We are animals. Man in all his glory and by whatever means he came into being, whether through the divine biblical account of creation or the evolutionary process as articulated by Darwin, has ended up with the biological characteristics of animals. Biologically, there are no material differences between a human being and, say, an ape, a chimpanzee or even an antelope. From a purely scientific point of view, it would appear that whatever brought humans into existence must have used the same design materials for other animal species as almost all the organs that constitute humans are almost replicated in all the other animals. It could be further said that the perpetuation of the various species followed the same binary order of male and female which makes the creative engineering similarities of almost all living things quite unique.
The only noticeable difference between us and the rest of our animal cousins is the endowment of a special brain which enables us to think far better as well as the development of a very sophisticated set of social instinct of being gregarious. This peculiar quality of being able to think and beneficially rationalise our situations gives man the unique quality of a homo sapien, the thinking animal, while our gregarious instinct has always pushed us to live together, as a social animal, first as family, then as kindreds, later in community and much later into much complex societies with diverse and peculiar attributes thereby gaining the synergy of living together for better security, prosperity and communal identity.
By necessity, man established laws to regulate relationships within the society in view of the ever-increasing instances of clashes of interests. The law became the regulator of human activities on a neutral basis so that no one would feel he is under the domination of the other. Our acquisitive and proprietary instincts compelled us to claim ownership of properties, conjugal exclusivity and general privacy, something that would have been quite unnecessary if individuals lived solitarily in social islands. With increasing population comes competition for almost everything and those struggles have to be civilly regulated, so, we invented law as an “instrument for social engineering”.
Finally, our expanding social ability enabled us to grow out of the nasty and brutish “State of Nature” where life was reputedly short through the mechanism of a “Social Contract” – all with a view to creating a sophisticated human society with a powerful government in place charged with the responsibility of taking care of the organisational needs of the fast growing human population but with the proviso that the People reserve the right to always call the government to order whenever it derails from it fundamental duties to them.
With time, it was discovered that man is very tyrannous by nature and the magisterial powers supposedly given to the government could be easily abused if not checked in spite of the advent of democracy. To ensure that this agreement is observed without exception, people like A V Dicey thought that there should be a governing super-norm called the Rule of Law. Under it, every person would be equal before the law. If the society agrees that a particular action or omission is forbidden, it should be forbidden to both the poor and the rich alike. To ensure fair enforcement, all legal disputes shall always be resolved by an impartial judge whose decision shall be binding on all, including the Judge himself.
It was thought that it would be safer for the society that government functions be separated amongst different organs in such a way that one form of power would be a check on the others. People found great merit in this prescription and subsequently adopted it as the universal model for democratic governments. Institutionally, these are known as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary and they are designated as “co-equal”, inter se, to the extent that they all have areas of operation where they enjoy special prerogatives to the exclusion of the others.
The progressive sophistication of Man eventually led him to create the modern State, the highest form of human organisation so far evented and which has become the dominant scheme for the organisation of human beings both jurisdictionally and territorially in modern times. Specifically, Nigeria fulfilled all the requirements of modern statehood on 1st of October, 1960 and it was structured as an independent federal State with separate legal status in the comity of nations duly equipped with a government, a population and a defined territory over which it exercises sovereignty to the exclusion of all other nations under International Law.
The understanding is that the new State of Nigeria, like all other progressive and successful nations of the world would be governed along the lines of the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers. Unfortunately, time and time again, it is as if Nigerians do not fully appreciate the utility of these basic concepts and this failure has led to enormous instabilities and failures in the polity which then appears to question the fundamental ability of Nigerians to operate the system of modern societal management. All political experiments that have worked elsewhere are wobbling terribly in Nigeria: The Legislature is not doing well; the Executive is incompetent and the Judiciary is mired in corruption – all leading to woeful performances in governance.
We proclaim that we subscribe to the Rule of Law but in reality, we are not prepared to accept the inevitable consequences of that rule, namely, that no one is above the law, as we continue to make destructive exceptions to individuals of means, fraternity and power. The instant case of the Chief Justice Onnoghen is a remarkable pointer. From all that we have been able to gather so far, those complaining about the degrading treatment being meted out to him do not seem to be bothered about the fact of the weighty allegations but are enthusiastically engrossed with the “manner and procedures” of the process without thinking about how it affects the overall wellbeing of the nation. I think they ought to be able to separate the procedural aspects of the saga from the substantive ones for the sake of Social Justice.
Failure to do so is needlessly underming the legitimacy of the protestations, for and against. On the whole, the government must offer clear and irrefutable explanations for its actions, at least, for political reasons. Grandstanding and flexing of muscles do not sit well with the prescriptions of the Rule of Law. They are more in the realm of self-help and jungle justice. Promoting chaos in the guise for promoting the Rule of Law is ultimately self-destructive. We are unwittingly undermining the capacity of the Nigerian State to ever benefit from the progress of Mankind that has separated us from the lower animals, namely, the capacity to reason and manage a society that is built around the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in a democratic setting if naked self-interests and “reckless power show” continue to dictate our public actions as against that of the nation as a whole.
My considered take is that we have not yet fully assimilated the idea that Nigeria is the State that we all have to promote its health and viability by ways of allegiance and patriotism. People are still hoping for their ideal Nigeria to come and replace what we have now. But how? The needless hullabaloo that are being fiendishly orchestrated and propagated by partisan politicians should never becloud our ability to reason clearly like homo sapiens as there is very little truth in all that we are hearing.
END
Be the first to comment