Dr Monday Onyekachi Ubani, a senior member of the Bar has put in over 30 years of active legal practice. He was former Vice President of NBA, ex-chairman of NBA, Ikeja branch, former chairman of SPIDEL. He is a Human Rights activist, a social critic who was conferred with the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) on September 30, 2024. After the ceremony in Abuja and back to his Lagos Chambers, ONYEWUCHI OJINNAKA interviewed him on issues bothering on his elevation to SANship, human rights advocacy, conflicting court judgements, constitutionality of EFCC, amongst others. Excerpts…
How do you feel on your elevation to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria?
I am so happy being a senior advocate of Nigeria. I believe in destiny, I believe in God, and I believe that God’s time is always the first. I never knew that I would be a senior advocate in my lifetime, because a bit I learned about the process is that it’s very rigorous. Do I have the discipline for all that?
Until three years ago, when a Senior Advocate of Nigeria was sure that he was going to be conferred, he saw me on the road and said, Ubani, I cannot be a senior advocate and you are not one. Where is your office? Let’s go to your office. That’s how the desire now was sort of rekindled.
He drove to my office with me, told my lawyers, where are the cases your boss has been handling? They started bringing out those cases. Some of them had expired because of 10 years’ timeline. Then those that were still fresh, he now said, begin to gather them.
He was one that even said, look at the guidelines. It was that time I now read the guidelines of how to be a silk. I saw that you need letters from the justices that handle your cases.
You must get a reference letter. In any matter you complete, you must get a reference letter. I didn’t know about all that.
Those of them that we didn’t have letters, we now started, and most of the justices have retired. We now started looking for a way to get those letters.
I now put my mind to it and then start ensuring that those basic requirements are complied with. Because it is very important, nobody will ever be a SAN, based upon the process we passed through without getting the basic requirement. If you don’t have it, no matter who you think you are, you can’t even move to the next stage.
Because it’s up to four infiltrations, they call it four infiltration. The first infiltration, the second infiltration, in the second infiltration they can now raise queries. If you’re able to escape those queries and enter into the third, it is now the chamber.
If you pass chamber, you now enter into another oral interview. It’s a thing that I pray every lawyer should get once. It’s so rigorous and so, you have to be very patient and focus and then pray for it.
Despite the infiltrations you mentioned, and the rigors involved , we know that there have been a lot of criticisms about the outcome sometimes perhaps to the conduct of those who are called senior advocates in advocacy and the rest of these things which lead to the agitation of scrapping SAN. Now that you are a SAN, with the benefit of hindsight, would you subscribe to the idea this thing should be removed so that every lawyer should have a…..
The truth of the matter is that I always had a position before now and in my interview, in fact, there was a particular time over 10 years ago, a lady asked me, whether I want to be a senior advocate of Nigeria. I said yes. That the desire of every lawyer is to attain the peak of his or her career.
There is no person who will not want to attend that peak. I’m not saying that probably the process, you know, is so perfect, but it’s been run by human beings. But the point is that the process that I passed through was very good.
It gives me that confidence. Whoever is made a SAN, you know, should be sound in everything. sound in character, sound in behaviour, sound in leadership, sound in advocacy, sound even in being patient.
Because that is a peak. So why would you not show leadership even in court, in times of even being fair to your junior lawyers, to junior lawyers? It is not a position that, you use to oppress others. It is actually a position that God has elevated you now to be on top and then display that skill and then display that knowledge and display that experience and display that leadership quality that is expected of you.
Because that is highest. So I don’t see anything wrong in having senior advocate of Nigeria. Yes, you can make suggestions about improvement of the process, but not that it should be scrapped.
One of the arguments of people is that, look, whoever is qualified should be given. That you don’t…. But other people now say, no, that it is a privilege. And that being a privilege does not mean that everyone who is qualified should not be made a SAN,
Do we give everyone that is qualified? Or should we now say it is a privilege that not everyone until there is some level of understanding that this person is supposed to be given? So that is where we need to balance it. But if you ask me, it is something that is worthy because it is a process you have passed through that makes you to know that you cannot in any way give anything less to the society. Because you are now regarded as being in the peak of your career.
So in leadership, in everything, you must be able to manifest excellence. That is my understanding. So I never said anything against it neither will I at this point.
The only thing is that we may keep on refining the process to make it better. That is what I think. There is another debate about kind of passive discrimination against university lecturers, professors, who come in for this privilege through the academic process.
Recently, the modalities or the procedures for those kind of category were said to be so rigorous for them that only one person was selected. So this debate, what is your position about it? Because there are different layers of argument concerning the academics. Part of which is that, how can you be an advocate? You should concentrate in lecturing. You should work as an advocate, leave lecturing, come to advocate. So where do you stand in all of these?
You have answered it now. The title is ‘Senior Advocate’. But this person is not an advocate. He is a writer. He is in academic and they have a line also, a platform under which they can also attend to the peak of their career. Like now I’m doing doctorate degree in University. After which if I want to be a professor, I start writing in order to qualify for, you know, the highest is to be a professor.
You are there as a professor, the argument is that you are coming again to come and shortchange those who have lined up in their own field as advocates. You are eating from there and You are also coming here again to come and also shortchange those guys who are advocates, who want to get to the peak, If you are coming as an advocate, it is a different thing.
What I wanted to say is that, If you go to court and satisfy the requirement of submitting all the necessary cases you’ve handled as an advocate, who stops you?
In fact, there was one who is a professor who became a Senior Advocate .We now have a professor. But he has been going to court and we even have a Senator who is a SAN. A Senator in Nigeria who became a senior advocate of Nigeria because he has already met up with all the requirements of his case and all that. So, if you now say you advocate, then you must be in the category of advocacy, not academics. In academics, you have already become a professor.
You have attained your highest. Why are you now coming to infiltrate? That’s the argument. I am saying this is the argument, you know, and I see some sense in it.
Now, they have even allowed them once, One in a year. If you’re not an advocate, they give you one. Haven’t they tried?
The name is Senior advocate of Nigeria. You know, lecturers are allowed to go to court. They’re allowed to, you know, go and represent their clients. You can now apply on that and go and become a senior advocate provided you meet all the requirements. But you cannot be a professor and now begin to answer senior advocate. What have you advocated?
Let’s stay on our lane. Now that I’ve been made concession, I’ve given you one out of how many who have applied, you know. So I think they are generous enough to make allowance for those who are not advocates to become advocates.
That’s the argument. But I’m not against them. They’re the one lecturing me, all those professors.
There is this argument or whatever. People argue differently that this issue of SANship, which is an annual event, should not be so. Because it is been bastardised.That they should give it some time. May be two, three years before another elevation. What is your position on the issue?
That was the argument of Body of Benchers at that time. You know, that was a particular year. They felt that it’s like the process now has been lowered. The standard has been lowered. And then they wrote to the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee to suspend the process for at least three years. In order to take a look at the process again and probably come up with a… I think it’s also part of the human philosophy. I don’t know how to say it.
When you cross a river, if you’re not too generous enough, you don’t want every person to cross. Maybe in that place you have crossed, there are too many gold there. And that gold now, only a few people are sharing it.
So you want to remain on that gold mine and be chopping the… Let me use the word, chopping the… And then around, they say up to 20 more people are waiting to cross over. You don’t want anyone to cross over now. To come and share the number of gold that is here.
So that is actually what is going on. It’s not easy when you enter there to say, let everyone come in.
And then you look at how many senior advocates we have in Nigeria. They are not up to a thousand in total and that includes those who have died. For a country of 200 million.
So that is why… You see all those who are suspended here. I don’t want many of them here. So let it remain only a few.
Because to them, the fewer, the better, the more honor. You know, the way that time… When I go to a new location, with my years as a lawyer, they will just call all the senior advocates first. You will be senior lawyer.
You have been called to bar before this Silk.. I have just been watching. I said, God. That is one of the reasons I said, God., Whatever it will now take. I have to become a SAN… Because I still feel that those who are older lawyers, should also be given some priority. The moment you become a senior advocate, even if you are just called to Bar today, all those other lawyers, now they are senior to you. Their case will be called first. So I won’t lie to you.
Why did you choose to become a lawyer?
I was admitted to study political science in the University of Nigeria. And I know that I love people like Gani and all that. I wanted to be a lawyer, no doubt. But one of the things again that made me say, if I know the law, God….
Because I came, I think I scored second in political science in the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. One boy said to me If you are brilliant, why are you not studying law? If you think you are very intelligent, why are you not in law? You see the arrogance of lawyers at that time.
You know, they call themselves learned. And you know, they select people and all that. I say, God, this guy, does he think I cannot be able to read the law because I had to now….. I lost two years.
I was already entering third year in political science and now changed to law. And started year one. Because of arrogance of lawyers again.
I’m there now. And I’ve seen. You know, when they are calling themselves learned and all that, you know, some people, you get some people angry, right? I’m careful using that word learned, you know, making other people look as if they didn’t go to school. Lawyers are known for that.
Then the senior advocates also. When they are there… It’s only few people that will allow you to sit on the same seat with them.
So this was your first application before….
Yes, this is my first. In life, sir. And I saw somebody who was his tenth time. And I held his hand and I told him that this is the last for you. And God did it. If you try it for second time, you may run mental.
You know this particular philosophy, belief, principle, known for it, fought for it, respected for it, and then I attained the position of self, and now become disillusioned with the masses, and now begin to fight against the same masses that have always been there for me, and now begin to speak against them, and then identify with the oppressors, so to speak, or the bourgeoisie, and then go against the political right, you know, because it will be clearly, clearly against my principle.
So, I will always speak on behalf, I will always, you know, fight for the less privileged. But in doing that also, it’s also important we draw the line that there must be bread on the table, that activism and pro-bono thing also must not be in every case we are handling, because you have to take responsibility for certain things.
There was an opinion expressed recently on the powers of the EFCC, when it was said that the EFCC is an illegal non-profit channel. Do you agree with that?
No, I don’t think so, It’s not illegal.
It was a creation of national assembly. The only thing is that the operation of the EFCC towards the states, in a federalist country is wrong, because that law ought to be adopted by the various States, just like we have the Child Rights Act. You know, the Child Rights Act was an act of the national assembly. Now all the states now have adopted it.
So he is saying, if we were operating in a federal system of government, it would be wrong to say a national act, an act enacted by national assembly that should only apply to at Abuja, is now being used to apply to all the federations, because the states have to adopt it.
But the problem with that is that are we really operating in a proper federal system? How about the NJC? The NJC is still the one that recruits judges, even for the various states.
Ordinarily the states are supposed to recruit their justices, but the NJC does it for them. May be the argument is, let’s put it in the constitution, we’ll put it, so that it becomes an agency that will cover all the states, without any technical hitch.
But I am saying that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has recognized the legality of EFCC, already in several decided cases. The argument now that, it is not constitutionalized and should not apply to all the states because of the fact that we are operating in a federal system of government, so how can you use a national enactment that should be applicable only to Abuja to apply to the federal states? Well, point. He has a point there, but I keep on saying that if you allow the states to enact anti-corruption laws, forget about corruption, then in Nigeria you’ll be dead.
Can you imagine a governor who has stolen so much, will allow an agency that fights corruption in the states to come and arrest him. Because the person he will be handing over is his crony.
In fact, as I speak to you, with EFCC even intervening in the federal and states, those governors that were godsons of the previous governors will make sure that they hide all the records from the EFCC. Then you can imagine when it becomes a state law, I mean it becomes a state agency, where the governors have taken so much out of the system.
So the issue is that we really want EFCC to still be a federal agency, but made in such a manner that it will apply to all the states of the federation. It has its deficiencies though. It’s not a perfect institution, just like no institution is very perfect.
But it’s better to have EFCC that operates all over the federation than having an EFCC that is made by state law and operates at the state level. Because they will of course, you know the SIEC now, the SIEC and even the people are also convinced that if you allow state police, these guys will use state police and finish all the opponents and all that. So we have to be careful in not advocating total abolition of EFCC from the various states.
We must probably reform the law in order to make it more inclusive, and since we are operating a federal system. But saying that EFCC should be domesticated at the state level and let it operate at that state level and let them be affected by corruption, which is our bane, then Nigeria will be finished. Because there won’t be any person that will be arrested. No body will ever be prosecuted. This one said it will go in and help themselves with the treasury and that’s the end. And nobody’s going to investigate it.
So we don’t allow such a thing to happen. The argument is very sound in terms of saying, oh, it’s a federal and it’s an enactment that should only apply to a budget. But why are you not making it federal when there is no one, it’s not backed by constitution, there’s no way they say it should apply, be applicable to all over the federation and all that.
Good argument, but let Supreme Court be allowed to make the pronouncement because the matter is even sub judice in the first place.
How do you react to this issue of conflicting judgments. Former president Jonathan made reference blaming the judiciary for the crisis in the PDP due to conflicting orders. So what do you think can be done to resolve it? Do you think a central system should be created where judges should be allowed to upload their orders?
It’s because nobody has been punished. If you punish judges and lawyers appropriately on the issue of ex-parte orders , especially on political cases, they will put a stop to it.
Most of those lawyers that go to other courts to obtain an order, knowing fully well that an order has already been given over the same matter, they know, it’s not as if they don’t know. They have an idea and they engage on forum shopping. When it’s obtained in court A, they go to court B. On the same matter, not on appeal, but as a court to take a different decision from what has been already done. So it’s man-made.
So what do we do? We need to punish the lawyers that do this. We need to punish the justices that do this. And the issue of ex-parte , we’ve said it, it should be used sparingly.
You can’t use an ex-parte order to remove somebody who has been elected, somebody who has been in a position. You don’t do that. Put the party on notice.
The only thing you can do is to give order on accelerated hearing. Make sure that, that man is served, and so he can be able to put up a defense.
Look at what happened in Rivers State, Rivers is even the worst. I can count different ex-parte orders that have been gotten in Rivers’ case. And they’re doing it deliberately. They’re using federal, they’re using state high court. What is all that?
And judges are indulging them. So because nobody has used a sledgehammer on any of them, all this nonsense will stop. By the time judges have been sacked and disgraced out of judicial office, they will know that anyone who comes with anything ex-parte, they will look at it and be very careful. And they’ll say, has there been any previous decision on this matter? If there is, go on appeal. Don’t come to me. Judges need to exercise discretion. And they must do it judicially and judiciously.
They also must show high level of sense of responsibility. It’s a great job. Nobody is made a judge from nothing, because you are the one who played the role of a god.
You know, god made pronouncement, and that’s final. Justices are in that position. So it’s not something that should be trivialized.
These guys are making the whole thing look so childish that people are beginning to wonder, but you guys in the legal profession, what’s going on? You guys are not putting your house in order. What are you doing? So it’s becoming embarrassing.
So sir, your position is also like an indictment on the supervisory role?
No I am not indicating an body. But there should be more punitive measures against erring justices. We’ve said it before. In fact, there was one incident in NBA where, if you guys remember, I called you guys and you were here. You joined. When these conflicting orders were becoming too rampant, it started from Anambra. It was either PDP or APGA.
You remember APGA case? One went from Calabar to Port Harcourt, from Port Harcourt to Imo, and then to North, one Northern state, Kano. So it was forum shopping, and I just came in then as the chairman of SPIDEL. I organized a town hall meeting, this is online. Over 2,000 lawyers and journalists joined that online meeting . I invited the former judge of the Supreme Court, Rose Vivour, the late Akeredolu was part of the panel.
Then Mrs. Afia, is it Afia? I mean that woman, that very senior advocate of Nigeria in the East. Very old lawyer, Ah, I’ve forgotten the woman’s name now. She was in that panel, then one Professor from Anambra, then I was the chair. And we said, no, we all agreed. And J.B. Daudu, they all spoke eloquently to that, look, we should not allow this nonsense to keep on persisting.
It was after that, when I delved into the investigation of lawyers that were involved in those conflicting cases, and we found some lawyers culpable. I recommended them for disciplinary measures, but they went to court to stop it. Yes, I remember.
So what I’m saying is that there’s something that has been ongoing, especially on political cases, and most of these things, allegedly, I don’t know, I heard that things are done in order to influence getting these ex-parte orders. Because clients will call you and say, why don’t you go and get an ex parte order? Assuming it’s something you can just go and buy and purchase. It’s not given.
It is only on exigency, case that is very, very appropriate, that requires the preservation of the subject matter. That’s when you give ex parte, you order ex parte order. And then you have the timeline.
Meaning that there must be a time within which that partition will be put on notice so that it can now respond. But they use ex parte order to now hold activity, something in perpetuity. So the abuse has become very worrisome, that any judicial system that does not intervene in order to checkmate it will enter into a very big problem.
We are entering to that level where it is assumed it is being bought. And so we must stop it. We must begin to discipline those who engage in it.
Ex-parte order is not something that is given just like that. It’s given sparingly and must be on well-laid-out conditions.
What happens to activism after becoming a SAN?
I will still continue to advocate and speak for the people , but now, there is a lot of maturity that will come with my speaking. Paul in the Bible said when I was young, I reasoned like a child. When I become a man, I now have to behave and reason like a man.
I’m no longer the same, you know, Ubani of 20, 30 years ago. I’ve acquired enough experience now, maturity, and I’ve seen certain things again, even in government, when you’re outside, you may not know that there are certain difficulties in governance that I have also seen that will help me in being balanced most of the time, you know, in my analysis.
It’s not as if one will sub-pedal and all that, but we must be able to do it in a manner that shows understanding of both sides, you know, so that we can have a country all of us should be proud of.
Many times they turn against you. So what’s your charge? What’s your advice to such lawyers that want to go there once and try again?
Privileged, let me stay to maybe an appropriate time, but not that you’re not qualified at all, you just want to apply.
Some people do it. Then let it be known that they apply for it, whereas you don’t have the basic qualifications. So understudy the guidelines, know what the requirements are.
So knowing that, and then be virtuous.
Make sure you have a name in the profession, because they also put you, you know, Nigerians will write when they put you up, you know, they publish those names and say, if this man is not worthy, and if you don’t have a clean record, be sure that petitions will fly from everywhere and make sure that you don’t get it. Because that is a lady pick.
The moment you are there, it’s like you are impeccable. For you to pass scrutiny, nobody wrote any petition against you and say, for all the years you have practiced as a lawyer, nobody writes and say this man is a thief, this man is, you know, so it then means that you are impeccable. So that’s why leadership is now sort of, automatically conferred on you.
So these are the things I would say. And then finally, the God factor. There is nothing you can achieve in life without God being there. If God says you will, at the fullness of time, you make all things beautiful in his own time. So God must be behind you also in the project, that’s all I would say.
When you look at our criminal justice system and our correctional facilities, there’s a lot of people for trial. So what is this law firm, with the attendance, with the privilege you have now, which you didn’t have before. What are you going to do going forward regarding pro bono services for indigents?
No, we still continue, because what we were doing at that time was to go to Ikoyi and Kirikiri. They know those ones deserving cases, those who have stayed up to five years, six years, no trial.
There was one I released, eight years. When I filed the enforcement, DPP, I mean the Ministry of Justice, was saying that the file is in the police CP. CP said they have sent the file. They were all blaming themselves. So I told the court that’s not my business. Wherever the file is, the point is that this man has not been charged for more than eight years now.
He has been in detention. So whoever is holding the file, if the file is not there, the court has no other option then. Of course, the court released him.
He got eight solid years without trial. Now, another one, I think seven years. The judge was now asking me what of the magistrate that detained him, because the case came before the magistrate.
And the magistrate now said I have no jurisdiction and ordered his detention. You have no jurisdiction over the detention of somebody. So when I brought up the matter, the judge was now telling me, no, you have to go back.
I said, which magistrate? This person has been in court, I mean prison. And you’re asking me to go back. The magistrate doesn’t even exist anymore.
He said no. And dismissed my application. So we had to refile the case in another court and all that, and then got the person out.
So what I’m saying is that it can be very frustrating, but I will continue to do the little I can. But apart from the level of, what do you call it, going to court for litigation, the issue of advocacy. You know, there is a lady, Dr. Agomoh. She’s involved in the issue of prison reforms. You know, she’s involved in it. I’m also part of her, you know, in order to advocate these reforms of long detentions without trial.
And then the issue of having so many people who have not faced trial being in prison, because there are more than those who have been convicted. And we say that it is absolutely wrong. You say it’s a correctional center. That place cannot be a correctional center in name but in substance It’s not correcting anything. Allowing all manner of persons to be put there who cannot be.
If the law says, maybe we need to amend that law, if somebody is detained for trial and you cannot be able to initiate a trial within a month or two months, then the person should not be there. And then damages should be paid to the person you have detained wrongly and you are not charging the person to court. There may be more drastic advocacy level that must be done in order to ensure that our law does not tolerate a situation where an innocent person, or even a guilty one, is not even brought before trial.
It must be tried. It is when you are convicted that the law says you can go and serve in prison. But not that when you have not been convicted, you are still presumed to be innocent under our constitution.
So I think we will continue to do what we have been known for in terms of helping those who are wrongly incarcerated. That’s what I will say.
Ojinnaka, a journalist with decades of experience on covering the courts, can be reached on 08058807942.
