WHEN THE LAW IS BLIND By Yemi Obideyi - Part 1

The heavens and earth are positioned on the strength of law. Freedom and bondage are both functions of one law or the other.

Law making is an essential part of life for it is the bedrock of nationhood. The birth of a nation, the composition and running of its arms of government- the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive- are all derived from the instruments of the law.

Essentially, the law provides the framework upon which the institution of government is situated; it guides citizens’ daily activities and gives a clue on the nature, features and direction of a government in focus. 

  

Law can be proactive or retro-active. That is, it can be made to take care of things yet to happen (proactively) or things that had happened before the law was made (retro-actively).

While law can serve as a deterrent to deviant behaviours, it can also provide penalty for misdemeanor. In all, the most important goal of any legal instrument is to protect the interest of the majority of the population. 

For a populist democracy or people-oriented government like Nigeria, the constitution is mandated by its own contents to serve the interest of the majority of the people and guarantee enthronement of their will at decision-making points.

That the Nigerian Constitution is the most potent instrument relied on by the masses to protect their interests is not in doubt, as other options in this regard are either too expensive or excessively bureaucratic, and thus, not viable.

 Where then lies the hope of the masses when the law becomes misleading and contradictory to the people’s interest and aspiration? Or how best can one describe the situation in which the law turns people’s representatives against people’s interest? where the law, by omission or commission, detaches law makers from their promises or manifestos to the people and replace it with something else?

By the Nigerian Constitution, candidates are voted to represent people in local government areas, states and geo-political zones of the country. When they get to the National Assembly, these representatives are placed in different Committees such as Information, Capital Market, Navy, Finance, Debt Management, The Central Bank, Nigerians in Diaspora, Army, Due Process, Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Customs and Excise, Immigration, etcetera. These law makers are made to serve in these committees all through their tenure as legislators.

Questions:

Are these portfolios the need of the people whom they represent?

What is the connection between the people of Ikorodu (Lagos State, South West, Nigeria), and the Committee of Nigerians in Diaspora which their representative heads?

What is the link between the people of Kogi and the Committee on Information? Did Lagosians vote for a senator because of Capital Market activities? Are the pressing needs of Lagosians not far apart from share prices, share volume, new issues, unclaimed dividends etcetera? Did Oyo State people ever vote for someone to represent them on matters concerning the Federal Capital Territory? What do Nigerians in Sokoto, Kano and Kwara expect from their representatives in the National Assembly who are placed in committees on Debt Issues, Customs, Immigration and Environment? Are these the campaign promises or manifestos upon which they were elected? How many legislators have relevant experience or academic qualification in the field they are placed to serve? When a lawyer heads Aviation Committee and pharmacist is placed in Cooperation and Integration, whose interest is paramount?

In fact, as far as the practice is concerned in Nigeria, the first or foremost consideration is membership of the ruling party; next is the status or political weight of the law maker’s god-father or sponsor among the party’s chieftains; then how well did the candidate or his sponsor support the appointment or electoral success of bigwigs (the president, governor, and others) in the party? etcetera. 

As usual, top party stalwarts do select or reserve for their candidates, ministries and parastatal, known to give out   juicy contracts now and then. All these, at the end sum up to one thing- Mis-representation. 

By all considerations, the constitution itself is fundamentally defective by not defining what candidates ought to represent.  

For one, it does not create a round hole for a round peg, neither does it insist on a round peg as a necessity.

It leaves a gap between what the law ought to be and what it turns out to be. 

By all standard, the constitution castrates the legislative arm of government and undermines its intellectual competence, potential and capability. 

It exposes the legislative arm of government to avoidable manipulation, despicable lobbying by the executive, subtle temptation and corruption. 

It denies the people the profit derivable from participatory democracy. Is it in any way sensible for legislators or (any) representatives for that matter not to know where or on what they are to function until they are placed in committees of the National Assembly? It is a drawback on the principle and character of democracy, an attestation to misplaced representation.

 Mis-representation brings about mis-government because a foul means does not produce a faultless end. A constitution is as insightful as those who made it.

Without mincing words, prolonged era of representing mere geographical location had reduced the law making arm to a bunch of puns in the political chessboard of the executive and judiciary. 

While the latter for instance, is viewed and treated as an abode of professionals, the legislative wing is contemptuously regarded as a place for non-professionals, political mis-fits and an all comers’ bus stop.

Failure of any constitution to pre-determine what a legislator is to represent at the National and local assemblies amount to a fundamental flaw and legislative malaise. 

(To be continued)