Reports that the Oyo State government has just created an agency for the enforcement of the rule of law sounded strange to me because I could not appreciate how a subnational entity can successfully implement an assignment that is essentially federal. Although I am aware that some states often maintained federal roads in their states and occasionally got reimbursed by the federal government, I was unsure of the applicability of such to the implementation of a contentious subject like the rule of law. Would it not lead to clashes between federal officials and those of the state concerned? Due to the boring details of the reports, I called an old schoolmate in Ibadan to get a better brief on the subject.
Whereas my friend, Bisi, had himself not heard of the proposed rule of law agency, he believed that it was a credible story having been credited to the Ibadan-based Oyo state government which could decide to be innovative like its predecessor of the first republic. For the next 20 minutes, Bisi kept talking about the glorious days of the defunct Western Region which led the rest of Nigeria in establishing several structures such as the first television station in Africa that others struggled hard to emulate. He pleaded with me passionately not to doubt the capability of the Oyo state government because it was operating from the same ‘charismatic location’ designed by the legendary Obafemi Awolowo.
Realising that my friend and I were obviously not on the same page, I ended the discussion and went back to other media reports to get a more realistic information on the rule of law story from Ibadan. Alas, the type of rule of law in focus in Oyo state concerns those relating to health and environmental standards and road traffic safety etc. for which Governor Seyi Makinde had signed into law a bill for the establishment of an Enforcement Authority. Indeed, Makinde had earlier authorised previous rules on the protection of mining communities as well as safe handling and storage of harmful substances in his state.
While there is merit in the decision of the Makinde-led government to prioritize the enforcement of state laws on environmental protection, sanitation and waste control as well as road traffic, open rearing and grazing regulation etc., two immediate questions standout. First, why are these laws the only ones that deserve to be emphasized when the rule of law presupposes that all things ought to be done according to law? In other words, if the agency is not mandated to deal with breaches of other laws, we are just bothering about the rule of some laws instead of all laws. In addition, it is an open secret that some people are visibly more privileged and better positioned whereas ideally, everyone is supposed to be equal before the law.
In fact, equality before the law is a global concept which Nigeria should not find difficult to embrace. As Bracton, the 13th-century British scholar and jurist once explained, everyone including the King is under the rule of law because ‘it is the law that made him King.’ Oyo state fully appreciates this hence at the inauguration of its relevant agency last week, the governor said “the rule of law as we know is the cornerstone of any functioning society as it ensures that everyone, regardless of status, wealth or background is held to the same standard and that justice is administered fairly and impartially.”
But, if the Oyo State Agency ensures that some citizens are sanctioned for breaching the specific laws that it was set up to handle while others are neither questioned nor sanctioned for the same breaches, the Agency is probably here to intensify Nigeria’s legal dilemma. One is really tempted to believe that the prioritization of the implementation of certain laws such as those on environmental sanitation or traffic will only embolden corrupt law enforcement officials to further extort funds from citizens. That notwithstanding, the approach adopted by Oyo state is still better than that of any other state where no effort is made to implement any law whatsoever.
If doing all things according to the law is precisely what the rule of law stands for, Nigeria can hardly be defined as under the rule of law. For example, citizens are supposed to be arrested for only offences known to the law, yet quite often, people are arrested for being allegedly rude to some big personalities. Even if waving another country’s flag is embarrassing, there is no law prohibiting the act. If so, what offence would those arrested for it last week be said to have committed? Again, no citizen is allowed to be detained for more than 48 hours; yet, the Nigerian prisons, now described as correctional centres are overpopulated because of a large number of suspects that are detained ad infinitum without trial.
Nigerian rulers hardly make rules or even policies that can enable every citizen to be equal before the law. For instance, although a salutary policy of assisting the elderly in our society with some stipends was surprisingly initiated some years back in Ekiti state, it did not last. But then, such elders could never have been described as equal to those in other states where such policy never existed. In every state of the federation, taxation and building rules as well as development projects in urban centres are not same as those of the rural areas. In the circumstance, does it make sense to say that Nigerian rules/laws are intended to make everyone equal?
Another aspect of the rule of law that is hardly adhered to is that which prohibits arbitrary amendments to laws. Whereas the constitution specifically puts security of the citizenry as one of the two-sided primary purpose of government, the immediate past government of President Muhammadu Buhari did not only insisted that security was the business of everybody but actually asked Nigerians to rely on self-help thereby changing the law without an amendment in line with the due process of law. On its part, the police force which is the primary agency in Nigeria that is saddled with the implementation of the provisions of the law, often change some laws while implementing them.
Nigerians are legally entitled to use protests to ventilate their grievances as it is in a typical democracy, but quite often, the police hold on to either their own predisposition or to some obsolete laws thereby technically amending the relevant provisions of the Nigerian constitution. A good example is the inclination of the police to continue to abide by the repealed Public Order Act of 1979 which required anyone seeking to carry out any protest to first apply and obtain a police permit.
Last Wednesday’s invasion of the national office of the Nigerian Labour Congress NLC by armed policemen has been condemned by a large number of Nigerians. To start with, many frown at the fact that the event took place at night. We now know however that although some of the armed men were not in uniform, the Department of State Services, DSS, did not participate in the alleged invasion. The Police have already confirmed that the operation was the handiwork of their operatives adding that their only target was a foreign crime suspect that they had traced to a shop within the Labour House.
Luckily, the nation was for once not emotionally assaulted by anyone calling the armed operatives, ‘unknown gunmen.’ It is rather unfortunate that in a country supposedly under the rule of law, nothing has been said about the allegation that the invasion was without a court warrant approving the operation. That is the aspect of the rule of law that worries more people than the establishment of an Authority to ensure the implementation of sanitation and traffic laws that exacerbate traffic hold-ups and corruption.
Accordingly, the Nigerian government should prioritize the implementation of the rule of law which ensures the supremacy of law; equality of all citizens before the law; and the amendment of every law only through the due process of law. Oyo state in particular, should keep to the posture of Governor Makinde who has proven to be a true democrat and never return to the style of his predecessor who demolished a radio house because its proprietor could not be cowed into a pro-government journalist.
