The just concluded conference of the Nigerian Bar Association in Abuja, last week, was a great display of togetherness, splendour as well as grandeur. It captured the profession of lawyers at a moment in the calendar of the nation’s annual festivities. A moment of introspection on, as well as an exposition of, the bright side of the great and the good; the who’s who of the nation’s “noble” profession. It was a nod and a wink to the rest of society. There was merry-making and camaraderie aplenty, which masked a whole load of serious work undertaken by the rank and file and their guests, reviewing all aspects of the profession with the view to improving and driving the bar to greater heights in the coming years.
That being said, the NBA is an association of 100,000+ lawyers; the largest of such professional groupings in this country, and probably, anywhere in Africa. It is bound to have its admirers as well as its detractors. This column subscribes to neither of the camps. As it is customary here, we subject the body to the rigour of an unbiased scrutiny without mincing words. It behoves me, though, to declare my own interest at the outset as a full-fledged member of the NBA. I am thus a participant and an observer; a vantage point to engage in this type of analysis I would imagine.
After 50 eight years of unbroken leadership of the men and women in the legal profession, is it not time to take stock of the effectiveness of the NBA and its avowed motto of “promoting the rule of law”?As it happens, President Muhammadu Buhari has resurrected his reputation as a one-time no-nonsense military leader by throwing down the gauntlet to the conference, saying, that given a choice between national security (as conceived by the government of the day), and the rule of law (as enshrined in the constitution), the former prevails. Thus, the rule of law is effectively being held to ransom by the Executive branch right under the nose of the NBA. The organisation has, at various times, been accused of ineptitude in its handling of critical human rights issues in terms of detention without trial and flagrant violation of judicial orders by the Executive arm of the Nigerian government. Moreover, the management of the NBA is thought to be lopsided and rather sectarian in its attitude towards the rank and file, and the misguided idea by management that it has to be aligned with the government of the day to maintain relevance.
All of this is compounded by disquiet over the lack of transparency in its financial dealings, perks and remuneration for members of the executive, and latterly, the conduct of the last election for officers of the body, thought to have been shambolic and unbecoming in places. Some were even asking whether the outcome of the election and emergence of the new leader, Paul Usoro, SAN, truly reflects the will of the membership. That said, let us be mindful of the fact that whatever criticism of the NBA we may proffer needs to be set within the context of the wider society we live in, but that, in itself, should never be used as an excuse for incompetence, cack-handedness or wrongdoing in any guise. Given the extraordinary plurality and diversity of the legal profession and the corresponding shrinking of the body’s influence on critical issues of law, liberty and the individual in today’s Nigeria, it is pertinent to ask whether indeed, the organisation is still fit for purpose.
Over the years, there are those who have come to view the NBA as a business entity; a corporation of some sort consumed with the perennial issues of productivity and profit margins. This viewpoint tends to adopt the Philistine approach when it comes to the rule of law, which they often conceptualise within the rubrics of opportunity cost. In basic economics, it is the price of the alternative which is foregone. In other words, since everything has a price tag attached to it, NBA’s success or failure is measured in its ability to negotiate and strike good bargains with the Executive and other stakeholders piecemeal, step by step, and issue by issue. The problem with this no-frills, no drama, transactional approach to leadership is that although it is steady-as-you-go, it nonetheless creates the risk of a moral vacuum when everything is subject to the right price. What then is the NBA about, or should be about in the 21st century?
First, it is about representation. The NBA exists primarily to represent its members’ interests. It is neither an arm of the Federal Government, nor an appendage of the Judiciary. It is a trade union in so far it seeks to augment the working conditions and career advancement of its members. Second, it is about advocacy. It is a collective voice of its members, which it uses to advance improvement in certain areas of the law. It also uses the voice to argue for relevant changes in the law, critique legislation, take up unpopular causes, propose new laws and be at the vanguard of civil liberty. Third, the NBA functions as a watchdog. This particular role is two dimensional; maintaining order and discipline amongst its ranks, and checking the excesses of the Federal Executive. In short, the NBA’s raison d’etre is, in my view; Representation, Advocacy and Watchdog (RAW), all intertwined to form one whole.
The first major critique in the management of the NBA and the bar in general, is the overarching influence of a coterie of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, whose appointments are done through secret “soundings” of senior members of the bar. The rank of SAN is modelled on that of the UK’s “Queen’s Counsel” or QC for short. It is a recognition for excellence which, unfortunately, has morphed into influence peddling over time in both jurisdictions. Incidentally, the award of Senior Advocate of Ghana (SAG) was ruled illegal and unconstitutional in 1992 in: Ward-Brew v Ghana Bar Association (1993-94) 2 GLR 439. A similar technical challenge may soon be required to achieve the same objective here in Nigeria. The rear guard attempt to re-instate honour peddling into the Ghanaian judiciary has been snuffed out by the rank and file time after time since the landmark ruling. There is a continuing debate even in the UK over the propriety of the award and its retention in the modern age. Let us face it, the judiciary prides itself in “equality before the law” on the one hand, then, on the other hand, (and with a nod to George Orwell), says ah, but, some are more equal than others. It skews the playing field in favour of the recipient of the title as it gives him preferment in judicial matters. For others, still, it is a licence to print money given the astronomical figures the select few with the title SAN can subsequently command in the market, in many cases, quite at variance with their natural talent and ability.
What this is really saying is that there are many ways of recognising a person of distinction within the judiciary; conferring them with a privileged access to justice is not and should not be one of them. If indeed the SANs are so good, and excellent in what they do (admittedly some are), it is for their clients and the community they serve to proclaim them. Exceptional lawyers are known by dint of their work for their clients and the community they serve, they do not need the mystification of the title “SAN” to prove their worth. Furthermore, selective award of “SAN” is an anachronism, which adds little value either to justice or the legal profession. The title does absolutely nothing to promote the rule of law. On the contrary, it tends to promote the cult of personality, and with allegations of money and other gratifications changing hands during the screening process, it runs the risk of becoming a legally sanctioned racket. Consequently, campaign to eviscerate this odious symbol of class division amongst Nigerian lawyers ought to be stepped up. In my mind, it is not a question of if, but when it will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
END
Be the first to comment