Plans are underway by the defendant to turn Falana’s testimony against him before the Nigeria’s legal practitioners privileges committee and the body of benchers and thus end his chances of becoming a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) for allegedly lying in court against the dictator and Nigeria’s court system.
“Femi Falana lied in court in his testimony against a Nigerian head of state and we are in the process of reporting him to the body of benchers for disciplinary actions especially as he aims to become a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN),” Ephraim Emeka Ugwuonye told the Chicago Inquirer outside the court premises recently.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
Under the Nigerian court system, the Body of Benchers is responsible for accepting new attorneys to the bar and also oversees appeals from decisions of legal practitioner disciplinary committee which is responsible for conferring SAN on lawyers and making rules as to obligation and privileges to be conferred on SAN ‘s.
Abdulsalam is facing charges of wrongful deaths including that of Chief M.K.O Abiola and other human rights abuses before a U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois when he was head of state briefly after the death of late Sanni Abacha.
Though Ugwuonye did not elaborate on the lies told by Falana, he however said that the human rights activist went too far in his testimonies and we cannot allow that to go unpunished. “I was in NANS (National Association of Nigerian Students). We protested and shouted aluta continua together while in school. Time has changed and we need to change with time,” Ugwuonye told The Chicago Inquirer.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
In a seven-hour testimony before Judge Kennelly, Falana had listed a combination of suspension of the Nigerian constitution, immunity of military and elected officials, non-compliance with court orders, corruption and lack of independence of the judiciary as reasons against securing remedies for human right abuses in Nigeria.
He described the likes of Abdulsalam as private Nigerian citizens that were above the law stressing that the situation hasn’t changed since civilian administration returned to the country in 1999.
The various succeeding administrations including the civilian administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo lack the moral and political courage to bring to book former Nigerian rulers even when they are indicted. He listed some former head of states and bigwigs in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party to belong to this group of people that belong to private Nigerians that are above the law.
Falana told the court that Nigeria was ruled by Marshall Law for the greater part of the years after independence, which made it virtually impossible for remedies for human rights abuses during the military governments.
Throughout the military governments in Nigeria, “the rights of Nigerian people to govern themselves democratically was suspended. Parliament was suspended. There were no elections. The rights, particularly fundamental rights, human rights were suspended,” Falana told the court.
He ranked the decrees promulgated by various military juntas as superior to other laws followed by the unsuspended provisions of the constitution, the acts of parliament and state laws in that order. He disagreed with the plaintiff’s testimony that the Nigerian judiciary was independent and explained that the judiciary was only independent “on paper” and under the constitution and not in practice because the courts are “under funded.”
“There are not enough courtrooms which causes congestion of cases and courageous judges are harassed,” he said adding things have not changed under President Obasanjo since democratic government returned to Nigeria in 1999.
“There is no noticeable difference yet. We even have a case for the first time in the history of Nigeria where the Supreme Court of Nigeria gave a judgment that funds belonging to Lagos State should be released unconditionally and President Obasanjo ignored the judgment and even came out to boast that he was not going to obey the judgment.”
The petit human rights activist told the court that Obasanjo was able to disregard the court orders because of the immunity enshrined in section 308 of the Nigerian constitution. Even Abubakar who handed over to him is protected by immunity for abuses perpetrated by him while in office adding such actions “cannot be questioned or challenged in any court in Nigeria today,” he said.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });