that Appropriation Act, there was provision for subsidy. To announce subsidy removal when that Act had not elapsed is unfortunate because the citizens are now being affected adversely,” he added.
In separate interviews with this medium, the legal practitioners counseled the former Lagos state governor not to walk the path of his predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari, whose administration they said, was notorious for selective obedience of court orders.
Speaking with our correspondent, constitutional lawyer, Kennedy Khanoba expressed optimism that President Tinubu would not undermine the work of the judiciary given his background as “A core democrat.”
He said, “I believe President Tinubu will be different from Muhammadu Buhari in the observance of the rule of law. Tinubu is seen as a core democrat unlike Buhari who referred to himself as a reformed democrat. The military DNA never really left him as could be seen from some of the decisions he took while in office.
“My advice to President Tinubu is that he should make the observance of the rule of law the bedrock of his administration.
“Court orders should be obeyed holistically not selectively as was the case with the immediate past administration. No matter how unfavourable they may be to the government of the day, court orders should be obeyed.
“Obedience of court orders is what gives every citizen hope and that is what makes us equal before the law. You can’t be preaching equality before the law when you pick the kind of orders you have to respect, especially when it does not favour you. Disobedience of court orders does not engender good governance.”
Continuing, Khanoba pointed out the dangers of flouting court orders by a government in a democratic setting.
“This (not obeying court orders) will definitely scare away investors because they would not like a situation whereby if they have issues with judiciary or with anybody and the matter is adjudicated upon, they want to be sure that they would reap the fruit of the judgement. Tinubu like I said, will not turn out the same way as Buhari because he is a thorough-bred democrat who also fought the military in time past, especially during the National Democratic Coalition days.
Another Abuja-based lawyer, Kamin Asunugie allayed fears of possible replication of what happened during the immediate past administration when court orders against the Federal Government were arbitrarily flouted without consequences.
“Tinubu’s political background and career is not the same with Buhari, who came from the military and found himself in a democracy where power was thrust upon him by banal sympathy and the spirit of shared ancestral benevolence. Expecting that Buhari was going to be tamed by the forces of democracy into becoming a thoroughbred democrat was infantile in conception and antithetical with rationality. It was akin to expecting a leopard to change its spots at the mere sound of a gong.
“Conversely, Tinubu is a democrat and a politician par excellènce. By parity of reason, he could be seen as one more positioned to follow through with the doctrines of the rule of law and its twin-brother, the separation of powers.
“It must be taken as given that President Ahmed Tinubu would be different from ex-president Buhari in undiluted observance of the doctrine of separation of powers and the concomitant adherence to the principles encapsulated in the rule of law. It is only by a strict adherence to the two that democracy can blossom and thrive! Without that, what we have can only be a caricature of democracy!
“My advice to President Tinubu is that he should allow the judiciary to operate without intermeddling in its affairs. He must allow the press to flourish even when stories against his government are written and published.”
Taking a different stand entirely is Inibehe Effiong, a rights activist and constitutional lawyer, who argued that President Tinubu is unlikely to be any different from his predecessor in always upholding the rule of law.
“I am not sure there would be any drastic, fundamental departure from the culture of disregard for the rule of law. The Buhari regime was one that exhibited gross disdain for due process, fundamental rights of Nigerians, free press and he never believed in equality before the law.
“Tinubu does not appear to me as someone who would respect democratic institutions and allow them to function efficiently and independently.
“My suspicion is that we are going to witness a very gruesome state capture. Institutions that are supposed to be independent and function within the ambit of the law would have their independence contested and hijacked. We have to wait and see!,” he said.
Given the President’s announcement in his inaugural speech that “Subsidy is gone,” Effiong wants Nigerians to know that more shocking statements await them in the weeks ahead.
“Given the way he has started with the unilateral announcement of the removal of fuel subsidy, one wonders whether he really believes in the rule of law. The Appropriation Act which was passed has not elapsed. In that Appropriation Act, there was provision for subsidy. To announce subsidy removal when that Act had not elapsed is unfortunate because the citizens are now being affected adversely,” he added.