PROTOCOLS
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
There are people whose names will not appear in the programme for this conference, but whose lives should shape everything we do here.
The person in detention who has no lawyer. The trader whose unpaid debt is too small to justify the cost of going to court, but large enough to destroy her business. The child treated as an adult in a detention facility before anyone has asked the right questions.
They may never hear our speeches or know this conference took place. Yet we have gathered in their name. That places a responsibility on us.
Our theme is “In Public Interest: Advancing Justice, Democracy and Development.” But who exactly is the public in whose interest we speak, and what should they gain from our gathering?
On behalf of the Nigerian Bar Association, I thank His Excellency, Dr. Alex Otti, and the Government and people of Abia State for their hospitality. I commend the Chair of SPIDEL, Associate Professor Uju Agomoh, her Executive Committee and the Conference Planning Committee led by Sir Ejike Ezenwa, SAN. And I warmly welcome our keynote speaker, His Excellency, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, GCON, former Vice President of Nigeria. We look forward to the perspective his experience in scholarship, legal practice and public office will bring to our deliberations.
Distinguished colleagues, “public interest” is a phrase we encounter frequently. Governments invoke it to explain decisions, institutions to justify policies, and lawyers to support arguments in court. Civil society organisations organise around it.
But invoking the public interest does not establish that it is being served.
Those who make that claim must be prepared to explain –whose needs does the decision address? Whose voices informed it? Who bears its cost? And what remedy exists for those whose rights it infringes?
Those with the least influence must have a way to be heard. That is why justice, democracy and development belong together. People need an effective remedy against wrong, a meaningful voice in decisions, and opportunities that willimprove their lives.
That voice must include the freedom to support a candidate, attend a political meeting and seek to persuade others without fear of violence. When citizens are attacked for participating in politics, the public interest we have gathered to advance is directly threatened.
The recent violence in Asaba, where the police confirmed one death and injuries to five people during a political procession, demands our attention. So do the attacks reported against Omoyele Sowore and his team in Ekiti, and Peter Obi’s convoy in Calabar. Three different cities, similar stories. Without decisive action, there may be many more.
The NBA condemns political violence. And disputed allegations about who sponsored what, will not prevent us from condemning the violence itself.
Supporting a candidate, attending a meeting or joining a lawful procession must never expose a citizen to assault or intimidation.
We acknowledge the arrests and investigative steps already reported, but we require credible investigations that follow the evidence to whoever organised, financed or carried out these attacks. Prosecutions must follow where sufficient evidence exists. Witnesses must be protected and relevant recordings and other evidence preserved so that responsibility can be established through a fair and credible process.
The police have referred to security advice given before the Asaba procession. That account must be examined alongside the protection provided and the response to the violence. When someone has died, prior advice about a security threat cannot be the end of the story.
The President, Governors, party leaders and security authorities must make their opposition to political violence effective through their conduct and the institutions they lead. Public resources and security agencies must serve citizens fairly, whatever their affiliation. No party owns a state or has an exclusive right to seek the people’s support.
I want to make something clear. Defending Mr. Sowore’srights is not an endorsement of his conduct towards the courts.
I have received written complaints alleging disruption by him and some of his supporters on court premises, including when he had no matter before the court. Those complaints will be examined fairly. Citizens may criticise judicial decisions and protest lawfully, but may not obstruct proceedings, harass court users or intimidate those administering justice.
Mr. Sowore is entitled to protection against violence, and he and his supporters are accountable for their conduct. We will insist on both.
I am already engaging with the head of the relevant court. The NBA will support lawful measures to protect the courts and ensure that established misconduct attracts the consequences prescribed by law.
Our responsibility also extends to our own profession.
Concerns about apparently conflicting decisions in political cases, reassignment of proceedings and alleged disregard of superior court orders require serious examination. Judicial independence demands freedom from political pressure, intimidation and inducement. It also demands fidelity to the obligations of judicial office. Established disregard of a binding superior court order requires an institutional response.
The NBA will examine the relevant judgments, orders and proceedings, distinguish errors requiring appellate correction from conduct warranting disciplinary investigation, and pursue substantiated concerns through the appropriate channels. An unpopular judgment is not, by itself, proof of misconduct.
We lawyers must answer for our part too. Where we facilitate abuse of the judicial process, our conduct must attract scrutiny and, where misconduct is established, it must result in disciplinary action.
The Bar will defend the judiciary against intimidation and unfounded accusations. But we will pursue credible evidence of misconduct. Both duties protect the justice system.
Our public advocacy must reflect the same discipline.
Have we read the judgment we criticise? Examined the order said to have been disobeyed? Verified the account we circulate?
Our training equips us to distinguish evidence from suspicion and to hear the other side. Our professional standing gives weight to our words. Citizens and colleagues may assume we have done the necessary examination. We must not misuse that trust.
Where evidence exists, let us assemble it, submit it to the appropriate institution and pursue the complaint. Where the institution fails to act, let us document that failure and demand an answer. Public advocacy should strengthen ourwork, not diminish it. The ethical discipline we owe in practice must remain with us when we speak or write in public.
Our commitment to “Members First. Always.” also requires us to strengthen the justice system in which our members practise. Lawyers and the citizens they represent need institutions that work. Improving those institutions is therefore part of our responsibility to both.
I invite SPIDEL to work with me on a matter that must remain uppermost in our minds until something is done – the deaths in NSCDC custody in Minna, the conditions of detention facilities and the protection of children who come into conflict with the law.
The investigation and measures announced must be followed through. Families need accountability and appropriate redress; survivors need assistance. We must also work to prevent a recurrence.
Working with the NBA Human Rights Institute and Pro Bono Centre, public authorities and child-protection organisations, I urge SPIDEL to develop a focused programme of intervention.
Identify facilities to inspect and document failures. Connect children and other vulnerable detainees to lawyers who will follow their cases through. Pursue reforms with the responsible authorities and legal remedies where necessary.
Within thirty days of this conference, I would welcome a workplan identifying responsibilities, partners and first interventions. Within ninety days, let us review progress against it.
Let this be part of our Umuahia Declaration, so that years from now we can trace improvements in detention conditions and the treatment of children to the work begun here.
Let us work to ensure that the Minna deaths were not in vain.
Distinguished colleagues, I started by asking the question –“who is the public in whose interest we speak, and what should they gain from our gathering?”
They are the people that give purpose to our skills and so they need us to speak with courage and accuracy, to challenge abuse wherever it occurs and to stay on task until something changes. They should know that they have a voice in us, and that we will use our skills to secure remedies and improvements they can experience.
Building a bolder Bar that works for our members and the public we serve. This is the responsibility I accepted as President of the Nigerian Bar Association. And I ask SPIDEL to work with me in discharging it.
Let us continue to make this work count.
I wish us thoughtful deliberations and a productive conference.
Thank you.
Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, FCIArb
President of the Nigerian Bar Association
