Interviewing
|
|
|
|
Prof. Chinua Achebe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Chukwudifu Oputa
|
|
Justice Chukwudifu Akunne OPUTA, 80, reminds one of a
witticism attributed to the late African oral historian and philosopher, Hampate Ba -- that when an old man dies
in Africa a whole library is lost. With three degrees in Economics, History and Law, and a thorough grounding
in Literature and traditional lore, Oputa is a rare repository of sorts, a living human heritage.
Even
at 80, his mind is unusually sharp; he would rather be an “80-year young
man to a 50-year old man.” Served by a phenomenal memory,
he quotes with ease passages he first read during his secondary school days at Christ the King College, CKC, Onitsha. Not surprising, then, this interview took place in his well-appointed library at his country home
in Oguta, Eastern Nigeria, where he could rapidly retrieve references.
He was
called to the English Bar, Gray’s Inn, in 1953, and has earned a reputation as a revered jurist, serving Nigeria
in various critical panels, especially The Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission -- The Oputa Panel and the National Political Reforms Conference. On the Sunday afternoon when NDUKA OTIONO and CHRIS OGBOGBO conducted this interview, Justice Oputa’s
aristocratic carriage for which he is well known was particularly imposing, and his aesthetic taste showed in his
attire. He fielded questions with disarming frankness and humour, proudly deploying his native Igbo language whenever
he deemed it necessary.
Dr Ogbogbo holds a doctorate in History and a
Masters degree in Law. He is a Lecturer in the Department of History, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Nduka Otiono is an award-winning writer, immediate
past General Secretary, Association of Nigerian Authors; an associate lecturer, English Department, University
of Ibadan; a journalist and a freelance publisher; and an active member of the National Committee on UNESCO’s Intangible
Cultural heritage.
THE INTERVIEW
THE
OPUTA PANEL
A major landmark of your post-retirement services to the country is the Human
right violations investigation commission. On October 16th 2002, the federal government declared that it could not take a decision on the recommendations
of the Commission, otherwise known as the Oputa Panel; there were several court contestations of the work of the
commission. Do you see yourself then as part of “an illegal panel”?
The word ‘illegal,’ is a bit harsh, is it not? A thing may be ‘legal’ but not, ipso
facto, constitutional. The commission was founded by a law; the mere fact that those who founded the law did so
without the approval of the Legislature, is the origin of the trouble. When we [the members of the Oputa Panel]
came back from South Africa, we wrote to the President to upgrade it [the Oputa panel] to a
commission. The government did not get the message; it made no real distinctions
… using the term interchangeably…referring to every panel as a commission and vice versa, and then named the Oputa
Panel a Commission. This song and dance over semantics you see held great legal ramifications…particularly in the
manner in which the Oputa Panel/commission would receive funding, and the degree to which its recommendations would
be enforced.
The Oputa Panel was not funded by the government, which had no money, at all;
it was the Ford
Foundation and British Council that funded it. The cars we used were provided by these agencies. So, the court
cases held that it [the Oputa Panel] had no constitutional base, that the President acted ultravires his powers by establishing a commission.
That was the main contention. Now, the merits or demerits of the commission were not addressed. The establishment
of the commission was attacked, and the Supreme Court ruling was that the recommendations of the Commission should
not be implemented.
Most of the recommendations were against certain army officers in high places,
and they fought like wounded lions. IBB (General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida) and others -- they made sure
our recommendations would not be implemented. When the panel was concluded, the person who was secretary to the
federal government was
Alhaji Aminu Saleh. He told us to our face that the panel’s report will not see the light of day.
And it didn’t, until he retired, and then somebody took over. Later, the government asked some bureacrats to simplify
our findings so that they could be fully digested by those that were affected. Our findings were watered down,
and that is part of history.
Sir, after
reading your outstanding views on the rule of Law in, for example, Ojukwu versus Lagos State, one wonders at the
reasons IBB and Abubakar -- two former heads of state -- were asked to appear before the panel…
They refused to, of course, and the issue arose before the commission. I was
asked to have them imprisoned for disobedience. A court has the power to imprison individuals for contempt, and
the refusal to answer the call of the court is contempt. But for a conviction, there must be proof that one was
served a summons. Now, in many of those cases, those summonses did not go beyond the gates of the homes of the
people who were being served, and serving summonses to a gate man cannot be counted as service. Service should
be direct. So if you are unable to prove that a man was served, how can you say he disobeyed?
Couldn’t permission
have been given to substitute personal service?
Well, permission was not asked for, and this is not something we felt the commission
should concern itself with. We would not be judge and jury, in any case. Secondly, many questions have been asked about the publication of the Oputa
Panel report. My response is that it was at the panel’s instigation that a public hearing
was decided on; we were not bound to ordering one. And it was documented on television, so it was a public affair.
We wanted to make Nigerians judge and jury of the events of those days; there was the testimony of people who were
subjected to terror by the army officers. The defense of the army officers was also made public to enable people
make up their own minds.
Critics of the panel aver that without
the recommendations, the panel was merely a platform for Nigerians to vent their anger and complaints.
Well, that is good, isn’t it? Because one of the aims of the panel was to reconcile those who feel they were aggrieved
Do you think you achieved that?
We achieved that, at least.
In what sense?
Ah…ah…I remember; a soldier of higher rank was to be cross- examined by a lieutenant or a sergeant.
And when he was asked a question, the soldier said, “I don’t answer questions from a private.” I laughed, and said:
“You are not here as a general, you are here as a witness; you must respond to his questions, please...” And then
the sergeant adjusted his expectations, and for one hour, was questioned thoroughly to show equality of all before
the Law. Now, our report is in the archives;
anyone who wants to study it may do so. Researchers, of course, are allowed access to it. Many copies were made. The President was given one, and
quite a number archived for the benefit of the Nigerian public.
So, Sir, how would you compare the work of the Oputa Panel to that of the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa?
Err…you
may check for yourself [pointing to a section of the bookshelves]… Publications on the South Africa commission are here; I have them
all here…
It
is now clear to me that this interview could not have taken place outside your home.
Yes, everything
is all here. The truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa was something wider in scope, larger in content and funded by the government,
the Legislature. A law was passed. It was on a solid constitution base, and they knew what they were after. Money
was provided for research, money was provided for the sittings of the panel. And that Commission produced a report,
which was destined to bring together the warring groups in South Africa, and merge them into a nation. Our panel, on the other hand, was an imitation
-- and not a very good imitation -- of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. As I said, the funding was half-hearted,
the legislature was not involved; facilities were not available to the commission. We did go to South Africa; but there were other countries, such as Brazil, with similar commissions that we could have benefited from. However,
we did not visit these countries. But that, notwithstanding, our own instance was not on a scale as the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission. The Oputa Panel was commissioned mainly to investigate human rights abuses.
Would you
subscribe to the characterization of the Nigerian version [of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission] as the degenerate replica of the South
African ideal?
I don’t think ours can count as a replica, even a degenerate one. The purpose of
|
|
|
Justice Oputa
|
the South African event was reconciliation. In our own case, we were to investigate allegations of human rights
abuses. I have a paper here; somebody in Lagos or I think in Abuja…wrote something to the effect that it could only be “justice or revenge.” So
I responded with “The different faces of justice.” Justice is not reserved merely for the activities of the court
– that is, what takes place between prosecutors and the accused; plaintiffs and defendants. There’s something like
political justice, social justice, economic justice... These are all the faces of justice. So, if the Panel tries
to reconcile those who alleged that they were ill-treated by the army…and we did succeed in Ogoni…we are well within
the rights of the law. In the Ogoni case, the community was split into two adversarial groups, Ogoni 5 and Ogoni
7. We were successful in the event that both Ogoni 5 and Ogoni 7 joined to become Ogoni 11, and they shook hands.
The Panel had planned to go to Anambra where disputes between…
Umuleri
and Aguleri?
Cases such as that… Persons came, shook hands and reconciled before the public
view and the Commission. So we did achieve some measure of reconciliation between those who were aggrieved and
those who were perpetrators. It was not as national as that of South Africa, where whole groups -- the blacks
and the whites -- were in opposite camps. Here, we haven’t got such a similitude.
And then there
is the question of how the Igbo have been treated, particularly with reference to the civil war. Books like Emma
Okocha’s Blood
on the Niger
discuss serious transgressions against the rights of the Igbo. Given that you are one of the outstanding Law Lords
in this country and one who chaired the Human Rights Investigations and Violations Commission, would you recognise
war crimes in accordance with international law in the ordeal of Ndigbo during the war?
War is not a normal situation; war has its own approach to what is just, what is lawful. Now, if you are a strict
humanist, to kill is wrong; but in war, to kill is right -- if you are killing the enemy. There is a moral logic
that runs through human life. That logic is that we are all God’s children. We all are brothers and sisters, sons
and daughters of the same God. That people become enemies is purely by human action; a man-made description. If,
in the event, enmity is taken to the extreme, will killing in war become justified? That will take us a whole day
to discuss. But my final analysis is that killing is killing. Taking of life is wrong. So when we are discussing
war, we are discussing a very particular circumstance -- an abnormal circumstance. Personally I don’t like wars.
As a historian I know that no war settled any dispute. No war. The greatest thing one can gain by war is bargaining
power. People sit round a table; the conquered and the conqueror, they sit round a table. The conqueror has more
bargaining power, even though peace terms can still be tabled.
The classical Romans
|
|
|
Justice Oputa (right) with Barrister Ntoko at a Fako Lawyers Association event in Buea, Cameroon
|
said, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Pope John Paul said, no; “if you want peace work for justice.” What is justice? Eme onye k’emerie ibe [Be fair to all]. Justice will bring peace, not war. What you sow is what you
reap; simple but true. We have still not emerged from the Biafran war…you mention the Biafran war. The books that
you referred to that touch on the subject -- Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War by Ralph Uwechue, Blood on the Niger and so on…I have all of them; they are all here. As a historian, one has to
be up-to-date. But we are, in effect, still warring against each other with adverse effects on the entire country.
Look around you; the effects of what I refer to are everywhere. So if you talk about war, you’re referring to an
abnormal situation; and what people do during wartime is to excuse abnormal
behavior, and try to normalize their illegitimate actions. Perhaps, you raised this issue in your interview with Dim Odumegwu Ojukwu?
How
should these alleged atrocities be dealt with?
What you
do during war is not likely to be the same during peace. Whether the so-called war crimes committed during the
civil war have met the standards of the United Nations, I don’t know; that has to be investigated. And when they
are investigated, they have to be publicly reported before they can be acted upon. Look at what is happening in
Darfur, what is happening in Southern Sudan. Aha...things would have to be put in proper focus, and the Secretary General of the United
Nations informed, before it is decided whether action should be taken or not. May be some of the experiences will
amount to war crimes. That has to be established; but if or when that is established, what happens next? Don’t
forget: When you are on the course of a real reconciliation, it is rather dangerous to open up old wounds. I read
a poem when I was much younger that went:
“Let what
is broken so remain, the gods are hard to reconcile” (Laughter)… So, sometimes you create more troubles.
You may never have the correct answers.
CORRUPTION
Do you view corruption as the bane of contemporary Nigerian life?
A question to me on corruption may be a question to the wrong person (laughs).
During the just concluded Confab, I was Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Committee. And believe me, what we heard
and saw is more than what you would have read anywhere. The extent to which there is corruption in this country; the many faces and methods of
corruption, the way it has permeated every nook and cranny of our national life, is horrendous, absolutely horrendous!
If we are to survive, we must fight corruption to the stand still.
And you think
this is possible?
Why not!
Given the
effects of the EFCC [Economic and Financial Crimes Commission]?
The Lawyer says: before you commit a crime, first of all, think about it, form
an opinion, and then put that into practice. By the way, have you read Macbeth?
Yes.
When the three witches meet Macbeth and hail him with new titles, including becoming the King hereafter, he expresses
surprise saying, “The Thane of Cawdor lives: why do you dress me in borrowed robes?” But not up to one mile later,
the King’s messengers [Angus and Ross] come up to tell him that he has been made the Thane of Cawdor, the Thane
of Cawdor having been beheaded. At the time, Macbeth was Thane of Glamis. When he later tells his wife his experience,
she remarks that if the prophecies about his becoming the Thane of Cawdor have come true, the one about his becoming
King will also come true.
It will begin
to work out...
Exactly. Macbeth and his wife, Lady Macbeth, conceive of a plot: the King is passing the night here, I will intoxicate
his guards and when the guards are asleep, we can both do in the unguarded Duncan. But somewhat troubled, Macbeth muses: the king is my guest in double trust; first as a kinsman,
and then as his host who should against his murderer shut the door, and not bear the knife myself. But his wife
calls him a coward. “A soldier, you call a coward?” So to prove that he is not a coward Macbeth proceeds with their
plot. On his way, he confronts an apparition: “Is this a dagger I see before me, the handle towards my hand? Come,
let me clutch thee. I have thee not, but I see thee still, or are thou a dagger of the mind?”
There can be a dagger of the mind; urging me towards a devious deed, showing
me, providing me, with the instrument to use. When Macbeth comes down from murdering the King, his wife reminds
him: Did you rub blood on the attendant….go back up. He responds: I can’t go up there again, to look at those open
eyes, so lifeless... Lady Macbeth then takes the sword, goes up and soon comes back with blood on her hands. “My
hands are as bloody as yours,” she says; “a little water will wash us clean of this deed...“ But did it?
:
No…
{Continues quoting] “Not even the whole red sea can wash the blood out of this hand…” So…
That’s what
corruption stands for?
Yes; anyone
who is corrupt will first conceive of a corrupt act in his mind, and then work out the details of its execution.
Nigerians will have to do a real re-orientation of attitudes. Why are people corrupt? Total disregard of the Law
and cultural expectations; because they see that you can get away with anything? If one minister is in jail, dragged
around the streets for corrupt behaviour, and then another big official is put in jail, then another three or four,
people will be warned.
Sure?
Even if you give them money, they will run away, and say: “Keep your money...”
So would you
say government is not honest enough in the fight against corruption?
:
We are not serious. It is not a question of honesty; we are not serious. We don’t want to stop corruption. If we
want to stop corruption, we will not just seek two or three imprisonments. Make it uncomfortable, make it…
Unattractive—
Unattractive, yes... Nobody will do anything that will hurt him, you see.
On our way here, we met someone who gave us directions to your house. In describing you,
the person used the action words Odozi Obodo [The Developer or Builder]. She told us that this description not only fits
your profile at home, but abroad, in the Church, everywhere. How did you evolve your particular philosophy of life?
No…well, we thank God if it’s true…
:
Well… this
is somebody else’s verdict; it appears to be a general one, too. How does this woman’s assertion correspond with
your philosophy of life?
My philosophy of life is very simple; well, as I said, everything depends on surrounding circumstances. Luckily
for me, I came from a family for which money was no object. But, you know, in Oguta, we don’t value money as much
as we value a good name. If your son or daughter wants to get married, the question will be --- where does your
intended come from? Is he or she well educated? Somebody once told an intended suitor: I di ezu ori, I di agba’ma ma; iburo onye ajo omume ( you are not a thief, you are straightforward, you are a good person)
[Laughter]. So we value
that. In most
cases, as in mine, the match [marriage] is made by the family.
Now that things have gone out of gear -- like Chinua Achebe says, Things have
fallen apart -- you advise
your son, he won’t take your advice; you advise your daughter, she won’t listen to you. Now, you know that ezie afa ka ego [an honourable name is superior
to riches]. I
bu godu obei
[even if you were a wretch] but have a good name, the rich man is more likely to say: you may marry him my daughter;
he is from a good family, even if not a rich one. But these days, it seems that the only thing that counts is money. I have
a book -- What money cannot buy. When you go home, list everything you can buy with money on one page, then
on another page, list those things money cannot buy. You will find that the second page will be more important than the first.
How about
longevity; can money buy that? Because the rich also die young...
Well, like I said, at the Kayode Eso lectures, I said that Kayode Eso is 80 years young. I prefer a man who is
80 years young to one who is 50 years old. Growing old is a bad habit that active people never want to cultivate.
Well, I stay long hours here [in the study] but it doesn’t affect me.
Even at this
age?
</
