Disobedient by nature? By Odi Ikpeazu

I think some of us probably have a natural aversion to running with the crowd. One reason is that you will not be able to see your way clear for the stampede. And man, how noisy they can get. Plus, I am sympathetic to the theory that the larger a crowd, the lesser its collective IQ. That being the case, I often conclude that the majority is often wrong and the result of that is that I dont mind too much being in a dissenting minority. I have corroborated this to myself in law, religion, politics and even entertainment, among other gatherings.

For instance, I absolutely love the subject of law and jurisprudence. Law stimulates logic, reasoning and overall intellectual agility, even given its conservative adherence to precedence. My only reservation is being compelled to wear the wig and gown, that uniform of medieval, feudal Europe. It struck me early next year life as an aberration, an anomaly and an incongruity of such extreme proportion, too much for an African to endure, talk less of embrace.

Our subordinate position vis-a-vis the European, first as human commodities and later as colonial appendages, makes it imperative that we should never adorn or bask in the very paraphernalia of their overlordship. Surprisingly however, it is this donning of the master’s costume that scintillates us most and appears to afford us the ironic freedom to celebrate our servitude and serfdom.

The serenity to change the things we cannot change and the courage to change the things we can, are traditionally the benchmarks of wisdom. That is obviously why we may reasonably surrender to phenomena like their lingua franca and technology, among others. But we certainly must draw the line at appropriating their ceremonial and traditional garb or mimicking their cultural pomp and pageantry, which are marks of their private personality.

Seeing that it is futile to impress any of this on the minds of the legal majority, not to talk of the multitudes of fawning lay men, I have grown to accept with serenity that I am a negligible minority. Nevertheless, I find unimaginable strength within this virtual insignificance and my lonesome crusade. I also find justification when I remember that Americans, first cousins of the British, ditched the wig and gown and other appurtenances of the latter’s overlordship, the reason being, they proclaim proudly, that ‘the love of liberty brought us here.’

That being said, I have refrained from commenting on the controversial issue raised by Section 134 of the Nigerian Constitution. Being a respecter of legal convention, this is so because the matter is sub judice. However, a good number of legal people, even SANs, have descended into the extra-judicial cauldron and engaged in a free-for-all. It thus seems to me that I am being holier-than-thou and to no effect.

A good Year One Ĺaw student should, I think, comveniently address the interpretation of this provision. It is curious to me then, that it is taking an intractable heavyweight battle of all manner of SANs to unravel this. It is clear both to common sense, rules of interpretation and advanced logic, that what the provision envisages is that the 25% of votes be obtained in 2/3rds of the 36+1 administrative entities of Nigeria, in other words, 37. For obvious reasons, the provision could not have been worded in such a manner as to refer to ’37 states’ since the FCT does not have the status of a state, yet still needed to be included in its contemplation. It is really quite as simple as that.

By the way, being a SAN does not necessarily confer upon you skills you may not have although this is without prejudice to the undoubted distinction of a good number of them. It only means that you have satisfied the minimum requirements of a largely arbitrary induction into an amorphous fraternity.

-Ikpeazu is lawyer and public affairs analyst

Back to top button