Opinion Article by Ray Ekpu
The storm between the Rivers State government and Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) may be a storm in a teacup but it is a storm. The story is that the Rivers State government under Governor Siminalayi Fubara gave N300 million to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which had planned to hold its 2025 Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt, capital of Rivers State. This was before President Bola Tinubu removed the governor on March 18, declared a state of emergency and appointed retired Vice Admiral Ibokete Ibas as the Sole Administrator of the state.
Now that the NBA has moved the conference away from Port Harcourt and relocated it in Enugu, the Sole Administrator of Rivers State has asked the NBA to refund the N300 million to the state. The media aide to the administrator, Hector Igbikiowubo says that the money was a hosting fee while the NBA says it was a “gift” unrelated to hosting.
The NBA’s explanation for relocating the conference to another state, Enugu, is in protest against the declaration of emergency rule in Rivers State and the appointment of a Sole Administrator, which the NBA says is unconstitutional. The matter is at the Supreme Court, which has the authority to decide whether the declaration of an emergency by the president, which has been approved by elected legislators of both houses of the National Assembly, is unconstitutional or not. Take note that a state of emergency had been declared before in Plateau State by an elected President, Olusegun Obasanjo. That decision was approved by the National Assembly, and it was considered a constitutional decision.
The truth is that by March 18, when Tinubu declared a state of emergency in Rivers State, the state was at the threshold of anarchy: bombs were exploding in several places. The state legislature had served notice of impeachment of the governor and deputy governor; vandalisation of oil assets was surging; the Ijaws, from which tribe Fubara comes, were baying for blood. It would have been most unpatriotic and irresponsible for the president to stand and stare while the menacing madness in the horizon was showing its ugly face. The elders, youths, women and various other groups had tried, but failed, to resolve the menace. Anarchy was at the door, and it was prim and proper for the president to step in and save the state from implosion. If there was trouble in the Rivers State, it could conceivably snowball into other oil producing states because the Niger Delta region is very, very volatile. That would have damaged our democracy and the oil region irreparably.
If the NBA says that it took its planned conference away from Rivers State because of the emergency status of the state, which, in any case, is headed by a civilian, what did it do during the military days when autocratic military dictators held sway? Did it or did it not hold its Annual General Conferences in those states? It did. It held its conferences in the north, south, east and west, where dictators lectured lawyers on the rule of law? Moving the conference from Rivers State was wrong since the NBA did not mind holding its conferences under full-fledged military dictators.
Such a rash decision deprived the Rivers State of the benefits of hosting, which it hoped to get from its N300 million payment. The hotel and transport owners, travel agencies, airlines, restaurants and other hospitality outlets would have benefited from the hosting of the conference in Rivers State. The youths of the state would also have had the opportunity to learn something on the legal profession and rule of law in a state where restiveness is an enduring problem.
I had to laugh when I read what the chairman of the organising committee of the conference, Emeka Obegolu, SAN, said, namely that the N300 million was a “gift” attached to no condition. Obegolu is wrong. There is no free gift, not even in Freetown. Every gift comes with a string, whether seen or unseen. Even if the Rivers State government did not outrightly spell out any conditions or benefits, it paid the money because it knew that there would be enormous benefits coming to Rivers State if the conference were held there. The truth is that the money was not given for nothing; it was given for something, the favour of hosting rights, whether expressly stated or muted. If the NBA says the money was just a gift, it violated the rule for buying something in a bottle. The rule is that you must examine the contents, not the bottle. If it didn’t know that the money was for hosting rights, then its knowledge of such matters in this system is suspect because anyone who collects money as a support fund for a conference knows that the giver obviously expects some benefits to come to him or her or it.
Everyone knows that the legal profession is often involved in the indiscriminate defence of right and wrong. That is why there are often lawyers on both sides of any case. That is also why some lawyers may see what is wrong but still seek to defend it as right. The NBA is a respected and respectable association. I have worked with a number of prominent and respected lawyers in various settings. That is why I think the NBA does not need to make any indefensible argument about this money. Taking the conference away from Rivers State is an injury. Refusing to refund the money is adding insult to that injury. The NBA should not put its conscience and integrity in jeopardy for the sake of mean money making. It would be unethical to keep the money if you have taken the hosting of the conference away from the state. Don’t let the unfortunate happenings in the Rivers State become a sweet pleasure that can choke the NBA now or in future. Don’t let this money matter be seen as a breach of trust and as an expedition in exploitation of the government and people of Rivers State. The NBA is too big to bring itself down to that nadir of disrespect.
Now, my closing arguments: If the NBA is going to collect hosting fees as a “gift” from the Enugu State government, as it is likely to do, why should it also keep the one it collected from Rivers State? It should not if it wishes to be respected as an ethical organisation. The argument about the money being a free gift and not returnable is nonsensical. The money was a hosting fee, whether stated or implied. If the hosting is taken away from the state, the money must be refunded to the state since it has been capriciously deprived of the hosting benefits. The money was given to the NBA by the Rivers State government. Now a refund of the money is demanded by the Rivers State government. Why should there be any quibbling about it? There should be none.
If the new hosting state is not paying hosting fee to the NBA, which I doubt, would it be ethical to use the hosting fee paid by a state you are depriving of the benefits of hosting to host the conference in the new hosting state? It would be unethical, especially since keeping the money is not approved by the donating government.
The NBA fights for justice. It needs to conduct its affairs in a transparent and accountable manner that does not put a question mark on its integrity. Its leadership must show a good example that should be emulated by other professional associations. It must refund the money to its owner, the Rivers State government. Here ends my closing argument.
… Ray Ekpu is an accomplished journalist, and founding member of Newswatch
