Clamour for restructuring, unprecedented in Nigeria’s history- Quakers

Norrison Quakers, a senior advocate in this interview with PETER FOWOYO, speaks about the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, who absconded from trial and the fate of his sureties in court.
The sureties of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) are now in a dilemma over his failure to show up for his trial. What is your view?
The standard thing in our Criminal Justice System is that the sureties will forfeit what they have pledged.

This is because in essence when a surety stepped in, he had vowed for the defendant. If the defendant is no longer available, the surety will take the place of the defendant.

But, I am hoping and praying that it would not get to that stage. As far as I am concerned, the best way to describe the situation before us is to see it as a political logjam. Kanu’s whereabout is unknown at the moment.

Former Abia State Governor, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu was quoted as saying that the man is in London.

I am in no position to confirm where the former governor got his information from. But, the disclosure is an indication that some people know where he is.

If he is expected to come around for his trial and he fails to show up, the law must take its course on his sureties. But, in taking its course, it must not be allowed to generate to some topsy-turvy or crisis.

However, taking it a step further, I feel that the present government needs to constitute an all-stakeholders meeting. There must be a political solution to the problem that is on ground.

The agitation by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its subsequent proscription is like a ticking time bomb that can blow out on our face.

So, it should be properly handled. We must sit down and discuss. Not necessarily from a vantage point of weakness but that of strength. We must find out why we are now having all these clamouring.

Suddenly, the kite of restructuring has now surfaced and it cuts across different major ethnic groups in Nigeria.

What does IPOB stand for? What are they agitating for? Why the sudden emergence? Therefore, there is a need for us to dialogue.

If government can discuss and negotiate with Boko Haram terrorist group to release children that were kidnapped and forcefully removed from their school, I don’t see why we cannot dialogue or interface with these group of people.

Don’t you think it is too late for government to go into such negotiations since IPOB is already proscribed?
I don’t think it is too late. We must be aware that agitations don’t usually start and end with one individual.

Even, if we get rid of the individual, another person will rise up. Therefore, we need to go behind the curtains to find the actors to know why they are doing all these.

God forbid, if anything happens to Nigeria, the western world will be the beneficiaries.

So, it is for us as Nigerians to see how we can solve our problems because only Nigerians can solve Nigeria’s problems.

IPOB, MASSOB, Niger Delta Front, OPC and the likes have been created to address an anomaly within the Nigeria polity.

These groups don’t necessarily need to be registered. So, it’s for us to now sit down and discuss the way forward.

I hope you are aware that under the apartheid regime in South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) was proscribed.

But today, the ANC is the party in power. So, it is imperative for government to negotiate with all stakeholders in all regions of the country. The general clamour for restructuring is unprecedented in the history of Nigeria.

Is it right for the President to inform the National Assembly that Magu will be functioning in Acting capacity through a letter?
Yes. One cannot really be certain about the legality or otherwise of the action. But, what I am saying is when a nominee appears before the National Assembly to be asked questions, the legislators reserve the right to either confirm or reject the nominee.

A number of factors may be responsible for the rejection of a nominee. It’s either the nominee is incompetent or a person of questionable character.

These are some of the reasons why a nominee cannot be confirmed by the National Assembly.

But, a situation where the nominee is saddled with the responsibility of prosecuting cases involving the helmsman of the Senate, who will supervise his screening, do you think the nominee will be guaranteed fair hearing in such circumstance?

For instance, if a panel is constituted in a way not to guarantee fair hearing, whatever the panel does will amount to a nullity.

But, the Senate has said Magu’s rejection was as a result of a negative security report from the Department of State Services (DSS). How do you react to this?
Going by the reports in the newspapers, there are two levels to it. The first rejection by the Senate was subjected to a presidential in-house cleaning exercise.

The president actually directed the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to look into these allegations against Magu which led to his first rejection.

AGF’s enquiries revealed that there were two DSS reports on Magu. One that indicted and the other one which cleared him.

The question then is, which one do you act on? The conflict is enough ground for the Senate to disregard the reports.

How can we have an agency of government submitting two different reports about a government nominee?

Therefore if the rejection is based on the reports and not on any other thing, it is improper because I believed that the reports should not have been acted upon.

It seems Magu will continue to function in acting capacity indefinitely or what do you think?
The issue is that the law also does not recognize working in Acting capacity because it is a tenured appointment.

In Magu’s position now, he doesn’t have tenure. Only those whose appointments were confirmed and are sworn-in has tenure.
The tenure is only for the substantive appointee. Magu is only holding forth until a substantive chairman is appointed.

What I meant by this is that it is only when a nominee whose name is put forward to the Senate is confirmed that we can have a substantive EFCC chairman.

Is there any assurance that any other nominee presented by the president will not suffer Magu’s fate?
Well, to avoid such a situation, the law recognizes lobbying. It is imperative for the presidency to interface with the Senate before a nominee is presented.

The present problem has a lot to do with larger than life political ego on display. Before a nominee is presented, the president can seek audience with the Senate president.

Lobbying the legislative arm of government is an acceptance practice globally. If this had been done, it would have saved us all these stress.

What I see here is that it is the nominee that suffers the consequences of the disagreement between the Executive and the Legislature as to what the true position of the law is.

As far as I am concern, the true position of the law is that it is the Senate that confirms the appointment of any nominee of the president in federal bodies or commissions.

The effect of the failure of the presidency to lobby the Senate before presenting Magu’s name is what is playing out. I feel the presidency should have handled the matter in a better way by being more diplomatic.

QUOTE
“I hope you are aware that under the apartheid regime in South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC) was proscribed. But today, the ANC is the party in power. So, it is imperative for government to negotiate with all stakeholders in all regions of the country. The general clamour for restructuring is unprecedented in the history of Nigeria”