Posted by By Linus Obogo (linusobogo@yahoo.com) on
In a withering attack, following calls on President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua to relieve the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Michael Kaase Aondoaaka, of his duty, the former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipeku (SAN), has faulted Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), insisting that his campaign and those of his ilk is tantamount to corrupting the law.
* You corrupt the law
In a withering attack, following calls on President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua to relieve the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Michael Kaase Aondoaaka, of his duty, the former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipeku (SAN), has faulted Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), insisting that his campaign and those of his ilk is tantamount to corrupting the law.
In what another lawyer, Fred Agbaje, had earlier described as ‘mercantilist' and an EFCC-merchant-syndrome, some lawyers, key among them Chief Fawehinmi, had during the week made a case for the removal of the Attorney-General of the Federation over his alleged roles in undermining the agency's war on graft.
The agitation by Chief Fawehinmi and Femi Falana for the AGF's sack has morphed into a contagion, with Afenifere, the Pan-Yoruba cultural organization, also joining the league of the anti-Aondoaaka movement.
In a determined effort to purge the EFCC of former president Obasanjo's vestiges of disdain for due process, suspicion and stereotypes with which it has over time been viewed by a large chunk of the public as a vendetta machine, the Attorney-General has insisted that there could not be an option to the rule of law in the agency's operation, a development that has pitched the commission against the chief law officer of the federation.
However, the AGF's tough stance on the rule of law has been greeted with mixed reactions by some lawyers, with the hardest knocks coming from those allegedly benefiting massively from the EFCC and who have been hostaged by the agency's rhetoric and gansterism.
Specifically, Gani, while cranking up pressure against the Attorney-General, with his sack crusade, said he had constituted a stumbling block on the EFCC's fight against corruption, a trend, he claimed, would reduce the country to a laughing stock in the international community.
But in a thinly veiled demystification, Olanipekun flattened Gani, deploring his resort to sentiment, which he said, has no foundation in law, reasoning and logic. According to the former Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Ondo State, Gani did not only goof, but his action amounted to corrupting the provisions of the law which, he noted, is the worst form of corruption.
Insisting that the Ondo Chief's outburst is an embarrassment to those, including himself (Olanipekun), who have high respect for him, he flayed his tactic in misleading the gullible public that has long associated him with anti-corruption crusade.
His words: 'In fact, he is embarrassing some of us who have always respected him. Chief Gani Fawehinmi is corrupting the provisions of the law. And that is the greatest offence one can commit. When you corrupt the law, it is the worst form of corruption! Gani is playing on sentiment and misleading the gullible public that has taken him to be an anti-corruption crusader."
While decrying Gani's subterfuge in depriving others from benefiting from the rule of law, Olanipekun revealed that 'but for the rule of law, Gani would not have been wearing the wig and gown today. The rule of law which Gani does not want anybody to benefit from is the same that saved him when he was to be tried for professional misconduct."
Even as he wished Gani, who is said to be recuperating at a London hospital, a quick recovery, Olanipekun urged his colleagues to stop deceiving the public with well-worn sophistry, challenging Gani to a public debate on the powers of attorney-general, whenever he arrives Nigeria.
Excerpts:
A few days ago, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) issued a statement calling for the sack of Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice. What do you make of this latest position of his and the implication for the rule of law?
Without any hesitation whatsoever, I say this, with all respect that Gani goofed. His sentiment has no basis in law, reasoning and logic.
In fact, he is embarrassing some of us who have always respected him. Chief Gani Fawehinmi is corrupting the provisions of the law. And that is the greatest offence one can commit.
When you corrupt the law, it is the worst form of corruption! Gani is playing on sentiment and misleading the gullible public that has taken him to be an anti-corruption crusader.
You cannot have two chief law officers in any sane nation. Attorney-General's (AGF) position is as ancient as the institution of the law. It is not a modern day creation like EFCC. It has been in existence for thousands of years.
Section 174 of the constitution makes him the boss, in so far as prosecution of criminal proceedings in every spectrum of our society is concerned. He occupies the driver's position. Nobody occupies it with him.
When I was Attorney-General in 1992-1993, Nobody did dare me! Nobody, in so far as my powers as the Attorney-General of the state were concerned. Not even my governor.
Gani in his position was citing section 15 of the Constitution, which has nothing to do with the powers of the Attorney-General. He also cited irrelevant cases. The position of the AGF cannot be compromised. That is the only ministerial position created by the constitution.
Let me say this, for once, we have an attorney-general who knows his onions. After the tenure of the late Bola Ajibola, we now have an AGF who knows his onions. And who is doing what is right.
Not even the EFCC or ICPC, the Customs, Immigrations or even the Police, can claim to be the boss in matters of prosecution. They must be subject to the constitution and the control of the Attorney-General.
And I'm happy that Justice Ayoola of the ICPC is not challenging the AGF on who has the powers, unlike Gani Fawehinmi. He is talking of the modus operandi and that is a question of time. There is variation in time. From individual to individual.
When it comes to EFCC Acts, we must let the public know the truth. It is very important. The EFCC Acts, section 31 subsection 4, says that 'All properties seized or impounded by the EFCC shall not be disposed off without the consent of the AGF".
Section 43 of the law says 'The Attorney-General shall make rules and regulations to implement the Act for the EFCC". That is what the law says. What then is Gani talking about? What is he talking about?
Gani referred to the case of the Attorney-General of Ondo State versus the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF), please, for God's sake, there is nowhere in that judgment of the Supreme Court where it says that the Attorney-General does not have supervisory powers over the prosecution of cases.
Some people are bragging about the case of Osahon. There is nowhere in the judgment of the Supreme Court where it made any attempt to cause an infraction on the Attorney-General's powers to prosecute cases.
Why do we lawyers deceive the public? I challenge Gani to a debate on this matter, so that we can educate the public. He is recuperating in Britain. I wish that God will touch him and heal him. After that, we can meet on any media- print or electronic forum. I must say that enough is enough. They should stop misleading the public.
Gani's position seems to give a hint of a lack of understanding of the issue of the rule of law as being canvassed by the AGF. Is it an actuation of personal interest or a disquiet among the body of lawyers, the NBA?
Of all the lawyers in Nigeria, Gani has benefited from the NBA more than most of us. In terms of solidarity, in terms of standing by him whenever he has problems with the government. He has benefited more than any other Nigerian lawyer. Yet he does not respect the views of NBA.
Gani cannot be bigger than NBA. Whatever might be his ingenuity, he cannot be wiser than all of us. He must be aware of the fact that where his own knowledge of the law stops, that is where that of others starts.
But for the rule of law, Gani would not have been wearing the wig and gown today. The rule of law which Gani does not want anybody to benefit from is the same that saved him when he was to be tried for professional misconduct.
He ran to the court to challenge the composition of the disciplinary committee, that they will not give him fair hearing, from the High Court to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court declared that he was entitled to fair hearing. But now Gani will not want anybody to have access to fair hearing.
We cannot on the basis of corruption, corrupt the law. Corrupting the law is as bad as genocide. It is a crime against humanity. It is worst than financial corruption, which he is talking about.
The provisions of the law must be held sacrosanct, no matter whose ox is gored. When the position of Attorney-General is destroyed, the profession and the institution are also destroyed.
Would you say that he has been extreme or reckless of recent on issues that pertain to the rule of law?
I wouldn't want to use the word reckless because he is older than me in age. Not withstanding the fact that I disagree with him, I respect him as my elder brother. But as far as the law is concerned, he is patently wrong. He erred.
I'll suggest that he looks at the law again. He should look at the cases he is citing. I confer with my juniors in chambers. They might have different views from me. But I bow to superior argument. Gani should be ready to bow to superior argument. He is a human being. He is not infallible. To have asked the AGF to resign or call for his sack without committing any wrong, without running foul of any law, Gani is extreme. It is unwarranted of his person.
Could it be part of the EFCC merchant-syndrome that might have galvanized the call by some lawyers for the AGF to be sacked?
Please let me say this, a lawyer is entitled to defend EFCC. That is in carrying out his professional obligations. Let Gani go to court to challenge the AGF that he does not have powers to supervise EFCC. Let him go to any court in Nigeria. I dare him. Let him go and file an action in court. He has gone to court on several cases. He has won several cases on that. I commend him.
This time around, if he has the courage of his conviction. Let him go and challenge the Attorney-General in any court of law that the AGF does not have the power to supervise prosecutions by the EFCC. And let him cite cases in Nigeria or abroad to justify it.
Despite that we are lawyers, the provisions of the law are so clear that even those who are unlearned in law will read and clearly make meaning out of it. And that is why I'll recommend to any Nigerian who cares to read sections 174 of the constitution, section 34 of the EFCC Acts; Section 43 of the same Act.
There is a deliberate attempt to blackmail the AGF by some sections of the press as to the effect that because he has handled so, so cases before, he cannot be AGF. Can you get a lawyer, a SAN who will be Attorney-General and has not handled some cases? Then such is not a lawyer or a SAN! And such is not worthy of being the AGF.
It is just like saying that somebody from The Sun cannot be made the Information minister, because he is the owner or that he works with The Sun, you will not be able to perform your duties, is that logical?
One thing that gladdens my heart is that, there is no lawyer in Nigeria who has been practising law, who agrees with Gani on this issue.
There are those who say that Gani has carried on this way because some of you are either afraid of him or have refused to tackle him head-long. Is it true that some of you are afraid of him?
Look, somebody like me cannot be afraid of any individual except my God. And Gani and myself have nothing in common. We respect each other. I respect him a great deal. We come from the same area of the country. He is older than me in age.
But the time has come when the spade has to be called a spade. Chief Gani Fawehinmi annoys some of us, including the public with his unwarranted statements and his interpretations of the law.
We can no longer close our eyes as if we don't see him. It is very unbecoming. A time has come when we have to correct him. And we have to tell him that this law belongs to all of us. He doesn't have the monopoly of it. It is not fair to the legal profession. It is not fair to the public. We have to correct him. But in doing that, we don't have to be rude.