|
Friday, August 20, 2004
Like the spirit behind the federalist papers, Kingsley Macebuh embarks on an analytical voyage of the Nigerian state and its practice of the federal system as a means of achieving co-existence and development among the various nations states which gave birth to the Nigerian nation. He takes the structures of Nigeria’s federal system and explains that what obtains is far from epitomising the letters and spirit of true federalism.
To begin with, this work gives prompt notice that it takes no prisoner, as it has no holding pen for one. It rather is motivated of offering correctional services to the guilt’s sociological soul. The work further declares that it shall harbor no ‘sacred cow!’ So, by this disposition and the paper’s republican confidence in and of its theoretical authority, it is possible that some faction or fraction of Nigerian society might by sentiment not favorably be disposed to some duly considered holdings of this paper. Well, it is to the extent that this work is on premeditated mission of roiling various decrepit reposes superintending prevailing affairs of State that ossified sentimentalist prejudices of self-anointed praetorian guards of the State might be unleashed against some of its reaching.
If so, too bad. It just is federally intolerable of prevailing wind of some houses of privilege in the Polity projecting albeit illegitimate image of having attained zenith of knowledge and learning, of which there could be no acceptable suggestion for prudential correction! Some of these houses are fond of ever-celebratory mood of ‘achievement’ or ‘success’ and awarding their cult, if not occult, members with halos and badges of ‘honor’, even while nothing, really, societal, is found on ground for all the salivating.
All ills of the Society are laid on doorstep of government and leadership, as if members of government are evil aliens from some netherworld! They are, after all, and unmistakably, Nigerian! The ‘democracy’ vogue, for ‘solution’ of rampaging problems of the Society, is ‘sovereign national conference’! This is as if it is not ‘the people(s)’ of Nigeria, of atomized sociological history of conflicts and given to anthropomorphic conscientization in the managing of their politics gripped in polytheism of church, mosque and shrine that would emerge as superintendents of the presumptive post-conference ‘true federalism!’ ‘True federalism’ may not arrive, after all.
There is game theoretic purview of extant strategic moves for accommodation of the scenario of worst-case outcome of pre-2008 tactical ‘national conference’, honed and guided toward strategic failure, for atomization with consequent balkanization of the existing ‘Federal’ State, to the ever-nostalgic parapo republic, among others. All these and more crystallize to The Nigeria Problem, which needs proficient and logic-dictated consortium of, as against fraction-based sentimental, solution from all. It is high time all the anomie-producing/sustaining cesspools of bankrupt orthodoxy, of no value to the adverted modern state, but waxing foolishly in domain of the Russellian “farrago of nonsense,” were challenged and, although more of wishful thinking, disposed of into appropriate dustbins. The palpably checkered global New Dawn, of which Nigeria is part, demands fitting operational eclectic Spirit.
The State, by its Touted Learned Class
There could be existentialist grounds, as Jean Paul Sarte’s Being and Nothingness, among others, proffers, giving that oomph of support for America’s perennial hemispheric drives for favorable accommodation of its rather rascally cosmogony, that is, of its rampaging and irrepressible - and irascible - ways. Whether or not there is favorable global accommodation of the American effort and under what condition, I am not, humbly, however, willing, for now, to dispense with my reservations against beguiling post Cold War unipolar saber rattling of the United States toward compulsive absorption of the rest of us (Chinweizu) into vortex of its ever-shifting totem pole.
The preceding cryptic but sincerely altruistic position aside, I do, necessarily, and without prejudice to some of America’s ways of doing things, extend due deference to sociological and heightened econometric values of its horizontal cross-disciplinary approach to institutional education and learning. The horizontal approach to education is geared toward equipping the learning person with cross-disciplinary variables of analysis and serves as veritable tool toward subject specialization. This American approach, an essential tool of its jealously guarded domestic econometric power of productive capacity of the individual in the economy and extraterritorial ways of doing things, invariably is contradistinguished from Nigeria’s ahorizontal education acculturation, bequeathed it by moribund historical ties to London.
Giving, then, due deference to horizontal format of institutional education, in cognizance of its optimal value to equipping of the individual with broad spectrum in the pursuit and acquiring of knowledge, for ultimate benefit to general society, I will attempt to give the following material cross-disciplinary and thus horizontal approach. I will pursue this scheme by merging primary values of theoretical politics and philosophical logic of law and jurisprudence, to drive home federalist scheme that essentially is object of this material.
This cross-disciplinary approach is, I believe, necessary in attempt to calling for institutional bridging of the disturbing behavioral gulf with its attending dysfunction in the application, practice and operation of English Parliamentary praxis in concertedly adverted ‘federal’ presidential-bicameral canvas of Nigeria. United Kingdom is not a federation and never had been. English legal and political custom and tradition, both by statute and at common law, which form the central nervous system of English Parliamentary praxis, cannot successfully cohere, in theory and practice, no matter the engineering, with invariably isolationist although ‘coordinate’ separation of power platform of presidential-bicameral federal praxis. This inherent cleavage is the root cause of Nigeria’s operating governmental fissures. Congress and White House, or National Assembly and Aso Rock (State House) cannot cohere, in law and in fact; they cannot share bed, as one is, by theoretical and philosophical polarity, repulsive of the other.
In consequence of the above, the detectable subterranean actions as driven respectively by pecuniary and egotistical configurations of select actors of the legislative and executive branches of government, ‘state’ and federal, are procedurally atomistic and will not produce any veritably sustainable presidential-bicameral culture with clear-cut operation of separation of powers. Conflation of centuries-old governmental praxis of non-federal English Parliamentary life, of no written constitution, and Nigeria’s here-and-there and flaky presidential-bicameral ‘federal’ conceit dominates operational fissures of governance in the federation. And, collaterally, the country’s vertical structures of tertiary and professional legal education significantly aggravate illogical by sentimental approach to social-political and economic reasoning with less than optimal output to relevant investment. Even the beehive of but atheological tantrums of preposterous religiosity in the Land is far more culpable for the identifiable multi-prong fissures. All this is productive of everyday semantic malapplications to specialized matters, not excluding tautologies and circumlocution of the media and new bar.
On Nigeria print media, what obtains needs plenty of improvement. Here, there appears to be a sport of bad writing of bad English of many a Nigerian newspaper. Many a sentence is not coordinated, as to whether or not it is written in the present or past tense and often with its beginning in the middle or end, thereby littering the writing with unnecessary ambiguity and confusion. Adequate attention is not given to good editing of news reports before release to the public. There is profundity of opinion of the ‘reporter,’ than what the ‘report’ actually is.
The ‘reporter’ knowingly or unknowingly becomes but unprepared ‘politician!’ The ‘reporter’ becomes intensely opinionated, championing, through abusive use of privilege of access to pages of the newspaper of his employment, cause of some ‘idiotocrat’ that masquerades as ‘politician’ and saddles some public office, mostly for brazen thieving of public resources! Even general editor or of a particular column of the paper and or his superiors project quite often conflict of interest, which tends to compromise expected journalistic integrity and consequently projecting public presumption of being, even when it is not true, on the take of the idiotocrat! Media houses may need to discourage entertaining politically motivated visiting by public officials.
There is nothing unusual public officials need to personally and privately explain to media houses that publicly supported press offices of, e.g., a Senate President or Speaker of the House of Representatives or legislative colleagues could not relay to the public. Executive officials of government ought to stay within their domain of appointment and discharge respective duties honestly without hobnobbing with media houses and in the process oozing appearance of taint, to executive favor, of otherwise altruistic media view or opinion of government.
If public officials do discharge honest services, the media, no matter political bent or coloration of the subject media house, would find out and give due public regard therefor. The numerous media houses, print and electronic, could not all be biased at the same time against the administration of government. Prevailing practices of regaled and paid profuse reporting of media house visiting by senior political officials of government, federal, state and local, a la Mansa Musa-type royal trips carrying and using along much of the wealth of a primordial government of Africa, is idiotocratic. The Mansa Musa primitive rubbish of royal largesse was precursor to contemporary African mess. The seeming anthropological tumor of official waste of public resources is neither democratic nor republican behavior symmetric to adverted transparent governance.
I must, however, concede with humility that since over two decades of grappling with academics of politics and having come across innumerable volumes of works in behavioral science in pursuit of knowledge in the field, I never came across general conception or academic conceptualization of the term, idiotocracy. My prior non-exposure to matters of idiotocracy could have resulted from having been shielded over the years from environmental exposure to idiotocratic polity, as being postulated by Ikhariale. On public presentation, of first impression, to my knowledge, Mike Ikhariale, on Idiotocracy, Nigeria’s Daily Independent newspaper C5; May 26, 2004 propounds, rather cynically, the new conception or, perhaps, doctrine. As allegory to President Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg speech on democracy, as government of the people, by the people and for the people, Ikhariale conceptualizes idiotocracy as “government of idiots, by idiots and for idiots.” Hmm! This is new! This apt representation of general governance of Nigeria, according to Ikhariale, reflects the rather inelegant public outburst of Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo on perceived ‘impudence’ and ‘on presidential face’ by a regional leader of a religious association.
To which the President reportedly fired, “You’re an idiot! Just as quickly as he was informed by aides that the ‘impudent’ individual was the local leader of the Christian Association of Nigeria, the President fired another staccato, “CAN my foot!” That was some ‘presidential’ no-nonsense performance! In giving due regard to materiality of idiotocracy as a typological but cynical conception of governance, it is my impression it would not be mere jobbery if one henceforth attempted to contribute to finding whether or not the behavioral concept was verifiable for theoretical integrity, for, as far as Nigeria was concerned, systemic operationalization. Before engaging on the future verification, however, one may be allowed a quip, in cursory aid to Ikhariale’s insight. Democracy, as “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” does not, after all, distinguish whether or not ‘the people’ are numerously idiots and thus idiotocrats, by their idiopolitics and ideonomics, which reflect the nature of their governance, for which they need not complain! Unless to the extent that their leaders are not transparent in their idiotological statecraft!
It therefore seems to me, in connection to the preceding points, and by studious observation, that a class of the Nigerian bar, the new bar, I call it, of suspect neo-liberal or, perhaps, culture and tradition skinhead, bent, is crusading to enwrapping the polity with phenomenal tyranny of monolithic although presumptive ‘learned’ opinion. This is presumably considered by the new bar as ‘politically correct’ new wave of thought. This new wave thinking, a muckraking variant of hip hop veneer, is pursued on arrogation and appropriation to self, if not expropriation, of repose of others, through deception, by the self-adulating class, which presents self as representative of the disputable ‘learned profession.’ Personally, I neither see nor read much of anything ‘learned’ in the numerous media pronouncements of this marauding class, as much of its ‘new thought’ is porous of serious theoretic and or philosophic introspection.
What I read much of in the print media by this class is the seemingly peremptory abduction of space, either for deliberate or unknowing confusion of the uninitiated and untutored among vertically educated and impressionable literati of both the media and popolo. Space, which ordinarily ought to be left free for learned exegesis of federal discourse, for growth of the arguably chosen presidential-bicameral order. Only in the land of the blind is one-eyed king! But Nigeria is, certainly, not land of the blind! Asleep, may be! So, the Nigerian lawyer, barrister or solicitor, particularly the practicing political partisan, of the newspaper genre, is pleaded with herein to imbibe and extend open mind to cross-disciplinary discourses of theories and philosophies of politics and law of presidential-bicameral federal praxis. This praxis contrasts politics, law and jurisprudence of non-federal parliamentary praxis of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Wales with its ‘Commonwealth’ tentacles, to which Nigeria’s vertical educational schema are hooked.
Illustrating the point, above, this class of the bar in issue readily and unabashedly determines as ‘demented’ a judicial judgment it apparently does not like, such as that of Justice Stanley Nnaji of High Court of Enugu State, or the related Court of Appeals interim ‘status quo’ ruling on Ngige. The class does so, brazenly, against interpretation of the federal attorney general, for benefit of Nigeria Police instrumentality, that the Court of Appeals’ ‘status quo ante’ ruling does not vitiate pre-existing withdrawal of police security apparatus to the putative governor. The Attorney General issues legal opinion of his office to the effect that the withdrawal of police security in controversy is ‘ante’ to or already effected prior to the ruling and is therefore inclusive and thus, contextually, protected by the status quo ante ruling.
The class goes banana to the attorney general’s construction. It is my duly considered academic conviction, as I had, without prejudice to any person, critically indicated in my earlier writing on this Ngige matter, that the putative governor’s hold to the office is tenuous. This is to the extent that there is subsisting final judgment of a High Court that Ngige is not, as at the time of issuance of the judgment, constitutional governor, but unlawfully ‘installed’ or ‘reinstalled’ to constitutional office by the police after his ‘resignation.’ It is tenuous in addition to the fact that his prior ‘election’ with the taking of oath of office consequent to the ‘election’ is challenged in the electoral tribunal. Ngige is, therefore, a person, as any other, who crosses state line, which is subject to federal commerce power, from Anambra State to Enugu State, and commits a tort under false pretences as governor of a state. He, thereafter, under same false pretences, leaves or flees jurisdiction of the tort. He subsequently is charged and found guilty by a High Court, in absentia. Upon all this, a court of competent jurisdiction could on appropriate process of tort action reach the tortfeasor across state line, in another state.
The solicitor-partisan had neither seen nor read the high court judgment; nor the consequent interim ruling of stay of execution of judgment before lapping on it, as admitted later upon professional criticism of the conduct! He/she harps on such judgment, and interim ruling, based purely on their media redaction.
The solicitor-partisan then concludes, in public, without regard to professional ethic, that the judgment could only have been issued by some ‘demented mind,’ simply because the judgment did not fit his or her concept of the ‘constitutional,’ ‘statehood,’ or other. The Police Department invites into its offices a deputy governor, to question alleged police finding of catch of weapons in the deputy governor’s convoy; catch that is unrelated to police provision for his security on federal highway. Or even on any other road of police jurisdiction, in the midst of pre-election criminal disorders all around the federation! The solicitor-partisan goes, as usual, bellicose, spitting fire: “Deputy Governor is ‘arrested!” It is unconstitutional! Unconstitutional! Wah wah wah! It is the subject of concept of the constitutional that informs the basis of part two of this work.
The solicitor-partisan would not mind hounding chief justice, seeking and securing partisan interview, which, in my view, would be improperly granted and touching on case or controversy making its way to the Supreme Court where the chief justice would likely preside, assuming the case was not already subjudice. This behavior of the solicitor-partisan, being raised to height of causing the threatening, actual dismissal or premature retirement of a member of the bench, for ‘non-conformity’ to what appears to presage prescription for neo-fascist jurisprudence, hems in new tyranny. This present danger, although not apparent to all at the moment, is similar to prescriptive values of that other marauding ‘indecent dressing’ crusade of Church and Mosque.
Just check this out, as the American would say! Chief Judge of Cross River State is alleged to have ordered all unmarried female magistrates in Cross River State to effect marriage within the next two years or face loss of job as magistrate. But the order is not by the allegation extended to unmarried male magistrates! Marriage for public employment! Equally, many a Nigerian ‘university’, in consort with associated ‘mainstream’ voices in the public are enthralled with passing gender-specific ordinances against what authorities of a concerned university term ‘indecent dressing’ on campus. If the concerned voices succeeded, they would extend their ‘campus territory’ to include its environs and later, the federation.
All this ‘legislating’ is directed, of course, against women, which is reflective of cultural milieu of the society. Yet not a few among Nigeria’s ‘indecent dressing’ crusaders claim to be practitioners and champions of amplitude of macroeconomic forces of private sector market, which by contemporaneous dialectics of extraterritorial nature of the market is indisputably inapposite to regurgitated medieval chauvinism of generality of the Nigerian male. Nigerians always eat their cake and want to have it, too! It is more than likely that the ‘indecent dressing’ crusaders are afraid of impending visitation of ‘havoc’ to their monistic ego. The crusade is subterfuge to the realization that Talibanic imprisoning by culture of freedom of the female spirit is threatened and prospectively programmed of resolute crash, by ‘market forces’ overthrow of its nostalgia for retention in the adverted democratic setting of state of covature of the married woman.
By the emphasis on ‘indecent dressing’, the crusading against it on ‘university campus’, targeted mainly against the adolescent female is just temporary metaphor for prospective extension of implicit state of covature of the married woman to the general female gender. It would not matter location or station of the ‘indecent dresser’ in Nigerian society. But there is likelihood it would not happen, notwithstanding all the seeming intellectual veil of the crusade, which sentimentally is restless of blitzkrieg of extraterritorial effect of the touted ‘market forces’ of globalization. All this explains the generally sentimental or religious grounds underlying the pervading extant jobbery of ‘indecent dressing’ concern, as against concerted concentrating of energy toward efforts to mediating seas of economic and political anomie of the polity.
Of all editorial opinions of media houses, among other ‘eminent voices’ that formally have broached the ‘indecent dressing’ issue, there has been no effort at situating the subject, if it is worth one, on the adverted macroeconomic objective of the Nigerian economy. It is contextual that there is or could be presumptive ‘sexual psychological effect’ of distraction to male teaching and learning by female ‘indecent dressing’ on university campus and classroom. But there is, so far, by the crusaders, no quantifiable empirical foundation of any academic research sustaining the pervading presumption or claim of the ‘psychological effect’. It essentially is sentimental, emotional and prophylactic. Just as most things Nigerian, it is sufficient as groundswell for public policy that ‘mainstream’ ‘privileged ones’ or ‘authorities’ feel or say so. It fundamentally, however, reflects genuflection of cultural society caught in between known environments of repose and sweeping dynamics of extraterritoriality of concededly noxious ‘globalization’. As such, there may be no successful cohabitation of deep-seethed repose of cultural prescriptions of adolescent behavior and extraterritorial templates of globalization as affecting ‘federal’ Third World polity under expediency of economic retooling.
On federal and constitutional grounds, ‘indecent dressing’ ban on public university campus or such other property may not be sustainable of property interest attack. In Macebuh, Removing Prejudice in Republican Democracy, VANGUARD (Nigeria) January 20 - 22, 2004, case is made of regard to federal power of interstate and foreign commerce as on right of lawful ownership and consummation of property interest in material presumed subject to ‘indecent dressing’ ban on campus of tertiary institution. A constitutional right of lawful participation in interstate and or foreign commerce, in the use on federal property by adult university student of dressing material procured in interstate or foreign commerce, may not be abridged where it is not shown state, governmental or overall university objective could otherwise not be attained absent the abridgement. “To produce in commerce implies to sell; that implies to buy, which implies to consume.” “Congress or National Assembly has power not only to authorize but to authorize the importer to sell and the buyer to consume.”
On the ‘indecent dressing’ brouhaha, a case substantive under any article of the Constitution of Nigeria has not been made to justify and sustain the ban. Claim by university authorities and others that ‘indecent dressing’ on campus stifles learning is unsubstantiated and thus sentimental. A case could equally be made to the contrary. Where a student is not prohibited from carrying to but restrained from using by wearing on campus material procured in interstate or foreign commerce, to which tertiary ‘learning spirit’ may be claimed by the wearer to therapeutically be tied, the prohibition may in such a case stifle learning. This by implication may derogate from attaining the main objective of creating and sanitizing commensurate atmosphere for learning, in addition to its adverse effect on interstate or foreign commerce from which the campus-prohibited material is procured and carried to the campus for use. By nexus, it could also have adverse effect on the economy.
As related to all this, Governor Atahiru Bafarawa of Sokoto State is alleged to have issued a directive, to the effect that all female federal youth corps members posted to Sokoto State, even while within their federal enclaves, their camps, are to ‘dress’ ‘decently,’ according to the state’s prescription. Federal agents in a ‘state’ directed in their federal duties by state whim! Fellow-traveling with preceding concerns, there was a publication on Thursday June 10, 2004, in the law section of Nigeria’s Daily Independent newspaper, of proposed, if not already executed, but dispositively antediluvian, requirement by ‘learned’ ones of Nigerian Bar Association.
The Association authorizes debarring of its defaulting members from court practice for nonpayment of the Association’s membership fees. The organization even appropriates to self the temerity of commandeering of judicial officers to perform ‘duty’ of ascertaining, in court, proof of payment of the fees before a member - who as legal practitioner is ‘required’ to be a member thereof - can practice in the court. Similar to points of concern raised by the newspaper essay, when did judicial officers, as public officers, of public employment, who as members, also, become public agents of the private association? Or was the association extra-constitutional police of the state, or a co-ordinate branch of government? In the recent past, the association had even postured as ‘prosecutor-general’ of murder cases of interest, for example, murder case of the Igwe couple of Governor Mbadinuju’s Anambra State, or that solution to the case needed to proceed in a particular way as it prescribed.
What is going on in Nigeria! Is this new ‘democracy’ exchanging gulag of the yet unspent jackboot throes for one of the ‘learned’? To whom or on what will the next gulag bell toll! Did Nigeria’s purportedly ‘defunct’ militarism, as pervasively hazardous as it, for sure, was, exhibit similar fascist tendencies, even by it, the uncouth? Prevailing ‘learned’ caprice suborns federal standard, constituting new danger. Many a judge is hamstrung, judicially, for fear of loss of lifelong professional investment and livelihood of self and family, in conducting independent inquiry from intellectual and scholarly sources, or of the one’s free thought, with outcome of free judicial insight, even where the result were ‘bizarre!’ A daring judge ought to be able to call bluff of the revisionist class of the bar and its suspect Marxian ‘common man’ allies and think free, judicially, to enrich and sanitize military-induced bankrupt, antiquated and anachronistic jurisprudence, of no federal value to the adverted presidential-bicameral republican statecraft.
It is federally questionable of sociological value, and, critically, competence of legal ‘scholarship’ of a ‘learned’ class, which finds itself in symbiotic defense of bench that adjudicates ‘federalism’ by jurisprudence that is porous of availability of defense of statute of limitations, a libertarian fundamental of federal bill of rights. Nigeria’s presumption of ‘bill of rights’ is as envisaged by the Constitution’s Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, Sections 13-24, but justiciable for enforcement by appropriate legislation. By the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles, which, more or less, is corollary to the international human rights justice principle, it thus is curious as to how and why Nigeria’s new Economic and Financial Crimes legislation, a criminal statute, for example, can be and is retrospective and thus ex post facto to conduct or omission antecedent to the legislation.
And even where the legislation were prospective, an alleged offense antecedent to the legislation might be non-prosecutable on merit, by possibility of several defenses of estoppel. Furthermore, even where presumptive constitutional value were embedded in the retrospective legislation, there was, still, absence of statute of limitation, in light of possibility of defense of estoppel, as to larches, staleness, failure to prosecute, etc, to prosecutorial power and competence over possible offence in issue. Where an accused is found not to have willfully eluded prosecution promptly initiated by the government upon its discovery of the alleged offense, defense of estoppel by larches, staleness of case, loss of witnesses, or governmental failure to prosecute, etc. may be triggered.
And the proof of discovery by the prosecuting authority of the alleged offense or crime need be within constitutionally permissible time bar. This may arise under appropriate libertarian consideration, such as availability of assistance of counsel, rule of lenity in favor of the defendant, in forma pauperis principle (provision for right of indigent in court to press and prosecute his claims), right of silence against self-incrimination under presumption of innocence, etc. These libertarian provisions are necessary and proper, protecting the accused from adverse effect of coercive powers of government. Boyd v United States, 116 US 616 (1886). A judge ought not to be rendered donkey of the bar! Or, for that matter, of the ‘democratized’ ‘Marxian’ crusaders who, as history always shows, claim to protect everything but interest of the peasants, the Machiavelli’s popolo, of The Prince!
The new ‘moralist’ fervor of sudden occupational interest of the subject class of the bar, of fighting to ‘protecting’ or laundering ‘image’ of not long ago questioned ‘halo’ of Nigeria’s bench, flagbearer of or successor to ‘2/3 of 19 states’ and ‘June 12’ jurisprudence, is suspect. Why is the new interest of this class of the bar not directed similarly toward laundering or protecting ‘image’ of the legislature and or executive, coordinate brethren of the judiciary! Is it because Nigerian judges are also members of the bar! After all, there are quite many an official of these political branches of government who also is a member of the bar, just as in every other industry and occupation!
And, what is so good or ‘anything to write home about’ of the Nigeria bar, of the class in issue, here, any way! Occasionally, I run into and hold conversations with senior students of law of Nigerian universities and the Law School. In impromptu give and take, I often find it hard to comprehend that they are not exposed to in-depth undergraduate work of Politics of Aristotle, or existentialist pointers of Jean Paul Sarte’s Being and Nothingness, or philosophical works of law and religion of Thucydides or Kierkegaard! Even on humanist gripping of Karl Popper’s Humanism and Terror, or the like, Western, Eastern, or even of African monism, or not! Yet they are to be Senior Advocates of Nigeria, of tomorrow, to be called to assert or defend cases or controversies of federalist jurisprudence! Hmm!
Oh, yes, it is not far-fetched that Negritude nostalgia might be raised to casting but sentimental or emotional aspersion, perhaps, with vehement accusation of ‘appearance,’ if not ‘factual’ ‘promoting,’ of Western emphasis as source or test and proof of knowledge! Assumption of such denigrating position would be false and wrong. While the locus standing, if any, supporting the ‘promoting’ claim is certainly slippery, as it is not the case, such sentimentalist protectionism in ‘defense’ of Negritude or Africanism, which had served its usefulness when it was necessary and proper, would humbly be duly considered and appreciated.
Even where the ‘defense’ is accommodated, it is considered a ploy to shielding outcome of naked shortcomings in appreciation of dynamics of contemporary world. Because it is not disputable, at least where reason and logic are allowed to prevail, that source and history of practice of Nigerian jurisprudence is not, empirically, Africanist or Negritude-controlling, but dispositively English with Victorian hubris of wig-wearing court practice, etc. So, I would maintain that as long as Western, that is, in this case, English, connection to Nigerian jurisprudence lasted, erudition in philosophical roots of the borrowed and now pervasively captive jurisprudence would not be wished away by glaring aberrations. Convenient refuge in transmogrifying calls for logical reasoning, as representation of oppositionist or adversarial literature, would neither lead nor positively contribute to solving The Nigeria Problem.
Proficient training in techniques of filing process papers in court and or standing before judge or magistrate and defeating opposing party through court technicality, although an essential occupational asset to such battle, does not vest ‘learned’ halo on that practitioner. This does not, in my view, comport with educated expectation of the ‘learned’ of the ‘learned profession.’ ‘Learned’ halo calls for more. There ought to be profound changes in national emphases and priorities. Because the schools with their new products are not, really, learned, after all. It is mere hoi poloi chattering of the Charles Dickensian dismissive stroke of “smattering of everything and knowledge [or ‘learned’] of nothing!” Perhaps these folks need returned to school, for exposure to Bobson Gbinije’s The Golgotha of ‘arrogance complex!’
|
