An ambassador, says Sir Henry Wotton, [1568-1639], is ‘an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country’. After seeing Alex Izinyon’s performance at Southwark Crown Court on February 13th (see, ‘Ibori’s day of reckoning’, Punch 27/04/12), I began to think how resonate this century-old aphorism seems to be with what the Senior Advocate of Nigeria did in court on behalf of his client, the disgraced ex-governor, James Ibori.
An ambassador, says Sir Henry Wotton, [1568-1639], is ‘an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country’. After seeing Alex Izinyon’s performance at Southwark Crown Court on February 13th (see, ‘Ibori’s day of reckoning’, Punch 27/04/12), I began to think how resonate this century-old aphorism seems to be with what the Senior Advocate of Nigeria did in court on behalf of his client, the disgraced ex-governor, James Ibori.
Izinyon had tried to persuade the court to accept his testimony that the Nigerian constitution does not preclude the election of a convicted fraudster to high office as long as the fraud was committed abroad and not in Nigeria. That he deployed the full weight of a SAN behind this palpable contortion was bad enough. He then went on to boast about how he had ‘won’ every case for his client in Nigeria, “right up to the supreme court”, presumably using the same bedazzling technique on some of our esteemed, but utterly supine justices in Nigeria.
The title: “SAN” is conferred on legal practitioners of not less than ten years standing, who have “....achieved distinction in the legal profession...” (Legal Practitioner’s Act, 5(2)). Once bestowed, it could catapult a journeyman lawyer from obscurity to celebrity in an instance; commanding astronomical figures in fees, and getting preferment in court in front of judges. This is quite apart from other intangible benefits a status of that magnitude necessarily confers on the recipient. It is no wonder, therefore, that the title is very much sought after by lawyers of both high and low standings in Nigeria.
However, judging by the performances of some SANs in court and in general practice, one is sometimes left wondering what ‘distinction’ they were deemed to have attained in the profession to merit the award. The process for making the award is fraught with all kinds of unease among practitioners, as it is shrouded in secrecy for the most part. It is not uncommon to meet a SAN unable to string a sentence together, let alone make a coherent argument before a judge. Recently, the prosecuting SANs on the EFCC v Akingbola fraud case were labelled “incompetent” by the presiding judge, Justice Charles Archibong of the Federal High Court in Lagos. They were rumored to have earned hundreds of millions of naira in fees for the botched prosecution. The lawyers, themselves, have yet to make any statements on this, so, we should reserve any final judgment until they do.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
It is also important to say that there are a lot of outstanding SANs out there in the Nigerian judiciary, past and present. Any adverse comments on the behaviour and incompetence of some of them should not be used to besmirch the good names of the others, who well and truly merit the award. My main point in writing this piece is not really to discuss about individuals; it is to renew the debate about the essence of the award itself. In my view, it is an award that has no legal or professional merit. No other profession in the country has had the audacity to set apart a select few and effectively hand them a meal ticket for life. If the legal profession is willing to condone this type of honours peddling, why not extend that to other professions? Why not, for instance, have “Senior Doctors of Nigeria” so they get to work in the best hospitals? How about “Senior Civil Engineers of Nigeria” so, they can attract the best construction work on our roads? How about “Senior Musicians of Nigeria” so, they get to charge astronomical fees for their gigs? And, how about “Senior touts of Nigeria” so, their “Danfos”, and “Molues” get preferment from the police on the road? The absurdity of these suggestions speaks to a deeper; more salient point. It tells us there is something patently rotten about a profession that has as its creed: ‘equality before the law’ to then set a few apart, and (with a nod to George Orwell), say; “oh, but some are more equal than others”. The legal profession is one that insists on a level-playing field for everyone irrespective of background or status. Yet, the same profession opts to skew the playing field in favour of a select few amongst them for no better purpose than to hand them the licence to print money!
There are many ways of acknowledging a person of distinction within a profession; conferring them with a privileged access to justice is not and should not be one of them. If indeed the SANs are good, and excellent in judicial matters, it is for their clients and the community they serve to proclaim them. Exceptional lawyers are known by dint of their work for their clients and the public at large. People know a competent, formidable advocate when they see one. Such lawyers do not need the extra mystification of the title “SAN” to stand out. American lawyers, for example, achieve notoriety, fame and fortune not by being accorded privileged access to justice, but by being hired and achieving results for their clients. Even in the UK, from where the idea of selective reward originates, the award of ‘Queens Counsel’ (QC) to a select few is fast becoming an anachronism and serious consideration is being given to its abolition. It is a throwback to the past, which adds little value to the profession.
A useful analogy is the title “By Royal Appointment” awarded for centuries in the UK to a select stores loved by the royal family. Such an award entitles the recipient to display the badge in front of their store to attract more customers. It is a statement and a symbol of how ‘distinctive’ the store’s products are. And if the products are good enough for the royal household, then, what more proof is needed of their inherent value? Harrods, the biggest high street store in Europe, was stripped of the title in 2000, when its Egyptian owner, Mohamed al-Fayed, accused the Queen’s husband, Prince Phillip, of being part of a conspiracy to murder the late Princess Diana, and his son, Dodi who, as an Egyptian and a Muslim, was dating the Princess of England. Mr. Al-Fayed’s reaction at the time was: “I don’t care about the title”. “I work to please my customers; not the royal family”. He simply got on with the business of selling good products to the public without the royal seal of approval. The public, in turn, voted with their pockets and the store has consistently outperformed its nearest rivals. Lawyers should equally be made to work at the pleasure of their clients; not look to currying favours from the Privileges Committee.
To reiterate, the title; “SAN” does absolutely nothing to promote the rule of law, incidentally, the motto of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). On the contrary, it tends to promote only the cult of personality, and with allegations of money changing hands during the screening process, it runs the risk of becoming a legally sanctioned racket. Consequently, campaign to eviscerate this odious symbol of class division amongst Nigerian lawyers ought to be stepped up. It is not a matter of if, but when it will be consigned into the dustbin of history.
Tayo Oke, Ph.D. Director: OKEASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL.
[email protected]
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });