Sulyman Abaya is one of the legal juggernauts in Kwara state whose positions on legal issues have carved a niche for him. He shares with KAYODE ADEOTI in this interview, his views over the prevailing corruption practices in the country, the bill that was squashed by the Senate seeking constitution amendment for the female Corps members’ dressing among other sundry issues. Excerpts:
The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, Abubakar Malami SAN and the EFCC boss, Ibrahim Magu, as part of efforts to halt corruption, jet out of the country recently to ensure forfeiture of some properties that were allegedly acquired through illicit proceeds by our public office holders and politicians… How do you see this development?
The first duty which must be harnessed in order to avoid spending money that is not enough in a bid to halt the spread of corruption in our country is, the countries of location of these illicit funds, mostly European countries and some Arabs should employ mechanism that will always check or investigate sources of funds coming into their countries before they were admitted. Though, it is understandable that those countries use our money to boost their own economy. But, they should be compelled to send reports to local countries where these fund are been siphoned such as Nigeria that individuals who intend to transfer funds into their land should seek the approval of either the Central Bank of Nigeria or Federal Government. As it is now, it will continue to rear its ugly head. Corruption is not limited to Nigeria, Brazil, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia and the likes, it is becoming endemic and a proactive measure has to be taken particularly because of our strategic role in the country of nations and in Africa. There wouldn’t have been need for Magu’s traveling all about to forfeit properties if certain precautions had been deployed before now.
In recent time, there seems to be clash between religion and choice of profession in the country, this is sequel to the bill squashed by the Senate, seeking an amendment in the constitution for female corp members’ dress code and some others… Can you put things in the right perspectives on the issue?
Let me put it straight, that attempt was a frivolous one to ever be raised in any legislature. Sociological jurisprudence of legislature is that they must make laws that will bring about peace, good relationship of individuals and speedy development in the society. Also, they must not be antithetic to social demands of individuals. Clothing, so far it is not exposing the nakedness of a woman and is not loud, is allowed in Nigeria. The NYSC programme as it is, the camping aspect of it and many other exercise activities demands from a lady such dress as we have now. Nigeria is a pluralistic society where we have Christians, Muslims even the idol worshippers. For a lawmaker to wake up in the morning and say what concerns him most now is the prohibition of trouser…to me, that should be the last thing to be thought of going by the number of crisis we have on the table that are yet to be laid to rest. In fact, I will say it is a dereliction of duty.
Members of the society are agitating for action over the graduate of the University of Ilorin who was disallowed from the last call to bar ceremony… What is the new development on the issue?
The issue involving the graduate of law, from the University of Ilorin is somewhat complex because it is a legal issue. The policy of body of benchers is subservient to the constitution of the country which is the organic law. No matter how beautiful provision of the law at the law school seems to be, it must not override that of the country. Constitution gives individuals freedom of religion, the demonstration and manifestation of the it too. This is why the National Assembly put out a memoranda to the hearing of this issue.
Unfortunately, some group of social activists have gone to court to obtain injunction stopping investigation of that issue…the dress code we adopted in Nigeria is from the United Kingdom. There is no where in law where it is stated that Law graduate must not be called to bar if she wears hijab. The law is clear, what is not stated is not allowed and it is not mentioned that what she wears cast a negative outlook on her. What she wore was not offensive in any way as it was observed.
