Image result for jide osuntokun photoThe Greek philosopher
Plato is most famous for his book “The Republic” in which he tried to give his
ideas about how an ideal state, that is, some kind of utopia should be
governed. In short he advocated for a state ruled by a philosopher king
supported by a class who through education would know what is right and would
do it without deviation from the path of rectitude. This class would have no
family of their own because it is when rulers have families that they are
bogged down with family issues and are also prone to corruption associated with
making provision for the family.
Plato felt families will be distractions for those trying to
run an ideal state. Below the class of philosopher king would be the class of
guardians who will protect the state from its enemies. The lowest class will be
those of workers who will provide material sustenance for the state in exchange
for excellence in rulership and protection. Property in this state will belong
collectively to all thus removing cut-throat competition characteristic of ordinary
state’s development along capitalist lines of the crude free enterprise
characteristic of Ancient Greek states.
Plato tried to practice what he preached in Syracuse but met
abysmal failure. Perhaps it was this failure that made him rethink his ideas
and then wrote “The Laws” perhaps a much more practical compendium on
governance. Plato had argued that a perfect state as developed in his Republic
would not need laws because according to him, the presence of laws in a state
is a manifestation of the failure of governance. After writing the “The Laws” he then wrote
the “Statesman”. For practical purpose “The Laws” has been most useful because
he developed the idea of supremacy of laws to that of persons no matter how
important they may be. They should not be above the laws. This idea was further
developed by Plato’s student Aristotle
in his book “Politics”. Since the time of the Ancient Greece, the idea was
further developed during the 18th century Age of Enlightenment when Greek
philosophy was rediscovered in Europe through the agency of Arabic translation.
The English common law tradition which we have embraced in Nigeria owes a debt
to the enlightenment especially the French part of it especially the group who
edited under Diderot the “L’encyclopedie”.
Today it is commonly accepted that laws are no respecter of
persons. This is why the symbol of laws is a blindfolded maiden with a sword in
hand, a familiar sight in buildings housing courts and other venues of the
judiciary. Does this also mean laws are not just asses but they are also
blind? No one will argue about the
desirability of impartiality in judicial interpretation. But at the same time,
there ought to be a correlation between offense and punishment. Punishment is
for the purpose of deterrence and presumably of reformation. Judges are human
beings and are thinking persons who should be able to pass judgements that make
sense and should not pass judgement repugnant to fairness common sense and
justice. When this happens then there is a miscarriage of justice. The law may
be an ass but a judge should not be an ass.
Some three weeks back in an Oshogbo high court, four young
people with ages ranging from 19 to 25 years were charged with stealing a
motorcycle and wounding the owner with knife cuts. The leader of the gang was a
19-year old jobless hooligan. They obviously owned up to their crime. Reports
of the case did not indicate if they had a lawyer. The upshot of the story was
that the judge had no mercy on them and the four of them were sentenced to
death and the judge said they should be hanged until they are dead. When I read
the report, I felt somebody must protest this judgement as a miscarriage of
justice. I condemn crime in its entire entirety. There can be no extenuating
circumstances for robbing while inflicting bodily harm. Crime should be
punished wherever it occurs. But justice should be tempered with mercy. I
cannot understand why the judge should sentence four adolescents to death for
stealing a motorcycle worth N40,000 in a country where billions of Naira are
being unearthed, pardon the pun, with owners disclaiming ownership because the
monies are proceeds of crime. What message is this judge trying to send to
Nigerians? Is this judge not part of the same judiciary that is releasing
thieves and delaying passing judgement on cases of wealthy Nigerians of the
political class for years with one adjournment following another? Is this judge
not belonging to the same family of judges freeing thieves on basis of legal
technicalities thus retarding the development of this country? Is this judge not one of the judges saying
the wife and children of judges can receive gifts running to millions provided
there is no proof the decision of the judges in question was influenced by such
gifts and largesse liberally dispensed by lawyers arguing cases before his
lordship! In exasperation with this kind of behaviour, former President
Obasanjo recently spoke our minds when he said corruption cases were taking too
long a time for final judgement to be passed.
It can be argued that if we have good governance with little
or no corruption there would be jobs for young people who are now robbing
people as a way of surviving. The issue of unemployment among the youth leading
to criminal tendencies would need to be addressed. We are operating a cruel,
survivalist system without any social safety net while expecting acceptance of
the yawning gap between the have and the have nots. Many of us are living in
fear especially when we see hordes of unemployed youth aimlessly wandering
around our homes.
I discussed my anxiety over this Osogbo case with a friend
of mine who is a lawyer and his opinion was that the judge was simply following
the laws and that if I am concerned I should plead with my legislators to
review the penal code of Nigeria. He added that rather than sharing money and
fighting over which committees are juicy for oversight functions, our
legislators should busy themselves with revising the kind of laws our judge
used to condemn the four young ones whose leader is a teenager. In civilized
world of today, no one has the right to take another one’s life.
Of course, I know we live in an imperfect world, a world
where Americans who in their classic Declaration of Independence in 1776 talked
about man’s inalienable rights such as the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness yet regularly kill criminals with either
electric chair or lethal injection. There are however exceptions in the
western world where capital punishment has been largely abolished. In the
Osogbo case, I am sure no governor would sign the death warrant for these young
men. Their sentences should be commuted to a reasonable length of time. The
purpose in this case should be reformation and not termination of life. A state
should not commit murder for the purpose of defending property rights. I would
of course support the laws of Moses of an eye for an eye if a criminal
terminates another one’s life during the process of crime.
Credit: Jide Osuntokun, The Nation
No comments:
Post a Comment