Chief Mike Ahamba, a 1992 holder of the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, is a household name in the legal profession and legal luminary by all standards. He has practiced Law for about half a century with an enviable portfolio of clients cutting across various industries and economic sectors and has handled over 1,000 cases that have largely contributed to jurisprudence in Nigeria. In this interview with Ise-Oluwa Ige, Ahamba, SAN spoke on a number of topical issues including the dangerous trend by politicians to forum shop in sensitive political cases and the controversy trailing the recent hosting of the newly appointed Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Nwosu Chioma-Iheme in Imo State which was well attended by top politicians including state governors.
Q: In most of the 36 states of the Federation today, vacant elective positions at the local government level are no longer filled by election but by selection by the state governors through appointment of caretaker committees, which appears to have compromised the financial autonomy of the third tier of government.
A: (Breaks in) It is not a matter of appears being compromised. Their financial autonomy is compromised. I started criticising this practice from the very beginning. But you see, they have their ways in the constitution which I have been drawing attention to. The proviso to section 7 of the 1999 Constitution gives the House of Assembly the powers to make laws for the establishment, structure, composition, finance and functions of the local government. And immediately a governor is elected, he sends a bill to the House of Assembly to give him power to dissolve. And they do. And they say it is structuring. That is where they are getting their power to do what they are doing now. But what you are saying is true. That practice has killed the local government system which was supposed to take care of rural development. Unfortunately, that section in the constitution which appears to empower the governor to structure the local government is difficult to amend. This is because the governors are not going to allow the state House of Assembly to vote in favour of amendment. So, we are in a very tight corner on this issue. And without that problem being solved, rural development will be very difficult to achieve in this country. I agree absolutely that the practice is wrong. It is unfair.
Q: So, what do you think should be done to wriggle out of this mess?
A: I don’t know the way out. This is because everything has been done in the past to correct this but it is just difficult. And you cant amend that section in the constitution except you get to the houses of assembly. And it is difficult to get the required number of members of the house of assembly that will agree to the amendment of that section. Very difficult.
Q: Does that mean that most of the lawmakers are in the pocket of the governors?
A: Excuse me, let us face it. Most of the houses of assembly in the country today are compromised to the sitting governors. Yes, the are compromised to the sitting governors. They make it a party affair. They will tell you that it is our party that is ruling. And unfortunately or fortunately for them, it is the governors that fund. And most of them want to be funded. The attachment of average Nigerians to cash is the bane of our problem in this country. Nobody wants to be objective again. This is because they want to water their constituencies so that they can be re-elected. The man on the street is the most corrupt in the country. The victim of all these things that we are talking about is the most corrupt in the country . It is a pity really. We are in a very bad shape. Yes, in a bad shape.
Q: Last weekend, the media was awash with photos taken at a civic reception organized in celebration of a newly appointed Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Nwosu Chioma-Iheme in Owerri. The images showed that few top politicians from the South East attended the event and took photographs with the jurist. Some individuals are contending that all over the world, judges are to be heard not seen in public. Do you agree with this sentiment?
A: I wasn’t there. I was supposed to be there. I would have been there. My health didn’t allow me. It was some lawyers who hosted her. I’m not aware that any other person was part of the hosting.
Q: But those criticizing the event were actually pointing to pictures that circulated after the event showing those that graced the occasion including politicians.
A: They got it wrong. Invitees are different from the people hosting. To the best of my knowledge, it was some lawyers who hosted her and some retired justices. I’m not aware that any politician or the governor was involved in the hosting. If governor contributed to it, it must have been very private. That’s much I can say about it.
Q: Given their fears, is it proper for a newly appointed judicial officer to be hosted by lawyers?
A: This is not the first time this thing is happening. It has become the in-thing now. However, when the practice started, I said it was not right. But it has become traditional. I don’t see what is different in this one. Like if have said, this is not the first one and there is nothing strange about it.
Q: The practice by high court judges to struggle for jurisdiction and issue conflicting orders or decisions in sensitive political cases in the country appears to have brought embarrassment to the judiciary. There are so many of such cases one can point to today. How do you react to this as a senior lawyer of many decades?
A: I am not just a senior lawyer. On June 28, this year, I became 50 years at the bar. That is half a century as a lawyer. And I have been practicing Law since I graduated, from my Youth Service days. I have been in the court for 50 years. There have been some unfortunate developments that are worrying including this one that you mentioned that can only be solved by judicial process. Let everybody who is not happy with what has happened jam at the Supreme Court and let them say something. We cannot run away from our Supreme Court. This is the much I can say about it.
Q: But…
A: Excuse me. Even when a judge knows that another judge has given a ruling on an issue, and he still goes to hear the case to counter that judge, in my own view, that his counter order or decision is judicial misconduct. And somebody has to take it to the National Judicial Council. NJC cannot make issue out of this on its own.
Q: Oh, you mean NJC can’t do anything on such issue on their own?
A: Yes. NJC cannot read newspapers and say oh, you this judge, come here. I have read about this your order in the newspapers. Why did you do what you did? It doesn’t work that way. Somebody has to protest to the NJC and let them decide on it on whether it is right or wrong. This is my humble view. But as far as I am concerned, unless we get this worrying trend in the judiciary under control, the whole country will collapse on our head. Judiciary is the only institution remaining that can save this country now. My colleagues who go contrary to what they ought to do should call themselves to order. I’m not only 50 years at the bar, I am 78 years of age. So, I have a duty to this country to speak out the truth on what ought to be done. It is no longer my business on what anybody will say about my bitter truth. I don’t have any political position that I crave to hold. It is my duty to speak the truth the way it should be said. As far as I am concerned, I don’t care about the consequences of the bitter truth that I may have to say at this level. I don’t care at all. And I am very bold to say that nobody has ever challenged my public statement in this country that Ahamba made a false statement. Nobody. If there is any, let anybody draw my attention to it. So, I believe that if we should leave the judiciary alone, if we don’t stop pushing them on the avenues they are not supposed to be, if we do not stop pushing the judiciary, this country will just collapse on our heads.
Q: But was the practice of judges’ struggling for jurisdiction in political cases popular 20, 30 years ago?
A: No. It was not. It was not like this when I started my legal practice. All these things are new. We have instances where judges have been disciplined because they made counter orders to an existing order. But the principle of stare decisis is no longer important in our jurisprudence now. Unfortunately, Im very sorry to say it. We may have to do something on this, otherwise, things will spoil. We are heading towards the precipice. I keep saying it that people should leave the judiciary alone now. People should stop trying to influence them. People should leave them to do their work and balance up. If we continue nibbling at them, well, whatever happens, all of us will have to face it.
Q: Cant the judiciary on its own do what is right even if politicians wont leave them alone?
A: I mean, Nigerians should go through the channel. If we don’t like what has happened at the trial high court, we should move through the channel and appeal at a higher court until it gets to the Supreme Court. Whatever the Supreme Court says is the final thing which we have to take and respect.
Q: Still on this issue. When two courts of coordinate jurisdiction are aware that a case with similar a subject-matter has been submitted before them, cant they on their own refuse to hear such case even when the litigants have refused to go on appeal?
A: If courts of coordinate jurisdiction are involved doing a similar case and they are aware of that, that is worse. If Court A decides on an issue and Court B decides on the same issue, then, I believe this is judicial misconduct and it must be sanctioned because it is not supposed to be so.
Q: The principle of stare decisis allows for certainty in law. But nowadays, judges would be guided by lawyers in the courtroom on certain decisions of higher courts which state the principle to apply, yet the judge would close his eyes to such submission and go ahead to decide the matter in their own way. Do you foresee any danger in treating the principle of stare decisis with contempt?
A: I agree with you that most courts don’t respect stare decisis any more. I agree with you. All these started from election petition proceedings. That’s where it started. Some of us have been victims of this. Buhari was victim of this during the prosecution of his first two presidential petitions. Failure to abide by the principle of stares decisis affected the petitions. And it has now extended to other cases where nobody ignored them before. Unfortunately, if we don’t follow stare decisis, there will be no discipline. There will be no order in our law. Stare decisis is one of the sources of Nigeria’s jurisprudence. So, when people refuse to recognise or respect stare decisis on the same subject matter without taking such matter to the court that laid down the principle to depart from it, then, indiscipline has come.
Q: Do you think the NJC has any other role to play to sanitize the system?
A: Like I told you, no adjudicatory body assumes jurisdiction without anybody coming up with a complaint. Let the victims of what they are doing come forward. The NJC cannot on its own take step. Somebody has to bring a complaint before the NJC for it to assume jurisdiction to do what it ought to do.
Q: A senior lawyer once advised NJC to stop merely retiring judges established to have engaged in misconduct but also seize their entitlements and forfeit their pension to the state. Do you subscribe to this position?
A: If a judge is established to have engaged in judicial misconducts, the rules of judicial ethics is there to follow and should be sanctioned. I don’t know any judge who has been found to have engaged in judicial misconduct that was retired and also paid. However, if there is such a judge, it will amount to disservice to Nigeria’s jurisprudence.
This interview was conducted before Supreme Court decision on LG’s financial autonomy.
Vanguard
