Steve Osuji: Let us debate the law, not attack my personality — by Monday Ubani

I have read Steve Osuji’s Expresso column titled, “Monday Ubani: Gani Fawehinmi Is Weeping In His Grave!” I am compelled to respond, not because criticism of me is forbidden, but because the column grossly misrepresents my legal argument and proceeds to attack a position I did not take.

My position was simple, clear and founded on my understanding of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: the mere omission or non-presentation of certificates by a presidential candidate in the nomination process does not, by itself, necessarily invalidate the nomination. This is because the Constitution does not make the physical presentation of a particular school certificate the sole and absolute determinant of qualification for the office of President.

I did not, at any point, justify forgery. I did not defend perjury. I did not say that a candidate who presented a forged certificate should escape the consequences of the law. I did not say that dishonesty should be rewarded.
These are entirely different legal questions.

My intervention was directed at a fundamental issue of constitutional interpretation: what does the Constitution require, and what are the legal consequences of failing to comply with those requirements?
Section 131 of the Constitution sets out the qualifications for the office of President. Section 131(d) provides for the educational qualification required for the office. The Constitution and the applicable legal framework must therefore be carefully examined in determining whether a person has satisfied that requirement and, where necessary, what legal consequences follow from any alleged failure.
Therefore, anyone who intends to challenge a presidential nomination must carefully identify the appropriate constitutional ground and the precise legal wrong complained of. Law is not governed by anger, political preferences or the personal popularity of the candidate involved. A weak legal foundation can cause an otherwise serious complaint to fail.
That was the purpose of my intervention: to caution those contemplating litigation that they must understand the constitutional and legal framework before approaching the court.
This is elementary legal prudence, not political advocacy.

Unfortunately, rather than engage the substance of my argument, Mr Osuji chose to speculate about my motives. He suggested that I was “fishing for a bumper brief from Aso Rock,” “angling for something,” or seeking personal gain. He went further to make insinuations about my professional integrity and my entire career as a human rights lawyer and public-interest advocate.
That is regrettable.

A lawyer’s constitutional argument should be confronted with a better constitutional argument. If Steve Osuji believes that I am wrong, he should point to the specific constitutional provision, judicial authority or legal principle that disproves my position.
That is how serious intellectual disagreement should be conducted.
It is particularly disappointing that my long record as a human rights lawyer and social critic should suddenly become the basis for questioning my integrity simply because I have expressed a legal opinion that does not conform to a particular political narrative.
One cannot claim to believe in the rule of law while insisting that lawyers must only interpret the law in ways that are politically convenient.

The law does not become different because the person affected is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Peter Obi, Atiku Abubakar or any other political actor.
The Constitution must be applied as written.
I also find it ironic that Mr Osuji invokes the memory of the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN, against me. Those who knew Gani understood that he was uncompromising in his belief in the Constitution, due process and the right of lawyers to pursue legal arguments courageously.
Gani did not teach us to abandon the law because public sentiment was against a litigant. He fought for the rule of law precisely because the law must apply irrespective of personalities.

If there are allegations of forgery, perjury or the presentation of false documents, those allegations must be proved and dealt with under the relevant laws and through the appropriate legal processes.
But an allegation of forgery is not the same thing as an argument about whether the Constitution makes the presentation of a particular physical certificate compulsory in a particular nomination process.
These issues must not be carelessly conflated.

Mr Osuji is said to be a renowned journalist, and I am compelled to respect his work and his right to hold and express his opinion. But on a matter of constitutional interpretation, sentiment cannot replace legal analysis.
A column may be fiery, entertaining and politically popular, yet still fail to address the central legal question.

Let him note clearly that I did not defend forgery. I did not defend perjury. I did not defend the falsification of documents.
I simply explained the constitutional position as I understand it and cautioned prospective litigants against building a case on the wrong legal foundation.
If Mr Osuji disagrees, let him demonstrate where I am wrong in law.
The better response to a legal argument is not an attack on the lawyer’s character. It is a superior legal argument.

Nigeria desperately needs a culture of intellectual honesty in public discourse. We must learn to distinguish between what the law is and what we passionately wish the law to be.
Until we do, we will continue to allow political emotions and personal sentiments to overwhelm reasoned analysis of national issues.

Mr Osuji, I stand by my right, and indeed my professional duty, to state my honest understanding of the Constitution without fear, favour, affection or ill will.
Let us debate the Constitution.
Let us debate the law.
Let us debate the authorities.
But let us not reduce every disagreement to an attack on motives, integrity or character.
That is the wisdom Nigeria urgently needs in its public discourse.

And let me state this plainly: I am not looking for anything except that my people should have knowledge, for knowledge is the principal thing.
I pray that my people should not perish for lack of knowledge.

Finally, Mr Osuji referred to a lawyer who responded to my earlier opinion. That lawyer received my response. I invite Mr Osuji to go back to that lawyer’s Facebook page, read my response and, more importantly, read what the lawyer himself said after my reply. He should then come back and honestly report the full exchange to his readers.
That is the difference between debate based on knowledge and argument driven by sentiment.

I welcome disagreement. I do not claim infallibility. But those who disagree with me should meet me where the argument is: in the Constitution, in the law and in the authorities.
Not in speculation about my motives.
Not in insinuations about my integrity.
And not in personal attacks.
If I am wrong, prove me wrong in law.

• Ubani, PhD, SAN is a renowned lawyer and human rights activist