By ABDULWAHAB ABDULAH

Mr. Muhammed Adesegun Ajibola (SAN), son of the eminent jurist and a former Justice of the world court, Justice Bola Ajibola, in this interview with Law and Human Rights,  spoke on the  passage of anti same sex marriage Bill by the Senate. He argued that the Senate’s decision was in line with the yearnings of majority of Nigerians. He said it was time for Africa nations to tackle what he called neo-colonialism on how western nations intervene in affairs of the Africa countries . He also urged the federal Government to put on hold the implementation of its decision on the removal of fuel subsidy pending sufficient consultations. He also spoke on the controversies trailing a uniform national minimum wage for the country, especially its legality.
Excerpts:

What is your overview of the recent Bill on same sex marriage passed by the Senate?

It is a reflection of the cultural values of our people. It is in line with the yearnings and aspirations of the majority of Nigerians, who have spoken on the issue, who the lawmakers  are representing in the Senate embolden  by law to pass the  Bill. They have carried out the process and concluded it. It is commendable whether anybody is happy with it or not. What is important is that, it has gone through a due process and it is concluded in accordance with our laws in this country.

There are some diplomatic threats from some countries in the West, especially, USA, U.K. and Canada on the passage of the bill, stressing that it encroached on some individual rights.

There are arguments here and there but at the end of the day only one argument will win the day, as long as it has gone through the process made by law. Yes, I am aware that some Western countries predominantly UK and US  expressed their misgivings in the constitutional act just carried out in passing the law and there have been threats of withdrawing their supports of grants or aids. I think it is time for African countries to wake up and fight the scourge of neo-colonialism with Western powers wanting to impose their laws on us. It looks like an effort to control virtually every aspects of our lives where possible because they give us aids and grants.

It is because of our inability to effectively explore and exploit our resources and the mismanagement of the resources we have that has kept us as beggar nation in this continent. I think it is a wake up call for us all to stand up for what we believe in, to fight for it at any cost. Otherwise, we will remain in perpetual economic slavery and political dominance. Look at UK for instance, it’s a member of EU, but it recently opposed all the positions and all the directions in respect of the Euro.  They said they were doing so for national interest.

Interest is the common language to the Western world when they want to do what suits them. They do not seem to consider  that same expression dwells with African nations when they feel they want to do what is right for them. I think it is unfair and I think it is inequitable circumstance that they are trying to foster. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As a sovereign nation, it is our national interest  to pass a bill which outlaws same sex marriages, it is a bastardization of  the process and the challenge to the sovereignty of this country, for us to be threatened by aids and grants as means of pushing their own will on us as a people.

To some, the issue concern is religious, to some it is spiritual, to some it is moral, while it is cultural to others. So,  it transcends what we want to put in our mouth on daily basis. So, we find some diverse minds that have come together to achieve common purpose. There is no divergence over the issue. The two main religious groups in the country spoke in one voice over the passing of the Bill. So, it is absurd and almost upsetting to hear western world threatening Nigeria for taken a decision that suit them. So, they can passed the law in their own country, but they should leave us alone to do what suit us as a country.

*Ajibola

These countries also queried the criminalization of the same sex marriage with the new law passed by the Senate, arguing that the act is between two consenting adults.

There were several pre-session sittings in respect of the bill and public hearings and memorandum were submitted. The Senate did not just sit as a body, in spite of the fact it can do, but asked for opinions across the country from people who are interested  in making a point on what they should do. And they took it on board and consider those representation in arriving at their decision.

Criminalizing the act is an attempt to discourage it in the society. We cannot just pass a law and say same sex marriage is outlawed and stop, when they know there is no sanction against them. Even when there is sanction, some people still went ahead to commit an offence or disobey the law, how much less a situation where there is law in place. So, this is to discourage the occurrence of the offence.

It is a loud and clear warning to those who may be contemplating the act to stay clear of it. So, if you don’t want sanction, don’t flout the law. It is those who flout the law that would be afraid of sanctions. It is not that the law will be enforced against those who dream of the act but fail to implement it against those who move forward to carry out the act.  The force of the law is not there without the prerequisite sanction.

Some people have argued that enforcing the law will be difficult because those who indulge in it  will do it in their private places. What’s your reaction?

The arrangement or the conspiracy to commit crimes in this country as I am aware are not done in the open. Name any crime that they will come on the television and tell the world we are going to commit a crime, what we hear is about the offence being committed. So, crime is not necessarily an event that is publicised, but what is planned and arranged secretly. Once there is information to suggest that such an act has occurred, it is proper  investigation and  inquiry, that will determine how the law is enforced. So, if two people commit the offence in their room, they must be smart in covering up the act because once there is evidence to suggest that it happened, then you are facing the law.

If somebody is next door to my house and I feel they are moving around as couples, civic duties requires me that I draw the attention of those in authority to investigate the act. If I see a brothel that is being run for gay or same sex marriage purposes, or there is a place in the bush where they conduct secret wedding, it is my duty as citizen of this country to draw the attention of the authority to it. The law is trying to discourage or curb the act. My feeling is that we will not have people, same sex, who will go into the registry as applicable in England that they want to marry under the Act. It is not possible.

The need to hide their activities, suggest that the people are aware or discouraged to beat their chest in doing so or encourage those who may not have been so misdirected to follow suit.

Would you say on moral grounds that their (gays) fundamental rights are been curtailed with this new law?

I do not think that our constitutional arrangement in this country contemplates marriage of the same sex. Neither I  am I aware that the law itself contemplates same sex marriage. Some people may argue that it is their constitutional rights to marry an animal or dog if they chose to, but it is for the law and the society to say we have no hand in such arrangement. So, basically, the issue of human rights argument has a point but to the extent that it doesn’t clash with others.

Also, to every right, there is a corresponding duty. So, your right to wave your hands any how stops at a point you hit others in the process. You have human rights to wave your hands anyhow but in a manner that will not cause harm or damage to anybody around you. It is an assault or battery against the other person. Your human rights is in the context of the society in which you claim it and it is not in isolation or exclusive.

So, it is not enough for somebody to argue that I have a right to marry whoever I wish. Yes, you have a right but it is subject to control and monitoring by the larger society you belong. If you don’t want to live in that society, then you have a right to move to Europe or America where it is accepted. I agree that they have a right but it is subject to control of a larger society they belonged. When a right becomes injurious or pollute public morals that could create disaffection or be it against the law of that land, then your right becomes questionable.

For instance, you have a right to freedom of association but you can’t sit down in the open as a gang of armed robbers because you have a right to associate and then agree to go and burgle a bank. Yes, the law agrees you have a right, you must do so in a way that will not injure others.

If everybody is allowed to behave anyhow because we have human rights, we won’t have an orderly society. There must be a standard to measure the right everybody is claiming. Rights without control is recklessness, Nigeria is not an exception.

What do you have to say about the controversy trailing  proposed removal of  oil subsidy by the government?

The decision by the government to remove oil subsidy is not a moral argument but an economic decision because of the situation we find ourselves in this country. It is because of  corruption that permeates the system. So, whatever the government is putting in should reflect the economy and as well be in tandem with the peoples’ economic and social realities.  This is because whatever decision the government takes will affect everyday life of the people, the transport system, shelter, food etc.

My feeling is that the issue is somehow confusing due to the lack of transparency in the system which is responsible for the problems on ground. So, rather than removing the subsidy, the government should examine the leakages and proffer solution to it. Also, since the National Assembly is  still examining the whole issue, the federal government should tarry a while for its credibility.

Though, there is no law that  bars the government from going ahead but it will be inadequate for the government to go on without the National Assembly  concluding its process.  From the outcome of the lawmakers intervention, people will have better understanding of the whole process. So, it is in the interest of the government to await the decision of the National  Assembly. The enthronement of regime of accountability will also help the situation.

The minimum wage debacle has resulted to strikes by workers in some states, many now feel the issue had become statutory and moral, how do you react to this development?

The clamour for wage increase is a crusade to assist the masses in achieving a better standard of living, this is highly commendable. We all know that today, N18,000 in a month, is almost next to nothing, it is paltry, poor and bad, but that is still the level that we still find ourselves despite the country’s enormous wealth, that is really bad. My attitude has always been that no amount of money can be compared with the value, which we have in Nigeria ourselves. Suffice to say that a worker receives a N100,000 monthly, which I won’t still consider all that sufficient, perhaps you can say is still far better, the question still remain of what value will that N100,000 be in the market?

Don’t forget that it is the same market that both the Billionaires and the low income earner go to. The disparity is too much and dangerously so,I think the government out of its abundance of responsibilities wanted to show sufficient commitment, in passing this bill into law. One may not lose the fact that some states may have difficulty in paying this because of the disparity in their Internal Revenue generated.

(IGR), this may require restructuring for some states to be able to pay. This problem may be there, but I think, it will be irresponsibility in my own estimation for any state government to refuse to pay in the face of the law. If there is any problem in the implementation, the states must sit down with its workers, renegotiate their position and come to an agreement as well as have an understanding, which now will define the way forward. It is not enough for any government to sit and close its door or window against the legitimate lawful expectation of its workers. It must sit down with them, they must understand why, they have not started paying the new wage, there must be an agreement.

What about the argument that the Federal Government cannot fix wages without the inputs of the states?

It is the kind of federalism that we run that has given room for all this kind of things. It would have been better for states to have a high degree of legal autonomy in deciding for themselves. What kind of wage can workers be paid? Indeed, considering their economic powers and financial ability, I agree that some states may not be able to accommodate that increase.

So, you now have an argument that the minimum wage was effected at the federal level only, you will still see that it would have encouraged agitation at the state level in line with the saying that “what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.” If you can do it at the federal level, I do not  know why it will not be done at the state level. The testability, which it requires is that state government must be prepared to rise up to the occasion, because if you have to give some people more than you can afford, then you should start to find means to generate more to meet up with the challenge.

The body of Senior Advocates had recently recommended two of its members to be in the Supreme Court Bench. How would this enhance the performance of the apex court, considering the recent clamour for reforms?

The constitutional requirement for the appointment of a person as a judge to the Supreme Court is 15 years after call to Bar. The law did not provide that the 15 years must be within the rank and file of the judiciary alone, that is the basis by which that suggestion was made in the first place.

Second, people recommended by the body of Senior Advocates should be practitioners of high repute, tested and competent in the practice of the law and other spheres of their lives. They should have a combination of over 10 years of practice at the Inner Bar, which would have surpassed the constitutional requirement for qualification into that position.

The recommendation to me, is a demonstration of the ingenuity of that template, which I believe had to be tested. The taste of the pudding is in the eating, it is not enough to condemn an idea, which has not been tested, it should be given an opportunity. I support and welcome the suggestion which is also one of the resolutions of NBA. I believe that it is an idea whose time has come and we have abundant human resources in this country.

We are under utilizing the resources we have, in the rank and file of the judiciary. Let us have some of our best as it is done in other countries to fill this high judicial positions. I think at the end of the day, we will be better for it. The experiment, in my own estimation, will succeed.