 Hello and welcome to PLOS TV Africa's Democracy Day special. I am Coyote Ladingi. And I'm Mary-Anna Cohen. We're here to mark Democracy Day three years after President Mahmoud Buhari declared June 12th as a new day to celebrate our democracy. Quite interesting. You know, just like three years ago, I remember that over time there had been clamor for the day to be declared as Democracy Day as against the May 29th, when power changed hands. That was like 22 years ago. Yes. But we are looking at 28 years after what that day stood for. I'm sure both of us were alive then, right? We were obviously. We were. But most importantly, we're also not just talking about that day, June 12, what happened, how power did not necessarily go how Nigerians were expecting it. But then we're talking about 28 years later, how has Nigeria's democracy evolved? Have we changed for the better or have we regressed? Quite a big question. Because some would say, well, we've had so far a civilian rule and not democracy. But trust me, a lot of our experts are going to throw more light on that. Tell us how far we've gone in terms of our security, in terms of our economy, in terms of the most important, which is actually the security, because we wonder how we have gotten to this level where there's so much insurrection, so much unrest in different parts of the country. Yes. And we must not fail to understand that some of these insecurities are fueled by ethnic tensions. That's true. And this is the most that Nigeria has experienced in all of its life as a country. Yes. And trust me, we will get started with a very, very important one. That is the rule of law. What defines the democracy is definitely has to do with the rule of law. And let me not mention the name of the guest, but if we come back, we'll see that the person is fit and proper to explain to us what rule of law is all about under the democracy. All right. Well, let's kick start the show. When we come back from this break, we'll talk about the law that governs us as a people. Welcome back. It's still the June 12th special. President Olisha Gorbasajor took his oath of office under the law when he became president in 1999. He did not translate to him, leading with respect for the rule of law. It constantly meddled with legal processes. His success was praised for upholding the rule of law. Yeradwai ensured Supreme Court judgment, refonding legal state, old federal allocations was enforced. He also enforced the court's judgment declaring Peter will be the governor of Anambra state. Well, good luck. Jonathan had relatively good records here, but the president, Mahmoud Abouhara's record has been filled with numerous abuse of court orders. Judges have been ignored on at least 40 occasions. State security officials have invaded a court to arrest an activist on Mawili Shor and also invaded the home of judges. And to do justice to this, we have Mouiz Baneray is yet to talk about 28 years after and the rule of law is a senior advocate of Nigeria. And currently we also describe him as an activist. Just for record, he was one time commissioner of legal state for environment and also commissioner for transportation. At later time, he was also the national legal advisor of the ruling All Progressive Congress. Welcome, Dr. Mouiz Baneray. Thank you very much for joining us. My pleasure. Good to have you. Let's take a look at the idea of democracy and the idea of rule of law. We believe that these are supposed to be CME's twins and there was a situation with our own country. Well, our own country, in the first instance, maybe I'll just start by saying that what you said is correct in your introductory remark to the extent that can we really say we have a democracy in Nigeria as a date, particularity is not in Nigeria. Well, I share the position of those who believe that the best we've succeeded in achieving so far is a civil rule and not democracy in the proper context. So if you take it from that particular position, rule of law, however, has only one language and it is that everybody must do things in accordance with the dictate of the law. It's as simple as that. So if you pitch it from that, democracy not yet here, rule of law is there with us. But to what extent have we been upholding this, we are still far off. That's my submission. We are still far off. Well, sometime early this year, there was that confusion as to which should take precedence or which should come as priority in the country, knowing that we have been facing some form of insecurity over since last year into 2021. The president did say something about the fact that the rule of law, yes, does have its positioning, but then national interest does supersede. It became some subject of conversation and debate all across the country. As someone who's an officer of the law, do you agree with Mr. President's position as to national interest superseding the rule of law? I'm guessing the rule of law works with the country. I don't subscribe to that position at all. I believe that at no point in time must we subordinate the rule of law to any other consideration. Even within the context of national security, there are so many ways to skin a cat. You are still arrived at your destination using the instrumentality of the law. The moment you display the rule of law, it becomes rule of mind. And the net effect is simple. You are entering into anarchy. You become a jungle city. It's as simple as that. So under no circumstances must we allow the rule of law to be displaced. So I do not share that position. You say under no circumstances should we allow? Subordinate. Yeah, but are we allowing it or is it happening under our watch? Because we do not have the powers to allow or disallow, do we, at this point? Yeah, it's happening. I'm just telling you conceptually what it should be. But in terms of being pragmatic, where it's happening, what are we doing about it? I think that should be the question. What are we doing about it? Okay, Dr. Banyere, before we look at what we are doing about it, you gave me a very fundamental issue. And for some people, they believe that the political class played into the hands of the former military generals. In 1999, we had the former military general who took over power. And we have some kind of respite when we had a full civilian that talking about Yere Dua and we also had a good lieutenant. And we're back to a former general. Is this what is responsible to this unsatisfactory, if you ever can use that word, transition that we've experienced so far? Well, I suspect so. I suspect so because they've been living a regimented life, all the way. And suddenly they find itself in an environment that is not a regimented environment. The tendency, not generally, is to want to apply the regimented, our regimental rules. So for me, I believe that we must have somebody who is the void of that background. You see, once a soldier is always a soldier and will ever remain a soldier, there's nothing you can do about that. So I share again that position that we certainly must move away from people with those military background to somebody who is a civilian and accustomed to the basic rules of civility. How do we move away from it? Because I like to we were very good at placing the troubles and the problems of our country on the table and, you know, pushing that discourse. Well, what do we do in solving it? So let me start by talking about the Elzak-Zaki situation, the former NSA boss, this Moyale-Shaware case. These are clear examples of the rule of law not being adhered to. And we do have a constitution where there's so many laws that, in fact, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface of, you know, adhering to these laws. But it seems that we have a government that seems to pick and choose when to obey the law, when we, the people, should obey the law and when they should obey the law. But we are in a democratic dispensation. We claim to be in one. How do we get to make sure that our public officials adhere to the rule of law and do not pick and choose when they should, you know, adhere to it? But that's a long talk. Long one. Let's keep it short and simple. I struggle. In the first system, to do this, you need an enlightening populace. People must know their rights and they must know where the obligations are. Up to now, we do not have that. So the first thing that I would advocate is that we need to educate and enlighten our people about the tenets of the rule of law, what implications are until our people appreciate that that's when they can react appropriately to any violation of the rule. Whose job is it to do this, educating aside from the media? Please don't say the media. Well, it's all of us. I would say all of us, all of us. But clearly those who are enlightened to be able to enlighten or educate those who are not. So everybody is involved in this world. We cannot limit it to the government. We cannot limit it to the media. The transliteral rulers are there. The NGOs are there. The civil society organizers are there. The teachers are even in the classroom there. Everybody is involved. We are all stakeholders in a dire point there. And we need to bring this again, but that on the institution. You know, the rule of law is what gives back to the institution. And you cannot have an institution without the rule of law. So in the institution, one thing we have and I can say without further contradiction in Nigeria is that we practically do not have an institution, much like a strong institution. We practically do not have. Let alone the strong one. Yes. The reality of the matter is that institutions, you remember, you can remember a picture, picture, cast your mind back to the Trump last days in America. How the rule of law played out, how the institution functioned. You can't. I've said this separately, we don't have an institution. That's the beginning. That's the bane of our trouble. And I give you a good answer. I remember when Magu was not confirmed, but it's based upon the report of the DSS, the Department of State Security. People started talking to journalists. Strangely, who should be enlightened, saying that why should DSS be writing against the nominee of the presidency? DSS is an institution on its own. It can even write against the president of the country. Dr. Banere, I want us to stay on the institution because you've touched the kernel of the issue. But before then, I just want us to clear the air because when you came up with that position that let's try non-military background set of politicians, I want to believe that you are part of the political class. And we have governors now who have refused to grant autonomy to local government, the top tier of government. As we speak, probably you might give us an insight to what the constitution really says about these tiers of government and the constitutionality. Or is this a good call for us to have a new constitution that has been debated? You see, the problem is that the challenge of autonomy for the local government is not the fault of the governor. It's the fault of the National Assembly whom the presidency. The law at its time is largely ambivalent. It's not on the issue of autonomy for the local government. I think that we made in the last two assemblies to truly give them or confer on them full autonomy. But I tell you for free that during the Salakides, I know I was a consultant to the constitutional amendment process. And we came out purely with the full provision amendment that would confer autonomy on the local government. But that was preceded by the state of us assembly usually through the governors. Because we needed two-third of them. We couldn't get the two-third to pass it out. That's number one. Number two is the reality that the president lamented yesterday or two days ago and said, look, our local government has collapsed totally. The governors are just taking their money, the money meant for the people. And so everybody, we are all engaging in this one lamentation upon lamentation. But what are we doing about it? The reality is that we're most forced the National Assembly to act and ask fast in this regard. And the president said to sign in into it to confer full autonomy on the local government. That's number one. Number two, on the second leg of your question, I do not believe in the amendment process. I believe it's, I've written on it in my column. I said, this is just another scam. What do you believe in? I believe in total replacement. And I trace the constitutional history of Nigeria from 1932. But the deputy senate president said, this is not part of the mandate that is not achievable. Why is it not achievable? Well, because he said that the constitution, well, he says that the constitution, for a new constitution to be drawn, we have to amend this one to include a clause that says that we can draw a brand new constitution. That is not true. That is ignorant. That is totally ignorant with respect to their vocation. So you're insinuating that lawmakers don't know their jobs? Of course, of course. What are their qualities? So please, let's leave that one. Because if we go that direction again, you'll be making me to go into an error, descent to an error. You don't want me to go into it. Okay, so let's stay on the constitution. Yes, let's stay on the constitution. The constitution allows you to do amendment. The constitution, that's something we cause you can amend something by way of, every day in this country, at all levels of government, we are meant to be lost by way of repair. You bring in a new one, and in that law, it repays the old one. You don't need a new clause to do that one. What we have now is full of contradiction. A lot of unintelligible provisions. Like I said, a lot of ambivalent provisions. And it's so voluminous that it makes no sense at all. America is the biggest democracy we have in the world. Have you seen the constitution of America? It's a pamphlet. It's not something as voluminous as this that is contradictory and conflictional over the old place. A lot of things that ought not to be in our constitution are in our constitution. We need to respond more than two-third of what is in that constitution today. That is what is not making the constitution it's a key page. You know life is dynamic. The constitution is a living thing. The laws too are living thing. They must keep pace with development and the dynamism of the society. But when you go and talk some of these things and you make under sectional the process of remembering practically impossible. Then you are startifying your own growth yourself. You are shooting yourself in the leg. I can give you a good demonstration. The land you serve were integrated into the constitution. Even in the land you serve, when you open it, there is a portion, size everywhere now, cause transitional provisions that was meant to just last for a short period. Now since 1978 today, nobody can do anything about it. But Dr. Banere, I don't want us to forget that issue that Miriam talked about, talking about the constitution, I mean the institution. Where is the problem? Is it the political will of the political class or the people allowing the institution to be stronger? We had a debate everywhere this morning about who's right it is to protest, you need permission from the police and there is a judgment in relation to that that you only need to inform the police. But we saw police telling people they cannot protest. So where does this strong institution lies? How do we build a strong institution? Well, like I said, like I said, it is the function of ignorance. By who now? Yes, I was going to go into the, the operators to start with. The approaches of most of the institutions are people that are not even conversant with the Bible that they are carrying. What is the Bible? The law setting them up. I can tell you without further contradiction, more than 90% of those who had the various institutions today have never for once sat down to even look at their law. For once, since they were a country, they just got a permit to go there and ask the people what have you been doing, what have you been doing it? No, that's all. They don't even know their power. They don't know the extent, they don't know the scope. That's number one. Two, the people themselves are equally ignorant. That's why they cannot even enforce. They cannot raise issues. Even where their rights are threatened or violated. They can't because it's what you know that you agitate. If you don't know about it, you just keep quiet and just surrender to the will of God. And this is what it's about. So for me, that's why I say education and enlightenment of the people, both the stakeholders and even the operators, it's very critical. The law has provided for this. The way the law set up is to make an institution. We always tell you, these are your function. These are your power. These are what I want. These are your limits. These are to govern you and no other human being. No matter how superior the person is. But what do you find today? Well, before we go, because we're almost out of time. Finally, I just want to talk about you, your constituency. The NBA, every time I have a lawyer here, they say, oh, these legislators don't know their job. What is the NBA doing? What are these senior advocates of this country doing to push and some will put a burden on these legislators that you have claimed do not know their jobs? Pointing them in the right direction, because if they do know that these people who are learned gentlemen know their worth and they are pushing for certain things, I'm guessing that they would not have an excuse as opposed to a populist who do not necessarily understand the Constitution, as the lawyers do. Well, I've heard that the NBA is playing this role. We do from time to time. Tell them our position on all the issues. But of course, it takes somebody who is interested. They will know to even appreciate the point the NBA makes. Most of the time they make profit on the right to pin out the same to them, but they just ignore them most of the time. So there's little you can do. The only people that can correct this anomaly are the electorate. And that is when you are able to do a lot of things. In other words, reform your electoral process. The electoral process and the system as it is right now cannot give all the best set of hands that will pardon the affairs of this country into any success. So we need to revisit that completely. All right. Well, thank you very much, Moise Banneray. He's a senior advocate of Nigeria and he's been our guest on the show today. Thank you so much for speaking with us. My pleasure. All right. Yeah, it's been a wonderful time. We'll take a short break and when we come back... We're going to be talking about the economy. Yes, very important. Because the Naira seems to be taking a deep dive. What is responsible for that we'll get to find out. Stay with us.