THE IRONIES OF NECESSITY

THE IRONIES OF NECESSITY
By Sam Onimisi
“Politics is … a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.” - Ambrose Bierce. Given the experience of the average Nigerian at the hand of politicians, no description of politics could be more apt than that of Ambrose Bierce. Nations have gone to war against nations on the pretext of national interest and integrity even when the issue at disagreement was personal interest of their leaders. You may now wonder if the Nigerian civil war was not fought for the preservation of sectional interest rather than collective concern. After all, it was not absolutely necessary to have fought that war if leaders on both sides exercised restraints, and if they had not allowed their individual ego to come in between their altercations.
Leadership is a necessity just as politics is inescapable; therefore the consent of the ruled is also a necessity if leadership is to be a delight and not a nightmare. Which is why democracy is so far the best way of obtaining the consent of the people if leadership is to be legitimate? But many politicians hide under the doctrine of necessity to commit heinous crime in violation either of the constitution or of convention. They do so under the legal maxim, necessitas non habet legem: necessity knows no law. In Nigeria, our leaders often contrive crises so as to avoid adherence to the constitution for political expediency.
When national leaders circumvent the law in order to secure undue advantage for themselves, they sell the dummy of national interest, national security or national unity, but in most cases, these are mere excuses or subterfuge for group, sectional or sectarian interests. For our entire pretense at democracy, no fundamental national question has been subjected to referendum or plebiscite by any indigenous government since independence in 1960. And yet, we have had to wobble through several panels of inquiry to formulate constitutions – a body which has no means of knowing the choice of the people. No state was created on the basis of the wishes of the majority: they were all created through panels that could not take the votes or obtain the consent of the people for which they were created.
Any wonder that most of the states are troublous with antagonistic ethnic and religious mix? It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. Not in Nigeria; here necessity is an excuse or reason for escape, or the indefinite postponement of needed action until doomsday. Then we reach out for the doctrine of necessity which negates the prevailing law of the land. When late President Umar Yar’ Adua was sick and left for a hospital in Saudi Arabia without handing over the affairs of state to his Vice President, didn’t he violate a law? When he was too sick and could not shoulder the affairs of State, shouldn’t he have resigned? And since he couldn’t or didn’t do so, should he not have been impeached by the National Assembly according to the law?
A cabal whose selfish interest was openly demonstrated was allowed to hold the country to ransom for six long months only for us to fall on the lap of the gods of necessity to move on, despising the constitution. We could concede to an individual the luxury of infringing our laws in order to preserve his own honor, but could not summon the courage to invent changes by reason of our peculiar challenges. Invention is the child of necessity just as necessity is the mother of invention.
The issues at dispute which caused the Nigerian civil war remain largely unresolved, 40 years after the war. If it was a necessity to keep Nigeria one, where is the invention to resolve the issues at dispute? In 1979, there was a disputed election which none of the contestants won decisively accordingly to the electoral law. Yet the powers that be decided the case via a judicial ruling of the Supreme Court which cannot be sited as precedence today. Could we not have rejected that verdict and insisted on the right thing, even if we have to pay the price? The authors of the 122/3 mathematical fraud of 1979 remained in the saddle up till now, to our shame as a people.
In 1993, another general election was held. There was little or no complain of the process except that when the result became apparent – reflecting the wishes of the electorate – the entire election was annulled by the same government which supervised it. In its place, a ramshackle interim government of selected people was put in place. Shouldn’t we have insisted on having our elected representatives instead of a ragtag gang? Yet we moved on, oblivious of the injury inflicted on us all. The same man who annulled that election which he himself supervised now wants to rule us again through an election – what an irony!
When in 1999, the military was conducting a general elections, no one knew the contents of the constitution or the laws by which the country will be administered. Yet, those who wanted to succeed them blindly jumped into the fray without asking questions and today, we are entangled with a constitution most unsuitable for our needs, which amendments by the National Assembly will worsen the value or its usefulness. If we had insisted on having a constitution made by ourselves for ourselves and approved through a referendum, we would have been better off than we are today. But the necessity to get the military out of government and the ambition of some politicians to take over power made us to accept a constitution unknown to us, thereby missing the opportunity.
Rather than adhering to the constitution which granted every one the right to run for any elective office, a doctrine of convenience called power-rotation or zoning is now set to tear us apart again. Rotation or zoning is a sister of the doctrine of necessity, putting the law aside as if it is of no effect. The sum total of this could be summarized thus: Nigerians seems to want to remain united as one country but lacked the courage to embark on a restructuring befitting a multi-ethnic and plural entity which we are. Perhaps we need be reminded of another legal maxim, nuptias non concubitus sed consensus fait, meaning – it is consent, not cohabitation, which makes a marriage. A man and a woman may live under the same roof, sleeping on the same bed, known by others to be husband and wife and yet, are the worst of enemies. Is separation or divorce not a better option if agreement is impossible?
Before you accuse me of treasonable felony, ask yourself why your country is regressing rather than progressing. Ask yourself why smaller countries like Botswana, Ghana and South Africa are now more respected than Nigeria. One more question; ask yourself why we could not conduct an acceptable election since 1960. Is it not for the same reason or factor why we have not evolved to be a nation in the true sense of the world? And why your ethnic nationality provides more sense of belonging than Nigeria? After all, you don’t have to be told that domus sua cuique est tutissimus refugium, i.e. to every one his house is his surest refuge.