BY the time this article is published, the 60th and first virtual Annual General Conference (AGC) of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) scheduled to run from last Wednesday to Friday would have either been concluded – albeit under a lingering dark cloud of animosity and controversies – or rescheduled for exactly the same reasons. The animosity arises from the arguably contentious decision of the NBA to delist Kaduna State Governor Nasr el-Rufa’i as one of the speakers at its virtual AGC. Others billed to speak are former President Olusegun Obasanjo, former Anambra State Governor Peter Obi, Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, former minister Oby Ezekwesili, and a Pentecostal cleric, Pastor Tunde Bakare.
Quite predictably, el-Rufa’i wasted no time firing on all cylinders! In a protest letter delivered by his personal lawyer, he accused the NBA of demonstrating “a total disregard for the basic constitutional provision of fair hearing and justice” and “descending into the realm of partisanship.” He immediately received a lot of support from several Northern organisations, such as the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria, the Kaduna Muslim Lawyers Association, and NBA branches in Yobe, Bauchi and Jigawa, who decried what they considered a nexus of contradictions in the entire saga. They imputed ethnic and religious biases into the action and demanded a reversal of the “unprecedented” dis-invitation plus an apology to el-Rufa’i, failing which their members would boycott the AGC.
Meanwhile, a pressure group, the Radical Agenda Movement in the Nigerian Bar Association (RAMINBA), apparently taking a cue from another pressure group within the fold – the Open Bar Initiative – whose petition against the governor caused the immense commotion, decided to further ‘shake the table.’ The members started mounting pressure on the National Executive (NEC) of the NBA to equally withdraw the invitations of former President Obasanjo and Gov. Wike as speakers, citing well-known instances where they wilfully flouted valid court orders and adopted authoritarian measures that violated the fundamental civil liberties of millions of law-abiding Nigerian citizens.
It is highly unlikely that el-Rufa’i underwent an interview process prior to being handed a speakership invitation. That being so, why should he and his supporters believe that he has to be given “a fair hearing” prior to any decision being taken to, or not to, disinvite him? It is a trite saying that he who has the power to give up equally has the power to receive it back.
And why should the governor use the services of a private attorney rather than his Attorney General and Commissioner for justice since the invitation was extended to him in his official capacity as governor? Would he pay the attorney out of his own pocket or do so using public funds? It also does not make sense to hear some critics of the action insist that a decision to withdraw an invitation earlier given to a speaker must involve all branches of the NBA. Is it that the NBA constitution and conventions do not delegate such a mundane task to the National Executive Committee?
It is very ironic to hear el-Rufa’i bleating about not being treated “fairly and equally.” This is a man who arrogantly dispensed with fair and equal treatment when he decided against all reasonable advice to pick a Muslim from the Northern Senatorial Zone as his running mate on a Muslim/Muslim ticket to the chagrin of Kaduna South indigenes in particular and Christians resident in the state in general. He must, therefore, be told in no uncertain terms that he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands.
Now take another look at the list of speakers. Apart from el-Rufa’i – who has now been delisted – and Pastor Bakare – who was personally handpicked by Buhari as his running mate in the 2011 Presidential Election but is not a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) – all other speakers are either registered members of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) or sympathisers of the major opposition party and are known to be at loggerheads with both the president and the ruling party.
Perhaps, the asymmetric composition of the speakers’ list is why critics are accusing the NBA of swimming in highly partisan waters – a point many would consequently consider justifiable. It stands to reason that even without openly voicing their concerns, the Presidency and the APC national leadership are bound to perceive the 60th AGC more as a forum for their political adversaries and competitors to engage in their favourite pastime of bashing Buhari and the ruling party.
Which is all the more reason why the NBA ought to have been more circumspect with its choice of speakers, more so when a key session titled “Who is a Nigerian?” was a major bone of contention between the APC and its presidential candidate and the PDP and its presidential candidate right from the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria!
However, those claiming that the case of el-Rufa’i represents a misguided voyage in unchartered waters by the NBA are completely misinformed. As a matter of fact, the Olisa Agbakoba-led NBA in 2007 withdrew the invitation it had extended to then Chairman of the Independent National Election Commission (INEC), Prof Maurice Iwu, as VIP guest at its 47th AGC, to protest the shambolic national elections he conducted a few months earlier. Interestingly, both are Christians and, quite unlike what is happening, no comets were seen plummeting from any part of the Nigerian sky nor did Iwu attempt to whip up emotional support among his teeming supporters and sympathisers.
My heart goes out to NBA President-elect Olumide Akpata who seems set to receive a baptism of fire, by inheriting a major crisis not of his own making, when he officially assumes office as the curtains are drawn on the AGC. The ongoing fracas comes with a grim sense of foreboding. A similar crisis nearly sounded the death knell of the NBA in 1992 due to a do-or-die battle for the presidency between the Southern and Northern regional factions. Between 1992 and 1998, the NBA operated without a president, functioning only in branches.
Finally, critics contending that “what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander” and that both Obasanjo and Wike should be similarly disinvited if the NBA truly wants to enthrone its motto of “Promoting and Protecting the Rule of Law and respect for Human Rights” may have a valid argument, except that the case against el-Rufa’i is ongoing while those of the other two are in the past, and the Nigerian Constitution prohibits any law or decision that is retroactive.
The onus squarely rests on Gov. el-Rufa’i to reach out to the sabre-rattling branches and organisations sympathetic to his cause and convince them not to allow the smouldering hostility attendant with the withdrawal of his invitation gather momentum along the country’s fragile fault lines of ethnicity, creed and region of origin and transform into a conflagration with dangerous consequences for the peace, stability and existence of our beloved nation. As a politician, he is in a better position to appreciate that this is a delicate matter that must be handled with utmost discretion.
