FG’s excuse for disobedience of court orders

LAST week, the Minister of Information, Culture and Tourism, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, tried to justify the disobedience of court orders by the Federal Government. His thoughts on the matter came at a time when eminent persons, including legal luminaries and professionals, were worried about the government’s action. We had hesitated in interrogating the matter in anticipation of a possible retraction of the statement by the minister who incidentally is a lawyer by training, but to no avail.

It is now generally believed that Mohammed unambiguously spoke the minds of the government on its disposition towards court orders. He predicated the government’s disregard for some court orders on national security, positing that the judiciary did not have the “entire picture” on some cases at hand and that it was the responsibility of the government to balance human rights and national security. While it is true that the government has the duty of securing sovereign Nigeria, it should not hide under such nebulous expressions as national stability to treat a cardinal pillar of democracy with ignominy, as was customary during the military regimes in the country.

The government must not equate the rule of law with the rule of thumb where individuals who foisted themselves on the citizenry through the barrel of the gun selected which orders of courts of competent jurisdiction to obey. An essential ingredient of democracy is the provision of an avalanche of windows and opportunities that a party that is not satisfied with the pronouncement of a court can further explore to seek redress or justice. Any step taken contrary to what is enshrined in the statute books and the constitution is ultra vires and will only amount to despotism.

That the minister even tried to justify the Federal Government’s aversion to court orders by citing the cases of a former National Security adviser (NSA), Colonel Sambo Dasuki and the leader of an Islamic sect, Ibrahim el-Zakzaky, makes his gaffe laughable and repulsive. His justification is that it is a global practice for governments to balance national security with human rights. He added: “What I am saying (is) that the court has ruled but the court does not have the entire picture when it comes to national security.” The minister expatiated by lampooning critics picking “two, three cases which border on national security” to accuse the present government of impunity.

It is pertinent to note that Mohammed has merely tried to stand logic on its head. Court orders fall under the prism of the rule of law which is one of the cardinal pillars of democracy. No arm of government should undermine the other. By undermining court orders, the government is naively attempting to debase the fundamental principles and grundnorms of democracy and rule of law and sow the seed of generally instability. Therefore, the issue of national security should not be used as a tool to encroach on or erode the rights of  citizens. They should enjoy their constitutional and legal rights until they are proven guilty of an offence by the court of law, and even then they still have certain, admittedly rights allowed by law. It is never the business of the executive to make laws or interpret same in a democracy where the duties and functions of the executive, legislature and the judiciary are clearly defined. Their interwoven relationship should not be seen as constituting an opportunity for one arm of government to undermine the others if democracy and the rule of law must thrive.

We insist that a suspect is considered innocent until he or she is convicted or pronounced guilty of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction. Mohammed’s explanation is ridiculous if the government has to charge people to court over bailable offences and decides to deny them bail.  The minister appears to be living in the past when impunity reigned supreme under the military era and, as such, his statement is equivalent to treason in a democratic setting.  Why must he give an interpretation to a court judgment when the government had the opportunity to go on appeal if not satisfied with it? Lai Mohammed cannot constitute the Court of Appeal.