Skip to main content

DEFAMATION: BEFORE THE HIGH COURT RULES.

October 13, 2008

Now that the groundswell of popularity the Kano state Governor Malam Ibrahim Shekarau once enjoyed has, like the Wall Street shares, crashed and the crass public disillusionment associated with his administration and policies manifests even at the most unexpected places and events, it would appear, on the surface though, a wise idea for the topmost operatives in his government, who equate themselves to the state, to divert public attention from the woes they crafted or initiate a move to distance themselves from the administration and such controversial policies at the last hour.

Now that the groundswell of popularity the Kano state Governor Malam Ibrahim Shekarau once enjoyed has, like the Wall Street shares, crashed and the crass public disillusionment associated with his administration and policies manifests even at the most unexpected places and events, it would appear, on the surface though, a wise idea for the topmost operatives in his government, who equate themselves to the state, to divert public attention from the woes they crafted or initiate a move to distance themselves from the administration and such controversial policies at the last hour. All said, they are also politicians, they appear to have reasoned. However, the civil suit filled a few days ago by the Head of Service and the Solicitor-General at a Kano High Court for, according to them, defamation of character against Freedom Radio and New Age Magazine has, not surprisingly, provoked much outrage in Kano and beyond. Lest one is misunderstood, I and indeed the people so outraged, are in no way against these icons seeking for justice at the High Court. On the contrary, we believe, it is their fundamental right to do so where and when they feel aggrieved. After all, both our religious and democratic sentiments dictate that one must not be neutral when it comes to justice and injustice in our society. Hence, speaking about justice, injustice or defamation of character, particularly where the Kano State Government or its officials are involved, one cannot help to ponder over the seemingly but unnecessarily protracted case of Malam Bashir Abba Sharif. To recapitulate, Malam Shariff was, along with five others, dismissed from the civil service in the year 2000. He and one other, Abdulmumini Yelwa, challenged their dismissals at the High Court. On two occasions, in the year 2003, the courts declared their dismissals unconstitutional, unfair, unjust, against natural justice, null, void and of no effect whatsoever and consequently ruled that the two officers should be reinstated and paid all salaries and allowances that they would have earned but for the purported dismissals, with effect from the date of their suspension. After long, sadistic and surprising shenanigans, on the 10th March, 2004, the Civil Service Commission reinstated them in compliance with the court judgments. Regrettably, to date, even with this development, the government or the Office of the Head of Service and the Ministry of Justice to be precise, have ambushed and tenaciously refused to comply with the said judgment to reinstate Malam Bashir. This is notwithstanding the fact that the same judgment was complied with in the case of Abdulmumini A. Yelwa whereas the other officers, who did not even contest their dismissals in the court, have had their cases “administratively reviewed” most handsomely, with two of them posthumously, because of their relationships with the Head of Service and some key government officials. Again, it is still fresh in our memory how this government, by mere administrative fiat, upturned the dismissals of many other officers, including many from the Health Services Management Board, without any eyebrows raised. Some were even immediately rehabilitated with appointments in to the Cabinet as Advisers to His Excellency. However, in the case of Malam Bashir, it is interesting to note, many committees were set up ostensibly with a view to undermine and frustrate the judgment. But given the “notorious facts” available, the Committees had no alternative than to submit Reports that recommended absolute compliance. But then, for reasons best known to the Head of Service and the Solicitor-General, these Reports have been refused the light of the day since April 2007, not to talk of implementing the recommendations made. Similarly, the state assembly, petitioned about the case six months ago by over 7000 indigenes from Gwale Local Government area, appears incapacitated even after it had promised to resolve the impasse. Other legal and Constitutional advices officially given the government to comply with the court judgment have also been ignored. Faced with this unjust scenario, anybody concerned with justice and equity in our society must begin to think of a sinister motive behind the move to seek justice by the “high profile plaintiffs” against Freedom Radio at the high court. Since when have they started feeling the pains of defamation of character, if at all they know what defamation of character is? Going by their official responsibilities, what moral right or ground have they to seek redress from the same court whose decision they brazenly emasculated? Has our despair and despondency about equity and justice in the state upturned lately for the better? Certainly, unless and until concrete and verifiable evidence and commitment is shown that the concept of the rule of law, due process and the sanctity of judicial pronouncements have regained their allure and respect within the government, one cannot but continue to be skeptical about the motive behind the high profile case. And in this sense, there would be no better evidence and commitment to the rule of law by the government than the reinstatement of Malam Sharif in line with the extant court judgment, along with other similar cases that prick the conscience of the entire civil service institution. Like my Lawyer friend said, one cannot seek equity with soiled hands, especially at the court of justice. Although they may appear different because of the personalities involved, the two cases are exactly the same in character and substance; they are all about justice and defamation of character, with citizen Sheriff’s, as the ace writer Ujudud, would have prepared, having a higher premium over that filled against Freedom Radio. By casting aspersion on the court order and sustaining the punishment mated on the allegation which the court had validly quashed, the duo of the “high profile plaintiffs” have actually defamed the character of Malam Bashir Abba Sharif, to the extent that he can not secure any public employment since then. With this background, the question is, would the Head of Service and the Solicitor-General celebrate the judgment if they were to win the case? Would they expect other people to accept the judgment as binding? Most importantly, is the High Court comfortable in entertaining their case in view of their credentials on its earlier ruling? Are they not mocking at our judicial system and playing to the gallery merely to achieve a hidden agenda? The court is said to be the last hope for the common man; are they now common such that they will now run to it for justice? In any case, how just are the “high profile plaintiffs” that they would demand for and be given justice? Assuming the high profile plaintiffs win, who would they expect to enforce the judgment? And where there is any reluctance to execute the judgment, would they have the courage to blame anybody or even complain? Evidently, the State House of Assembly that, at one time, showed keen interest and promised to intervene has been intimidated and cajoled into a collateral silence over the case for too long. Regrettably however, that silence, now turned collateral damage, has not been helpful, particularly on the issue of good governance in Kano. Instead, it has triggered inflatable insinuations and conclusions in the rumour mill which, with good reasons, put the Honorable House on the defensive pertaining to contempt of court, due process, rule of law, abuse of office and even vindictiveness in government. One wonders how Malam Ibrahim Shekarau has allowed himself to be held hostage to advisers that initiate and run disasters in the name of state affairs, for which he is, more often than not, personally held responsible. Like the English politician, Sir Enoch Powell said, “all political careers end in failure” but then the wisest politician is that who attempts to purge himself of any attributes of career failure at the best of circumstances. As an informed observer, one will therefore be very glad if Malam Ibrahim Shekarau moves to rediscover himself and ensure that his administration is concluded around equity and justice. Indeed, the too much talk people talk about justice, equity and the rule of law is not for anything but for self preservation at both personal and societal levels. On a final note, one laments the unprecedented dearth in Kano of statesmen who would have conscientiously raised their voices against any injustice, without minding who is involved. Such wise men could have, I believe, counsel the Head of Service and the Solicitor-General against engaging Radio Freedom the way they did as it will belittle them only. The fact that a competent court had cleared Malam Bashir of all allegations coupled with the government compliance with the same judgment in relation to Abdulmumini Yelwa alone narrows his plight to abuse of office, excessive vindictiveness and egoism elevated far and above public interest evidently by the duo of the high profile plaintiffs. This is most unfortunate and indeed much more so as the default puts the credibility of some critical public institutions in the state in to jeopardy. On the defamation suit, the generality of the people in Kano are one that, “the chicken has come home to roost”, even when they opined that the high profile plaintiffs should have come up with a better gimmick to isolate and insolate themselves from Malam Ibrahim Shekarau and the mess that they created for his administration than joining issues with the professionally objective, politically neutral and socially responsible Freedom Radio at the high court.

 

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });

 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of SaharaReporters

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });