Tunde Adeniran: Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Will Test Our Concept of Law and Justice

Interview

Prof. Tunde Adeniran, a former Minister of Education and the immediate past National Chairman of Social Democratic Party (SDP), has served Nigeria in diverse capacities between 1985 when he was part of the Nigerian delegation to the 40th Session of the United Nations and 2020, when he announced his disengagement from partisan politics. In this interview with Gboyega Akinsanmi, Adeniran spoke extensively about hydra-headed challenges undermining Nigeria’s unity and proposed multi-tiered solutions to pull the federation from the brink

In September 2020, you resigned as the National Chairman of Social Democratic Party (SDP) and announced your retirement from partisan politics. What informed these decisions?

I disengaged from partisan politics precisely on September 29, 2020. As I stated in the press release that I issued on that day, I joined active and partisan politics some years ago to pursue and advance the vision of my generation of Nigeria as a humane and progressive society, a nation where no man is oppressed, one built on brotherhood despite the many differences and divides, an egalitarian society that meets the aspirations of its citizens and serves as a beacon for the rest of Africa. I still cherish that vision even though it has become elusive by the year 2020.

And, although I am an irrepressible patriot committed to the belief that democracy can only be consolidated in Nigeria through a liberating and uplifting ideology that serves as a guide for action and democratic institutions with their supporting structures, especially, a workable constitution with appropriate legal and party systems, the prevailing environment was no longer conducive to my effective participation in pursuit of my vision. Age was also not on my side with extra energy and strength to extract from. So, I decided to disengage while encouraging the youths with similar ideological leanings to carry on.

As a foundation member, you defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) at a critical stage before the 2019 election. What actually went wrong?

So many things went wrong. And actually, it was long before the 2019 elections. Anybody interested in knowing some of what went wrong should go and read chapter six of my book “SERVING MY FATHERLAND”. It is titled “The PDP phenomenon”. But for the purpose of this interview, the party had by then been hijacked by those who either did not understand the ramifications of the mission and vision of the party or simply did not believe in them.

It wasn’t difficult for them to get the party into a reverse wave, damaging the prospects and future of democracy through the erosion of past gains and the sabotaging of opportunities for change and democratic consolidation through the party process. I couldn’t imagine myself staying any longer, knowing so well that the simple responsibility of genuine mobilisation and broadening the base of political participation was being abdicated.

I could see the PDP complicating the existing problems of democratisation, nation-building and political development. This was in the face of increased demand for political participation by increasing numbers of politically inclined people and the demand for internal party democracy, due process and justice in the affairs of the party.

Nigeria is going through its toughest time since 1999. But the decision of the National Assembly to review the 1999 Constitution offered a fresh opportunity to correct some institutional and structural anomalies that threaten Nigeria’s unity. Do you agree with those who described the constitution review as effort in futility?

What we need is a new constitution for the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In a political setting and system in which people are not self-seeking and self-serving, it should be possible to have a National Assembly that would facilitate a new constitution. Those who see the on-going exercise as an effort in futility know so well that the orientation, disposition and aspirations of the majority of those in the National Assembly are such that cannot promote a new constitution for the Nigerian people.

Rather, they would consolidate the legal framework and absurd constitutional loopholes whose benefits they presently enjoy while Nigeria wallows in national disorientation and dysfunction. The committed reformers and progressives among them are in the minority.

Can you imagine that the simple clamour by the generality of Nigerians to make some people-oriented basic provisions regarding fundamental principles of state policy contained in Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution justifiable is being vigorously resisted by some members of the National Assembly? And the Constitution remains the legal framework through which the goals and wellbeing of the Nigerian people can be achieved.

At a time like this, how should the stakeholders across the political divides respond to divisive forces undermining Nigeria’s corporate existence?

Dialogue – through dialogue! There is so much to gain by all if and when they put all the cards on the table, discuss and agree on the way forward. And there is so much to lose when they are either avoiding themselves or shouting at one another.

Nigeria is so endowed by God with human and material resources that there is simply no need for us to allow the forces that divide our dear country and people to linger or prevail.

Those conscious of the dangers ahead must wake up those living in denial before we all bear the consequences. The stakeholders should by now be remorseful, realising that by unduly politicising most issues and mischievously weaponising some differences among Nigerians, especially, ethnicity and religion, they have landed our dear country, Africa’s beacon of hope and the pride of the Black race, at a precipice.

The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was re-arrested last Sunday. Does Kanu’s re-arrest signal peace and security as Ohaneze Ndigbo claimed?

Nnamdi Kanu’s rearrest is a signal to whatever we want it to be. I believe that the federal government will handle it with magnanimity and a deep sense of national security as well as in the interest of peace and justice. It is time yet to strengthen the bonds of nationhood among Nigerians and move ahead united in tackling the challenges of poverty, insecurity and the trust deficits. The laws of the land are to guide action. Nigerians expect due process to be followed, just as the rules of conduct that are followed in any organized and civilized society. With the prevailing circumstances, I believe it will be handled appropriately as it could well turn out to test our concepts of law and justice.

The office of the Attorney-General of the Federation had concluded plan to charge the IPOB leader with multiple murder, among others. Will this approach address the root causes of the agitation for separation in the South-east or aggravate it?

My expectation is that the federal government’s approach will be dictated by the need for lasting peace and security along with national unity, stability and development. As a layman, I assume that from the early law systems to be found in the codes of Hammurabi, the laws of Manu and the Mosaic code up to the modern legal systems, the codes show what would seem to be the universal tendency of the socio-economic, religio-cultural, moral and ethical system of a society to produce a legal order to enforce its ethical and social mandates. I have no doubt that the Federal Ministry of Justice will be well guided.

Do you agree with those who have recommended dialogue as an approach to restore peace and security not just in the South-east, but also in other parts of the federation with deep feelings of injustice and unfairness?

I have said it before. The government and the people must continue to talk. The various groups and people must also continue to talk among themselves. Dialogue provides a much-needed opportunity for people to understand themselves and the contending issues of concern to them.

Opportunities for dialogue must never be missed in appropriate situations and circumstances. The value of dialogue on such occasions is that, apart from throwing light that could lead to a proper resolution of some issues at hand, it could lead to exposing some hidden grievances or misconceptions that could precipitate future crises.

Despite the Asaba Declaration that prohibited open grazing in the South, the practice has not stopped. What should all the state governments do to further put an end to the practice of open grazing within their territories both legally and politically?

To me, I don’t see the Asaba Declaration beyond what it was – a declaration, a public announcement, a proclamation, which could even be interpreted as a manifesto. What the state governments should do to effectively put an end to the practice of open grazing in the south is to take relevant bills to their State Assemblies.

After the passage of the relevant laws, they would need to faithfully implement, promote ranching in their States and also encourage their northern counterparts to do the same. Ranching is a business that should lead to competition among various states and communities. Unfortunately, it is presently being viewed by some people and states as punishment. It is a misconception that must change.

Before the 2019 elections, the National Assembly amended the 2010 Electoral Act and transmitted it to the president for assent. But the president withheld his assent. About one and half years to the 2023 elections, diverse questions around the electoral law are yet to be resolved? Is there any hope for credible elections in 2023?

It is possible to have credible elections in 2023. We only need to be serious about it and be committed to it as a national objective and goal. Firstly, beyond the electoral law and amendment issue that has remained unresolved; the entire Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria needs a rebirth to make any elections meaningful in 2023. Secondly, the Independent National Electoral Commission and Nigeria’s security machineries would need to creatively address the challenges posed by the prevailing atmosphere in the country. There is no way present processes and procedures would yield an electoral outcome that could be considered credible.

At this point, what are the areas of concerns in the 2010 Electoral Act and what should the National Assembly do about it before it is too late?

The areas of concern are many but I wish to restrict myself to three. One is the need to get Nigerians in the diaspora to vote, the second is how to give adequate opportunity for people with disabilities to vote. The third, of course, has been the most contentious and at the centre of contentions – electronic voting. How this is handled will substantially determine the credibility of future elections.

Again, AFRICOM became a subject of debate, when President Muhammadu Buhari asked the US Secretary of State to consider Nigeria as the base of the Command to fight insecurity. As Nigeria’s leading international relations scholar, is Buhari’s request in Nigeria’s core and strategic interests?

President Muhammadu Buhari was certainly being strategic in his move to have Nigeria serve as the base of AFRICOM. I commended him then for the request on the assumption that Nigeria would take full advantage of it while containing likely negative consequences. On this issue, perception and intuition come to play, especially, within the context of the technologically less developed world’s security predicaments.

Against the backdrop of information and technological revolutions and the tectonic shifts in world politics, by now we ought to have acquired sufficient skill for dealing with great spymasters, be acquainted with advancement in intelligence capabilities and effectively relate for strategic value. There is terror and crisis all around us. Many of the transformative geopolitical trends of our time are being fuelled by exponential advances in technology. Nigeria would benefit from such an arrangement in an increasingly interdependent and complex world.

What forms of cooperation or partnership with global actors does Nigeria need to address insecurity within its jurisdiction?

They have to be multi-dimensional, vertical, horizontal, bilateral and multilateral. Nigeria’s capacity to cope with its internal security challenges are presently overloaded by the conjunction of many factors and forces, including very weak institutions. The cooperation and partnership that would add value to Nigeria’s efforts would have to be programmed from the sub-regional level, to the regional and international.

Apart from governments as bilateral partners, multilateral actors also have roles to play in the multiple challenges confronting Nigeria and compounding the national problems of lack of safety and lingering insecurity. In short, not only do we need cooperation or partnership with such countries as the Niger Republic, Cameroon, Chad and other sister African countries, we also need France, Britain, the USA as well as transnational actors and international organisations.