A joke about he being in the ‘Bar’ in his office forced an unwilling smile on his face. When the interview commenced, the nation’s number one law officer spoke in a low but deep voice. On some issues, he was unsparing, on others, he was evasive.

In all, the Attorney-General of the Federation comes across as one who will defend his position on issues irrespective of public opinion. In the course of the interview, he almost got angry but he answered questions with unapologetic candour.  He spoke on wide range of issues in the polity, especially, the ones that affect his office.  Excerpts:

How far has it been as the Attorney-General of this country?

So far so good and we thank God for taking us to this position now. It has been quite challenging, but we have been equal to the task. With the help of God, we’ve been able to forge ahead.

The office of the Attorney General is a very powerful one, it is the only one created by the constitution.  The Attorney General has the power to initiate, discontinue or take over any case and you are the chief law adviser to the president, and of course, the kind of advice you give the president are very impactful. What kind of legal advice do you give to the president and how well does he take them?

Well, first of all, the office of Attorney General is not a powerful one. And there is no office in the country that is a powerful office. The pieces of advice I give to the president are purely based on what is rooted in the constitution.

How well does he accept them?

How well does the president accept? The president is the person in the forefront of propagating the rule of law. It is not even the issue of advice. Before the president does anything, he tries to ensure that the thing is according to law and I make sure that it is according to law. Maybe my situation is different. Not a matter of even advising; it is a matter of the president himself having a pre-prepared mind to do things according to the law and for me to just locate the law and show him the way it has to be done according to law.

Your pieces of advice are very important because the president is not a lawyer, you are...

And that is what I am saying.

I had some interaction with past attorneys general of the federation and they told us that the position is a very difficult one in the sense that at times even if you have a very sound legal advice, if Mr. President is not interested in whatever you said, he can do away with it and go ahead with whatever he wants. So that’s  is what informed the question.

(Cuts in) Well, in our own case, the government is anchored on the rule of law. Maybe, I’m an exception. So, it is even the policy driving the government. I become just a servant of that policy. That is the difference between me and them.

You are both the justice minister and attorney general of the federation. As a justice minister, you are more or less a politician and as attorney general, you are purely a professional. How do you balance the two?

You see, in the constitution, it is called Minister of Justice. Then  in the political arena, they look at somebody who should be doing justice. So, it creates an exception to the normal political arena. That is why it is called Minister of Justice. If you look at it well, all his consideration and portfolio is to do justice. I don’t see the issue of  the so-called political interest.

Does one need to be  lawyer to do justice?

No, the constitution simply said, there shall be a Minister of Justice.

Some have called for the separation of justice minister, what is your take on that?

Well, until the constitution is amended. I don’t do academic exercise; to me whatever is my view will not help any person because that is the position of the constitution now.

Because you are the chief law officer of the country, you can make your view known?

I will not comment or prejudice the amendment that is going on by the constitution amendment committee. It is in their wisdom to say it. Anything I say,  now that the process is on-going, will be very weighty.  So, I wouldn’t like to prejudice what the National Assembly are doing. Mind you, the initiative to amend the constitution is from the National Assembly.

But are you a politician?

What do you mean by asking me that. Everybody is political animal, even you yourself, even the bishop is a political animal. Even the process of becoming a bishop is a political process.  I don’t know what you are talking about. Even what we are doing here is all part of a political process. Journalism is politics. No journalist can say I’m not a politician because the process of going through your system, electing your union is a political process.

So, everybody is a politician?

Everybody is a political animal.

Now let’s talk about constitution review. Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution which confers immunity on some political officers has generated so much controversy. And  President Yar’ Adua has argued for its removal. As the nation’s chief law officer, what is your own position?

You want me to start arguing my position with my boss? I’ll not answer that question.

That means that your position is not in line with that of the President?

I’m not supposed to speak on that or arguing my position with my boss. It is not done.

Ok, that means you have your own position which you don’t want to disclose?

I’ve not said I have my own position. The legality of the President’s position is my own position.

You are sticker for the rule of law. Of course, as you said earlier, that is one of the pillars of this administration, Your position on Chief Ibori’s case seems to have vindicated you as the evidence brought against him in London Court were rejected because it did not come through your office.  How does this make you feel?

It is not a matter of feeling. It was not a personal issue between me and London court or between me and anybody, it was what the law says that we interpreted . I don’t feel any different. I don’t feel anything. What the law says is the position, I’ll follow.

At that time, you were greatly misunderstood, that’s why I asked that question?

That is the people who did not know the law. The question you asked me should go to them, not me. My position cannot change because I have faith that I’m right. So, the people who felt that I was wrong are the people who will now have to re-examine themselves. They are the people who will say, when issues come up, they have to look at the legality of it. It is not me that was right. The humble secretary also said I was right..

Under the former EFCC chairman, your office was at logger head with that of the chairman to the extent that  you called for the office to be under that of the Attorney General. Has your position changed?

All agencies that have power to prosecute are under the Attorney General office.  Since the constitution gives me power I don’t need to tell you before I take over prosecution or terminate the prosecution. That is what the law says and the Supreme Court has interpreted that I’m not answerable to anybody, even the Supreme Court. I cannot give any reason. I’m subject to the court of public opinion, that’s all.

Are you answerable to the President? Can you disobey him?

I’m talking of prosecution. Prosecution is different from disobedience to the president.

You said you are not answerable to anybody, that is why I asked that question?

Under the constitution in relation to prosecutorial power, the president does not prosecute. The president of a country, do you know what the office of the president of a country is? It is such an exalted and revered position that is next to God.  He will not get involved in prosecuting people and throwing them into jail? Haba. How do you expect the President to go and know who should be jailed and who should not be jailed? These are things the constitution knows that should stop at the office of the attorney general.

But there is this recent contentious issue of release of two armed robbery convicts, one from Kebbi State and one from Bayelsa State by the president?

Why should that be contentious? Are you people in journalism becoming inhuman? Somebody is almost dying in prison and SOS got to the president, a humane president, somebody spent 27 years on a death row, what is the contention. Is it just to promote sale of something or what is the contention? Just making it contentious, is it to get cheap popularity or what?

This is a decision taken in the interest of humanity by a president who feels compelled to act swiftly. Where we do not have power, the president runs to the governor. Where it within our power, we acted. What is wrong about it.

But armed robbery is a not a federal offence...?

That is not a matter that is under consideration. It involved the use of weapons and that was what  made the president to intervene. Of course, we don’t have the power to prosecute robbery offence. Mind you I give the power to prosecute to  state attorneys general.

Let’s use American system for example...?

I’m not doing American system, and I don’t want to. What we did in the two condemned robbers was according go law. I don’t want to get involved in academic argument on what is robbery or what is not robbery. There was an emergency, and something that we felt is inhuman.  I’m being sued. If it is not a federal offence, why did Femi Falana sue me that people are being detained for robbery without prosecution? Why did he sue me?  

Still on the issue of the released convicts, what people are saying is that probably the state governor should be asked to do that.

I don’t want to comment further on that matter.

Let me ask you this, you said in a newspaper report that the federal government is only interested in how arms and ammunition as well mercenaries arrested got into the country and not probing the Jos crisis itself. Would you clarify that?

What happened in Jos which is becoming a trend is that people try to turn into politics simple crisis that all tiers of government should solve obviously, for their own political advantage. President Yar’ Adua is not interested in gaining any  political advantage in Jos crisis, a crisis that caused loss of lives. Our decision was in consistence with the constitutional responsibility of federal government to maintain law and order.

When the crisis started, there was no day the federal government abandoned Plateau State government in trying to find an amicable resolution to the crisis. Federal government was in the forefront  containing the crisis. Before armed forces are sent to a place, there must be a request to the president. That request was complied with dispatch and the armed forces were dispatched to assist the police to maintain law and order.

We collectively worked with Plateau State government to restore law and order. So, what is the basis now, who is hiding something that we cannot collectively find a permanent solution to? That’s what I want you to ask. If we collectively maintained law and order and restored peace to that part of the most peaceful city in the country in the shortest possible time.

We restored law and order in two days in Plateau, collectively with the Plateau State government.  This is not a matter of legality. This is a matter of common sense, if  you and I were doing things together, why should you break ranks at the end. That is why we have kept quiet, because when people try to get political advantage, we will not go with them blindly to help them gain whatever they wanted to gain. So, we refrained from commenting on Jos crisis.

Traditionally, the power of investigating crimes is vested with the police and that is a power that is exercisable. The power to make regulations and law for the police is under the exclusive list. And what happened in Jos was crime.

Whether the crime was a state offence is a different matter. Federal government was not saying investigate and give me to prosecute. Federal government was strictly constituting a powered committee that will assist the investigation. The outcome of the report could have been a basis on which the state government could have gone ahead to constitute what it has done.

Each of this would have been complementing each other. The state government has no power to do an independent investigation because the constitutional right of investigating crime is with the police. I don’t see why people try to over blow things that are elementary.

Maybe they did that because of this administration’s insistence on rule of law...

What is a breach in a rule of law here?

It is a state matter.

I’m saying the investigation of the crime in volving ammunition, involving the use of explosives, involving use of foreigners. Does the state have control when people from other countries come in here to commit crime. Is that still a matter within the power of the state government?

The state government itself announced that foreigners were involved. So, federal government should just watch? So, how did they come in? Issues of immigration, is a  matter that is within the exclusive right of the federal government. So, we could have just kept quiet?

Because Jos crisis have several components. The complaint of foreign involvement was one, only federal government has the legal capacity to carry out investigation across boundaries of a country. Once foreigners are involved, investigation will span across the borders of Nigeria and only the federal government that can do it.

Will you go to Niger if Niger foreigners for instance, I’m not saying Niger foreigners are involved, but if they were involved and you want to make an investigation, can a state government now walk up to them without coming through the federal government, go to Niger and say I’m a state government from Nigeria, I want to go and investigate. They will ask you under which authority.

There are some issues I still want you to comment on. Before I ask, I intend to lay a proper foundation. You were quoted in a newspaper report, that taking one’s superior to court does not stop one from reporting at work.?

(Cuts in) Don’t ask me. I don’t want to talk about Ribadu. Ribadu matter goes to IG and Police Service Commission and the matter is prejudice. I can’t comment on it more than that. The matter is in court.

We know that it is in court...

Do you want us to open argument here? I am a defendant and I’m going to defend myself. I don’t want to argue that case with you. I’ll not do that. Let us all meet in court. I’m happy he has taken a very wise counsel by going to court. Whatever is the proceedings in the court will be a matter of public knowledge. Everybody will know who is lying to who and why.

All the documents that are relevant to the case, we have taken them. We have nothing to hide as government. People overblow certain sentiments that are uncalled for. If 140 people are involved in an exercise and one person said no, then something is wrong.

One person cannot claim to be more intelligent and more courageous than other 139 people. I don’t want to get myself involved. It is a matter that is in court. I wil just  give you something to look at(brought out a document). If you have look at this document, these are the police officers that are Ribadu’s course mates. Among them are Chief Superintendents and even Superintendents.

But his promotion to the rank of AIG was a presidential act?

(Cuts in) What do you mean by presidential? We don’t have presidential act  in our law on issues of promotion and discipline.  So, what are you telling me?

Was that the  first time that somebody was given double promotion?

The law does not operate on issue of first time. You can’t tell me you have been stealing and this man has been stealing, so I’ll steal. If I catch you stealing  you cannot now say that was  the first time I’ve stolen.

But sometimes the  law operates on precedence It doesn’t work on precedence. The law is a law, it catches you when it can catch you. Of course, we are talking of rule of law, we don’t want to talk on anything. In any case, nobody promoted anybody.

If you see the write-up of even the former president, he said promoted subject to confirmation of the Police Service Commission. Even the request from Ehindero did not talk of promotion. You people (media) overblew the issue of promotion.

Look at it here(he reads from document): “In view of the excellent performance of Nuhu Ribadu..., I write to recommend promotion... the president... is being called to approve his promotion... immediately the Police Service Commission is constituted, it shall be ratified’. Is this promotion?

But...

(Cuts in again) Clearly, it says immediately it shall be ratified, you have it Today, the people refused to ratify it. So, the matter is closed.

Even then, can you promote somebody  when the Police Service Commission is not in place This is one of the biggest deception. If the case comes up in court you will discover that the same person who wrote had earlier written to the Police Service Commission for the promotion and they turned it down. If it is exhibited in court, it is the same writing.

The same person turned around to say the Police Service Commission is not in existence, which is false. You wrote to me to promote somebody and I said the person is not qualified. Then you turned round and said I’m not in existence.

Go to the court, when the case comes ask for the document filed by the Police Service Commission you will see a letter written to the Police Service Commission requesting for the promotion and the reply of the commission saying, no, he is not qualified.

Then you turned around to say the commission was not in existence. These are the sort of things we are saying;  that we must follow the law in doing things. I am telling you that the

documents are in  court and any document in court is a public announcement. Go there you will get every fact filed by the Police Service Commission.

This is the final question, Nigeria is a signatory to several international treaties Which one is superior between municipal laws and international treaties.

You just want to create issues. A treaty is a treaty. Section 12 of the constitution clearly states how a treaty becomes operating law in Nigeria. It has to be signed. When it is signed, it has to be ratified, when it is ratified, it has to be forwarded to the National Assembly for documentation.

It is a different thing from a judgement. I know where you are heading. And those are two different things. It is different from international court judgment, which is different from a treaty. A judgement of an  international court is not a treaty. It doesn’t really require the National Assembly for it to be enforced.

Judgement of  country which also  has signatory to  same treaty as Nigeria can be brought here for enforcement.  If you get judgement in London you bring it here, I will take it to the Federal High Court. I will enrol it as a judgement of the court.