National interest or tyranny?

Some weeks ago, following the failed coup at the national assembly where the residences of both the president and deputy president of the Senate were blocked by security operatives to prevent them from attending plenary where supporters of President Muhammadu Buhari were expected to summarily remove the president of the Senate, we asked whether indeed the president is a tyrant as being alleged by those who disagreed with the tactics being used by the government to silence its opponents.

Of course, the allegations against the president were not without justification. The impunity with which court orders were being disobeyed were alarming and unmatched in Nigeria’s history.

When the Attorney General of the federation and minister of Justice said the illegally detained former National Security Adviser would not be allowed to enjoy the bails granted him by several courts in the land in the interest of the ‘public good’, we thought he was overreaching himself and was not speaking for the government. How wrong we were.

But even the president was to repeat the same line of thought recently at the 59th annual conference of the Nigerian Bar Association in Abuja. He was quoted as saying:

“Our apex court has had cause to adopt a position on this issue in this regard and it is now a matter of judicial recognition that where national security and public interest are threatened the individual rights of those allegedly responsible must take second place in favour of the greater good of society.”

Aside the fact that the president and his speechwriters were wrongly interpreting the decision of the court, two questions come to mind. The first is what is ‘public good/national interest and who determines the public good or national interest?

Despite the fact that no government, as yet, has been able to define the terms and there is no body of laws called public good or national interest, governments still cite it often as reason for abridging the rights of citizens. In effect, governments usually have the sole rights to determine what national interests or public goods are and they may be no more than regime or personal interests. This has allowed governments to deny or abridge individuals’ rights while allowing them to get away with murder literally and metaphorically.

Secondly, the case being relied by the president and his attorney general was that between the federal government and Asari Dokubo. In that case – a treasonable felony one – it was the court that declined to grant the defendant bail based on the nature of the crime for which he was accused and not the government. Like we said the last time, “only under tyranny would the Presidency or the executive arm of the government act as the accuser, the law enforcer and the judge at the same time”.

It is only when tyranny reigns in a country that the rule of law is ignored. Under the Buhari Presidency, increasingly, there are becoming too many situations that the rule of law is being ignored in favour of the whims and caprices of the president. But it should be noted that those who ignore the rule of law today, will need the law to protect them in future.

It is therefore very dangerous to the freedom of all citizens when the rule of law is ignored in the name of ‘perceived’ public good as determined by the President and not by the courts. The President we see today, no matter how good intentioned, will not be there forever. Only the law, and quest for justice lasts forever and justice is what everyone seeks for and deserves.