‘Funding: Executive trying to emasculate judiciary’

The federal government is seeking legal clout to look into private mails. What is your reaction to the proposed law?My reaction to the bill is a mixed one in the sense that it will help check criminality particularly some of these terrorist attacks.  Because majority of the terrorist attacks appear to be organized within the […]

The federal government is seeking legal clout to look into private mails. What is your reaction to the proposed law?
My reaction to the bill is a mixed one in the sense that it will help check criminality particularly some of these terrorist attacks.  Because majority of the terrorist attacks appear to be organized within the internet network.  It has the potential to check cyber crimes if seriously managed and not targeted at political opponents. It also has the potential to reduce to the barest minimum some of the obscene videos posted on the internet and which have the capacity to reduce the moral of the young generations. When you see majority of the young ones these days, they use the internet to engage in some conducts that are unbecoming of their age particularly immorality; you can see how a lady was slaughtered in Lagos through the use of facebook which the criminals used to lure her and in the process she was killed. To that extent if the law is genuinely applied, kidnappers who demand for ransom by the use of the internet would also be reduced.
Now a lot of people in government these days tend to have a lot of hatred for those of us who are critical about their performance. What they would do with the law is to begin to harass us; run after you with court orders and intercepting your messages. By the process of interception, the message might not even get to the desired recipient so it can be used as a political weapon for the purpose of stopping the opponents.
Looking at the proposed law against the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy, what would be your take?
That is another point on the negative side. Majority of our legislations in Nigeria are not enforced realistically and patriotically without any biases been exhibited against political opponents. That is where the problem would be. A lot of people communicate their political meetings, arrangements etc and if it is suspected, the possibility is that the call can be intercepted and it may not get to  you. People may be trying to reach you and they won’t reach you so a lot of issues are going to come in. In the process of debating this bill, a lot of issues must be looked into.
Then how do we marry these rights of government to monitor, intercept, control vis-a-vis the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, because we are entitled to privacy which includes what you communicate to others vis-a-vis your family life. If the law is passed, it may be challenged. The first question is that, is this kind of law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society? Freedom of movement, expression and freedom of association, freedom of communication hold sway in a democratic society, if it is not reasonably justifiable and people are restricted (because we are not in military era) by virtue of Section 1 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the constitution is supreme, any other law that is inconsistent with the constitution is to that extent null and void. So the cyber bill which is being proposed must be weighed vis-a-vis Chapter 4 of the constitution because the right to privacy is part of the fundamental rights in Nigeria. So anyone that appears to interfere with that right will certainly have himself to blame. So the federal government must as a necessity respect the privacy of Nigerians vis-a-vis the cybercrimes bill which it is proposing to enact.
Do you think we need a law for pedophiles, those who have sexual affairs with minors?
There is a law against adults luring young girls for the purpose of sexual intercourse. I know that under our law, any person below the age of 18 years cannot give consent and such consent even if freely given amounts to rape. There is also a prohibition under the matrimonial causes act  and Children and Young Persons law  that you cannot marry a minor. There are examples of people who have taken women that are below 15 years, below 12 years as wives in this country and the government has not mustered the prosecutorial will to prosecute them.
Today the judiciary is complaining of dwindling budgetary provisions, do you agree that it is not well funded?
Certainly the judiciary is the least funded in this country. When you look at the budgetary provision made for the judiciary this year  it is N68 billion compared to N67 billion last year and it got to a climax that the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Alooma Mariam Mukhtar, had to cry out that the judiciary was not well funded.  The executive is emasculating the judiciary and the reason is very simple, once the judiciary is not well funded it gives the executive a way to interfere with the processes before the court. A man that is hungry cannot sit down to dispense justice as he would succumb to blackmail. Even in the Bible, you will see that Esau sold his birth right because of pottage and so the judiciary is being emasculated so that serious  political matters that require firm commitment on the part of judicial officers is being dabbled with; some beautiful things that you will discover include that he may not resist the temptation to succumb to antics of government.
So as we are getting towards the political era, where a lot of political cases would find their way to court, judges are becoming compromised on daily basis and some of them are giving funny decisions. Some of these judges have meandered they ways into the hearts of the executives. By the time they get meandered into the hands of some executives, they get wealth and their ostentatious living is evident in the property they acquire. You are aware of about 23 judges that are awaiting prosecution as I read in the papers.
So the judiciary is not well funded, not well catered for and not well maintained. Go to some courts you will feel sorry for yourself that you appear in that court.  The courts have no stationary; they have no good computer, no well-furnished office and no supporting staff. Where they are found you will see that the body language of majority of these supporting staff is suggestive of beggary. You see clerks and bailiffs of courts following lawyers, all in a bid to beg, that suggests to you that something is wrong. They are just becoming a nuisance; these are bye products of inadequacy of funding.
What is your reaction to the recent court judgment obtained by JUSUN?
That was a welcome development. If you look at our constitution, it expressly provides that money meant for the judiciary should be released to the heads of court for the purposes  of both capital and recurrent expenditures but what you have these days is that that provision of the constitution is obeyed in the breach.
Governments all over does not want to release money meant for the judiciary to the judiciary.
The judiciary still goes to the state chief executives for money for their capital projects – building of courts, acquisition of vehicles and you will see that some governors want to score cheap political points. When they buy vehicles they invite TV cameras to show how the vehicles are being donated to judges as if they are doing them a favour. Judges are entitled under the constitution to their own funds as appropriated in the budgets directly released to them.
I laugh when I see some chief judges thanking the state governors for doing what they are obligated to do under the constitution because I don’t see why I should thank you for doing what you have sworn to under the constitution.