By Bolanle BOLAWOLE
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others but remains more of a slave than they are” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
ONE OF THE (once-upon-a-time) immovable pillars of our justice system is that a man is presumed innocent until otherwise proven.
The man so accused is therefore allowed all his rights and privileges until the charges against him are proven. He is accorded his liberties and freedom.
His honour and integrity are not only left intact, but they are also held as sacrosanct. No one may abridge his rights. No one may look him in the eyes and pronounce him guilty. He may not be ostracised by anyone.
And no punishment can – and should – be levied against him.
He must be free as air and must be taken before a court of competent jurisdiction, charged with offences known to law. He must have his day in court – unhindered and unmolested.
No obstacles must be hewn his way – otherwise, that in itself will amount to an obstruction of the cause – and course – of justice which, in itself also, is a serious offence.
That is why, once a case is in court, no one is allowed to comment on it again. In legal parlance, the case/comment is said to be sub judice.
The court must be left alone to pronounce on the matter. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know why this should be so.
Don’t distract the judge(s). Don’t arrest their judgment before it is delivered. Don’t incite the public against any likely outcome.
Avoid a likely breakdown of law and order. Don’t influence the judges with your comments, position or personality. Don’t intimidate or harass them either.
But once judgment is delivered, you are then free to review it and pass comments. Usually, there are opportunities for an appeal.
Even in our traditional society, once a matter is taken before the elders for adjudication, the combatants sheath their swords.
After each one has stated their own side of the case, they wait patiently for the “judge” or “judges” to ruminate over the matter and pronounce judgment.
It appears that is no longer the case here! Senior lawyers not only discuss matters before the court with relish but also deliver “judgment” on them!
As it stands today, the accused is deemed guilty once he has been so alleged. His cloak of innocence is shredded once he or she gets tarred with this or that allegation.
In the trending case of Dele Farotimi versus Chief Afe Babalola and others, you will be wrong if you think Farotimi is the only one whose innocence is denied him ever before he had had the opportunity to appear before a law court – competent or incompetent.
While Chief Afe has been “tried” and “convicted” in the court of public opinion before he had had the opportunity to utter a word, the Establishment appears to have made up its mind on the guilt of Farotimi what manner of punishment to inflict (and is already being inflicted) ever before he could have his day in court.
To the Establishment, the question is not whether he is guilty but the kind of exemplary punishment to inflict on him to serve as deterrent to others as well as make him an object lesson to any other “hot head” that may want to imitate him.
Why ban a book when the matter has not even been joined in court? What is there to be debated again when you have already banned the book that is in contention?
That book, as well as Farotimi, ought to be presumed blameless until those against it have proven their case that it does not qualify for a place on the bookstand – and not before it is found to be so guilty.
What is parading naked before us is not the administration of justice but vendetta, victimization and anti-intellectualism all rolled into one.
No book deserves to be banned. At the very worst, you order that the “offending” portions be expunged once the case for it had been proven in a court of competent jurisdiction.
The actions already taken against Farotimi’s book while he is yet to be given the opportunity to defend what he wrote is anti-intellectualism.
What if, in the end, Farotimi wins his case, or have they concluded that he cannot?
As an editor, I won cases of alleged libel that many had thought not win-able. If you successfully plead justification.
If you convince the judge that it is the public interest. And natural occurrences can terminate a case of libel, slander, or defamation.
Why did they take Farotimi to court in manacles?
I found the position held by Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and an Ekiti indigene like Chief Afe Babalola, very instructive.
Titled “Beyond The Removal of Dele Farotimi’s Handcuffs”, Falana said: “In the last 20 years or thereabout, this is the fourth time that the restraint of suspects has been condemned in the media. Two days ago, Mr. Dele Farotimi who is currently standing trial in Ado Ekiti for criminal defamation was handcuffed by the authorities of the Ado Ekiti Correctional Centre.
“As there was no basis for the restraint, the action of the prison management was deprecated in the media. Since the detained lawyer had not exhibited any form of violence, some lawyers argued that the treatment meted out to him could not be justified under Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act which provides that a suspect or defendant may not be handcuffed, bound or subjected to restraint except: (a) there is reasonable apprehension of violence or an attempt to escape; (b) the restraint is considered necessary for the safety of the suspect or defendant, or (c) by order of a court.
”In the last 20 years or so, this is the fourth time that the restraint of suspects has been condemned in the media. Specifically, the decision of the authorities to handcuff Tafa Balogun (a former Inspector-General of Police), Olisa Metuh (a former chieftain of the PDP), Agba Jalingo (an online publisher) and Dele Farotimi (a lawyer) was greeted with opprobrium in the media.
Based on the condemnation of the humiliation of such suspects, the restraint of each of them was hurriedly discontinued. Hence, Mr. Dele Dele Farotimi was not handcuffed to the Magistrate Court yesterday.
’In several WhatsApp groups, petit bourgeois lawyers and journalists have congratulated themselves for the social media campaign that compelled the prison management to discard Mr. Dele Farotimi’s handcuffs.
“However, on a daily basis, lowly-placed criminal suspects are handcuffed to and from the several High Courts and Magistrate Courts in all the states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory. As if that is not enough, such suspects are regularly leg-chained like slaves in sugar plantations in the Americas during the slave trade.
”The dehumanisation of poor suspects is considered normal by the elite in our stratified society. For instance, a couple of months ago, a police command paraded a suspect before the electronic and print media for stealing five tubers of yam valued at less than N10,000 to feed himself and his family members. At about the same time, a public officer accused of stealing over N100 billion was neither handcuffed nor paraded before the media.
”It is only when politically-exposed persons and the elite are charged with criminal offences that lawyers and journalists wax lyrical and pontificate so passionately on the sanctity of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
”Under the current democratic dispensation, four judgments of the Ecowas Court and domestic courts in Nigeria have declared the parade of suspects illegal on the ground that it is prejudicial to the right of fair hearing. Based on such judicial decisions, the human rights community mounted a vigorous campaign for an end to the practice of parading suspects by law enforcement agencies in Nigeria.
”Although the campaign has not succeeded, the Lagos State House of Assembly prohibited the parade of criminal suspects via an amendment of the Criminal Law carried out in February 2009. Since the House of Assembly of other states failed to adopt the progressive position of the Lagos State Government, our law firm has filed a suit in the Federal High Court seeking to stop the Nigeria Police Force, EFCC, ICPC and other security agencies from further parading criminal suspects in chains.
”However, in marking this year’s Human Rights Day, the National Human Rights Commission held a conference at Abuja on December 5, 2024. In his goodwill message delivered at the conference, Mr. Hashimu Argungu, the chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC), condemned the practice of parading suspects in chains. It is hoped that the Nigeria Police Force will soon ban all police commands from subjecting poor suspects to handcuffs and leg chains before the media.
”In order not to be accused of hypocrisy, Nigerian lawyers should join the campaign to ban detaining authorities from further subjecting all suspects and defendants to the restraint of handcuffs and leg chains unless it is authorised by a court. Nigerian lawyers should also ensure that suspects and defendants are not exposed to any form of media trial. Journalists should also stop the contemptuous culture in the media by which pages of newspapers, television and radio studios as well as myriad online platforms have been turned into parallel trial courts.
”The point that I am struggling to make is this: the campaign for humane treatment of suspects should not end simply because the prison authorities have removed the handcuffs on Mr. Dele Farotimi. In other words, it is time that the handcuffs and leg chains on other suspects and defendants were removed.”
Well said! I cannot now remember the activist whom the Establishment sought to shame by putting him in chains; but rather than bow his head in shame, he held up his manacled hands for everyone to behold and denounced it as the symbol of a decadent society and the shame of those upholding and promoting it. And my mind went to Rousseau quoted above.
Those who think themselves the master of others are the worst of all slaves. The handcuffs on some men’s hands are nothing compared to the handcuffs on some other persons’ minds and souls!
Neither do we need Rousseau to tell us that Nigeria is a country where everyone is born free but are everywhere in chains – chains even worse than those Femi Falana is railing against here.
Once upon a time the thinking was that the judiciary, touted as the “last hope of the common man”, would help break the chains holding the people down; but today we know better!
To break their chains, the people must take their destiny in their own hands and, that way, also help break the chains on the judiciary’s own hands and legs!
Today, the Bar and Bench are the worst enemies of the Judiciary. They are the ones trampling the norms and basic rules that once were the unshakable pillars of their profession.
They are the ones “learned” enough to maneouvre the nooks and crannies of the law, cutting corners here, laying ambush there and exploiting the loopholes carefully and deliberately created to serve selfish ends.
They are the ones encouraging media trial. They are the ones leading litigants or acceding to the desire of litigants to pervert the cause and course of justice. They are the ones who say, see and treat the law as an ass.
They are the ones fouling the temple of justice and polluting its fountain. They are, therefore, also the ones best placed to clean its Augean stable.
Judgment, and restoration, must start from their two houses – the Bar and the Bench!
The blame cannot be shifted anywhere and to anyone else, be it litigants, the media or politicians!
Bolanle BOLAWOLE, former Editor of PUNCH newspapers, Chairman of its Editorial Board and Deputy Editor-in-Chief, was also the Managing Director/ Editor-in-Chief of The Westerner newsmagazine. He writes the ON THE LORD’S DAY column in Sunday Tribune and TREASURES column in the New Telegraph newspaper on Wednesdays. He is also a public affairs analyst on radio and television. turnpot@gmail. 0705 263 1058
