The Supreme Court judgement on WOMAN

An impassable terrain

The issue of access to women’s intimate spaces and the participation of natal males who have identified as female by gender reassignment in sport has been a controversial and sometimes impossible issue to discuss.

There are activists in what had become gender wars who had taken such implacably entrenched positions on either side of the debate, making those who even had the simplest, most innocent, or possibly naive questions feel silenced, for fear of being labelled phobic, exclusionary, bigoted or even worse.

Any opinion that appeared to go against the grain of the most liberal view of inclusion was an invitation to censure, ostracism, punishment, loss of status or livelihood, persecution, prosecution, and even death threats. I dare say, to the silent and quite likely reasonable majority, it was like the world had gone mad.

What is sex?

I awaited with anticipation and trepidation the judgement of The Supreme Court in the UK, framed in the context of what the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010 explicitly referred to, was it biological sex alone or did it include certificated sex?

The section, as per what the Act refers to as sex, is Chapter 1, Section 11 shown below:

Sex

In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—

(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;

(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

The Supreme Court in its 88-page judgement with 268 paragraphs exhaustively reviewed historical and superseded acts and laws that fed into the Equality Act 2010 and concluded that the definition of man and woman given in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 had not been changed in either the Gender Recognition Act 2004 or the succeeding Equality Act 2010. [The Supreme Court – Judgement - For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)] PDF

In Part 1, Section 5, Subsection 2, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 declares.

(2) In this Act—

" woman " includes a female of any age, and

" man " includes a male of any age.

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that in 1975, woman and man referred to biological sex. Every assertion and consequent interpretation derives full context from here.

An appeal to predictability

The Supreme Court was at pains to stress a particular point in Paragraph 12:

Lord Nicholls’ important constitutional insight in Spath Holme, that citizens with the help of their advisers should be able to understand statutes, points towards an interpretation that is clear and predictable.

In other words, there is a need for consistent, clear, and predictable interpretation of words, contexts, meanings, and intention, when citizens read statutes as promulgated by parliament.

That means, if a woman or a man had not been explicitly redefined in a subsequent Act, the precedent definition remains.

Another crucial point made is that the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment remains valid by force of law in the Equality Act 2010, none of the rights of those persons who have undergone, are undergoing, or are in the process to undergo gender reassignment are impugned, they are protected against discrimination, victimisation, or harassment, as a matter of course.

The difficult question

However, the practical consequences of this situation and judgement will definitely leave people with certain protected characteristics who have had access to spaces of their acquired gender identity in a kind of limbo, possibly requiring a third space.

I would think, this is a matter for The Equality and Human Rights Commission to address, in terms of the changes to rules, regulations, notices, texts, and policies, along with the kinds of accommodations and exceptions that will continue to safeguard the protected characteristics of those whose biological sex has by gender reassignment acquired a certificated sex.

Knowledge is power

It is incumbent on every activist and advocate to study The Supreme Court judgement to appreciate the rationale behind their summation and conclusion.

At the very least, read Section 22, Summary of our reasoning, which contains Paragraph 265 on Pages 84 to 86; the attendant paragraphs informing their reasoning are suffixes to the respective subsections.

While I am not a lawyer and obviously not as emotionally invested in this situation, my reading of the judgement is that it is sound, based on unimpeachable legal precedent, and argued with due consideration of all parties involved, that they have stated, it is not a victory for either side.

It provides clarity that would roll back some unfortunate and extrapolated interpretations of the law that have both advantaged and disadvantaged certain groups with common characteristics; that would always be the result of a petition for interpretation made to the highest court of the land.

The fight for exclusive and/or inclusive places for protected characteristics as per the Equality Act 2010 must advance beyond protest to provision. I also do not believe the slippery slope argument is relevant to this case.

References

The Supreme Court – Judgement - For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) [PDF]

BBC News: Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling

Observer Editorial: The Observer view on Equality Act ruling: A dignified compromise that respects the rights of everyone

Opinion: Public safety is paramount regardless of your cuddly dog

Dogging my freedom to walk

I used to enjoy waking up early before the madding crowd got up to do my walking exercise, during which time I had two hours to myself, did about 15,000 steps and went through two public parks in Salford with the occasional encounter with people I had made an acquaintance with over time.

I stopped just over a year ago for one simple reason, the fear of dogs. Dogs that are momentarily out of control or out of earshot of their owners suddenly run at me because they are not on a leash and for whatever animal instinct they have, decide to attack me.

I had had so many encounters that I even bought an ultrasonic dog repellent device with the hope that the unpleasantness would cause the dog to run from me, but there was no guarantee it would work when you needed it to.

The law on dogs in public

Against this backdrop was the inconsiderate dog owner who would first be oblivious to the law and then project a sense of entitled freedom for their dog. The law requires that dogs in public places such as parks and footpaths should always be on a leash. It is also the responsibility of the dog owner to ensure that the public does not feel threatened by their dog. [GOV.UK: Controlling your dog in public] [BlueCross: Dog laws UK]

One morning as I was walking through the park, the dog walking with its owner bolted towards me and jumped on my leg up to my thigh, if I did not have track bottoms on, I would have had scratches on my leg. The encounter was terrifying for the simple reason, I did not know the dog. The owner however thought I had overreacted to her gentle cuddly puppy just being friendly to strangers, I did not get as much as an apology.

A few other times, I encountered the same dog and as it ran at me, I shouted to the owner to call their dog to order. I began to change the times when I walked through the park, bought the dog repellent device, and eventually concluded, that it was just too much hassle for me, the relaxation I was getting from walking was becoming a stressful and foreboding experience that every dog I saw now looked like a threat to my safety.

Your loving dog, is a public threat

Much as I appreciate the dog owner’s perspective, it selfishly does not consider that the familiarity the dog has with its owner is not automatically transferred to strangers. To turn it around, it is like a stranger jumping out of the bush to pounce on someone unawares, you do not welcome that violation and fright by patting the stranger on the head and giving them a kiss, even if that stranger comes from a family and environment where they are loved, respected, and cherished. A stranger is a stranger whenever you get familiar with the person.

The same would apply to dogs, no assumption should be made of a dog being friendly to strangers in public when they are loving and cuddly at home. That is where the debate should be. For as long as the dogs are in their homes, the public is safe, but when the dogs are brought into a public space, they should be under control and instruction, they should not be menacing, and people should generally not feel terrified of your dog.

Human rights trump animal rights

My freedom to roam and walk at the time of my choosing was trammelled because of an irresponsible dog owner with a sweet dog that was recklessly out-of-control in a public park. Sadly, this is the case in the current issue about the attacks by the American XL Bully dogs reported in the news with many injured needing hospital care and one fatality, in the space of one week.

The counter-advocacy is against the banning of dogs, but if a dog can weigh as much as an average-sized being and is not strictly under control in public places, unfortunate dog attacks can be lethal and life-changing, what is the mitigation for the dog or the dog owner?

In my case, it was not any of the dogs on the banned list, it did not make the dog any less an animal as opposed to a person I could attempt to reason with, in a confrontation. A dog will always remain an animal whether tamed or wild, and much as I subscribe to animal rights and the treatment of animals with care and consideration, they cannot in the face of the law be equal to human beings in terms of the freedom to express themselves as animals with all the instincts that entails.

Public safety remains preeminent

The core responsibility is with the owner to have good control of their dog; however, the essential point is the public should not be fearful of either the dog being out of control or irresponsible dog owners not understanding the situation of their dog being a possible menacing threat in the public. Public safety is paramount, regardless of what relationship you have with your dog in your home setting.

For that reason, I am in support of banning the American XL Bully breed and any associated breeds that could represent a threat to public safety. In addition to that, any dog owner must know the law about dogs in public spaces, they do not have the same and equal rights as persons and examples of the law must be made of dog owners who have taken the right to walk roughshod on the law that requires, they are responsible owners of animals, including dogs. [Petitions: Make XL Bully a banned dog breed in the Dangerous Dogs Act]

Blog - Rottweilers are NOT pets (December 2007)

Blog - A note on "Rottweilers are NOT pets" (May 2010)

A sanction for barbs

Getting you for it

A comment made excites the instigation of a symphony of charges resonating with the court of the unimpressed, the culprit is denial, pleading not guilty, yet, their demeanour belies a sense of engaging criminality, that which they have a propensity for that is borders on the lascivious.

As an officer of the law, one cannot be imagining the involvement of our quarry in nefarious activities as the perpetrator is wont to making observations and commenting thereafter on things they should quite immediately ignore.

With no realisation of how grave their infraction is or the dire consequences that will result from their actions, the bench intervenes to acquaint and educate that ignorance is no excuse and being honest is no cover for injuring the pride and ego of another, the other being sorely unimpressed indeed.

Punishment fitting

As proceedings draw to an end, a case for mitigation is being made, but upon close scrutiny there is neither contriteness nor remorse. This person is prone to recidivism, they will as they have done before, do it again and so a sentence that serves as deterrent is all the more necessary.

The respondent is hereby guilty and sentenced to 6 weeks of custodial habitation with their co-conspirator who strains to avow the charges. The sentence will be served in an arranged Cape Town facility with hard labour – of love.

Thought Picnic: The quest to see the person first

No Sabbath for suffering

It never ceases to amaze me when people are presented with situations and they are occupied with anything but the engagement with humanity. Biblical references come in useful, the instance where Jesus had disputes with the religious leaders and leaders of the synagogues because he performed healing miracles on the Sabbath, where, by law, he was not supposed to perform any work.

One leader of the synagogue made his displeasure known by remonstrating that there were other days in which Jesus could perform miracles, but the Sabbath really had to be kept holy. This was after witnessing the healing miracle of a woman who had been bound in infirmity for 18 years. Somehow, it was impossible for him to countenance the wonder of giving the woman any succour on the Sabbath, for as far as he was concerned, the law came first, and the woman could come on another day. [Luke 13:10-17 The spirit of infirmity (NKJV)]

As I have mentioned before, when I had cancer, our modern-day Sabbath which by terms is a Sunday did not suddenly mean the pain went away or I had any respite. There was a Sunday when my Fentanyl patch fell off the skin of my stomach unbeknownst, I just knew the pain was deathly and then realised the patch had gone. I applied a new patch but whilst I waited for it to take hold, I was in excruciating pain that I began to laugh almost hysterically with the view to releasing endorphins to ease the pain.

The birthday of a gay man in love

Which brings me to yesterday when I posted birthday greetings to Brian, my partner. I included pictures of a sunny disposition and these included ones of us kissing. We were kissing because we are in love, there should be no difficulty in recognising that.

Blog - Thought Picnic: Live your life freely and we'll live ours

If we were to view this in terms of humanity versus the legalism issue which comes across as an inability to recognise and accept diversity, this was what was at play. Two men kissing, an expression of love that some might find difficult to understand or appreciate, then they might look at the message; a birthday greeting expressed in love. Well, if they cannot abide the kissing, they should be able to celebrate the birthday, you would think.

Blinded by rage

Then obviously, no one is under obligation to do anything, the men are strangers to you doing something you do not agree with. As there is no connection between you and them, you would probably let sleeping dogs lie, ignore it and move on. That, unfortunately, was not our experience with some, even though the majority offered best wishes and support.

They on their high horses with unrighteous indignation to castigate, excoriate, condemn and vilify, completely implacable in their outrage at two men celebrating their love and a birthday, all they could see was everything wrong according to their worldview. The iota of humanity that would have allowed them to even grudgingly offer birthday greetings and express their misgiving never found an airing. They became protectors of the law as they saw it at the expense of their humanity.

Bitterness diminishes humanity

For them, seeing others suffer their stinging wrath was more pleasure to them than the celebration of life and happiness. To a point, I was pained for them, for at the root of it all was bitterness and negative energy that probably had depths that could not be explored satisfactorily to revive their innate humanity. Some, I withstood and faced down, others were too disagreeable to engage.

It is not like they would entertain any stranger interfering with how they live their lives, but a form of hubris with arrogance and a misplaced moral authority emboldens them to insert themselves to dictate how they think others should live and express themselves. It was a hard viewing to watch soulless and heartless vituperations. Yet, in the broad spectrum of our diverse humanity, I guess someone should fill those positions even when on the wrong side of history, priorities, or simply minding your own business.

Opinion: Caught between the hijab and the Bar

Where religion should belong

Readers of my blog would be well aware of my many writings about religious expression and even more stridently of the need to send religion back to where it belongs from its intrusive and overbearing cacophonous disturbance in the public spaces to the private contemplation of the individual, to the heart and the conscience of the adherent and to the sequestration of the temples where people of similar beliefs can fellowship without encumbrance.

I feel strongly about the need for the separation of the state and religion, that it is our humanity in the expression of kindness, understanding, empathy and compassion that should reflect the consequence of having adopted any belief system as a religion.

Understanding constitutional protections

In many countries, the constitution protects religious expression and rarely dictates how adherents should choose to practice their religion, it, however, does not give untrammelled licence to any adherent to foist their belief system on another, even if the religion so adjures its adherents to proselytise and win converts.

My concern about religious expression in the public space is deep, the reason being when tenet is taken out of the ambit of society and given to a figure representing a deity, that construct makes the tenet unquestionable, unchallengeable and unaccountable. To the extent that the adherent might believe that their interpretation of their perspective of their deity figure is subject to no temporal scrutiny with the danger that zealotry leads to extremism and worse.

Why civil law must reign supreme

As I have said before, even between adherents of the same belief system, they cannot believe to the same intensity, be persuaded to the same duty of devotion and be equally compelled to act on unction without the prism of reason. It is important that this difference in religious perspectives is accounted for in civil society and also as long as we do not live in a theocracy, civil law must reign supreme in the public space.

It is with these foregoing arguments made that I categorically state that I have no sympathy for the principal whose call to the Nigerian Bar was deferred because she chose a form of religious dress over the formal and formally prescribed dress code for the ceremony of being called to the bar.

The Samaritan’s example was hardly religious

I do not believe that the choice of apparel is necessarily the deepest expression of religion or that it overrides our core humanity which when laid bare is nothing about beliefs but that we are just human. This is the standard set by the Samaritan who saw a fellow human being in distress having been robbed, beaten and wounded by the wayside.

The Samaritan made no enquiry of the victim’s beliefs before he tended to the victim and took the victim to an inn to be cared for, paying in advance for the treatment of the stranger. It was after the story was told that the Samaritan became the Good Samaritan until then he was just an ordinary, if not bloody Samaritan.

Fighting a cause rightly

Now, the principal on the matter of being called to the Nigerian Bar had opportunity and privilege that could have been better deployed, managed towards a reasonable goal, but we must look at the landscape in question.

The Body of Benches is the association legally constituted to call qualified people to the Bar, it is their sole responsibility and it is in no way delegated. They make the rules and have both the power to honour, to sanction and to discipline those to whom they have granted to become Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

There are a set of requirements in terms of qualifications and presentation that need to be met to be called to the Bar and in the ensuing ceremony, there are standards required of those so called to meet and respect. In those standards are explicitly listed dress codes that are formal, austere and broadly secular in nature. Being called to the Bar is no opportunity for conspicuous self-expression when formality and uniformity is the code.

Obviously, if any part of the code needs to be challenged, there are means by which the people concerned can bring their considerations to the organisation to which they are affiliated and through persuasion and discourse come to some agreement as to whether a change is necessary, or things should remain as they are.

Use your brains, not your brawn

In my view, the principal is schooled in the art of legal advocacy and persuasion, that skill could have been brought to bear on the matter of altering the dress code to accommodate different inclination from the norm, what an organisation like the Body of Benchers must not entertain is the precedence of people having licence without consequence to bend or break the rules because they feel so persuaded.

It would be uncharitable to opine that the principal is suddenly the most devoted of her belief system who has now received such compellingly new revelation that serves as a compulsory requirement for the Body of Benchers to supinely bow to, but that is the elephant in the room, the situation where someone has decided to challenge order with their interpretation of an unrelated belief system.

A perspective of equality before the law

If the Body of Benchers were to submit to this kind of expression without legal argument properly presented in a learned rather than in an activist zealot manner, it would create a recipe for chaos with no inclinations of what new demands might be chanced by others to put before the Body of Benchers.

Equality before the law has to mean something, just as the respect of the rules promotes that same equality. Once religious apparel is excused, what is to say the principal would not subject clients to extraneous hurdles of zealotry before representation?

There are many arguments to be made for and against this subject, a lawyer by training should make the right argument with case law, the principal was called to the Bar, but called to incite religious animus and be found at the front of a mob.

No one is stopping the principal from choosing what to wear, but when there is a dress code, that is the dress code.

The UK: 50 Years since it was Against The Law - Consensual Homosexuality

Sometime ago

50 years ago, today, Sexual Offences Act 1967 received royal assent, bringing into law the decriminalisation of homosexual acts between men in private, as long as they had attained the age of 21.

I was born at a time of interesting changes in society when the worst form of abuse you could throw at anyone was the phrase, “You’re a bugger.” It carried the weight of disdain, disgust, condemnation and disgrace, there was no particular understanding of homosexuality apart from misconceptions that fed the idea they were acting against the law of nature, they were evil, they were paedophiles and possibly worse.

Yet, it was rarely the case that to that point in time, people who found themselves to be bequeathed with the burden of homosexuality were inclined to be anything but normal law-abiding human beings. Only that the law through moralisation and sententiousness or just the need to find those to persecute criminalised the nature of people who happened to be different.

Against the law

13 years before this, Alan Turing died of cyanide poisoning having been persecuted by the system for his sexuality, one of the pioneering brains of the computing age and to whom some of the successes to breaking the Nazi Germany encryption codes presaging the end of WWII is attributed. His profile saved him from jail, but it did not save him from the system that literally ruined him.

However, in all this, I celebrate three men, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Peter Wildeblood and Michael Pitt-Rivers who were charged and convicted in 1954 for conspiracy to incite certain male persons to commit serious offences with male persons" (or "buggery"), for which they went to jail.

Despite the sensationalism of what became known as the Montagu Trial, Lord Montagu admitted to being bisexual and Peter Wildeblood was first to publicly admit his homosexuality. The police were involved in a widespread clampdown on homosexuality even acting as agent provocateurs to entrap unsuspecting homosexuals for a prosecution that there were at least 1,000 men sent to prison yearly for being homosexual in the 1950s.

Against bad law

The way the prosecution and trial was conducted led to an inquiry which submitted the Wolfenden Report in 1967 suggesting consensual homosexual acts between adults be decriminalised. 14 out of 15 members of this inquiry agreed to this.

Peter Wildeblood wrote about the trial in his book, Against The Law: The Classic Account of a Homosexual in 1950s Britain, which was adapted for television and shown last night. [BBC Two]

Finding myself different

I began to realise my own same sex attraction from around the age of 7, just about the time that I had my first sexual encounter with a much older girl who was twice my age. I did not know or understand what happened between us, but I know I was taken into the toilet, told to pull down my shorts and instructed to put my thing in her thing.

How that impacted my sense of sexuality, I would never know, but in that singular event, I lost my innocence and became sexualised. In the following years up to the time I was 10, I suppose male servants seeking a sexual outlet found easy prey in me, to which I somewhat acquiesced, none the wiser about what it meant.

In fear and loathing

Through secondary boarding school, there was a fondle, some frottage and consequently lots of fellatio with one friend who assuredly was not homosexual. In fact, I met no homosexuals in any sense in school, or at least never knew of any until I saw some of my schoolmates in the UK.

By my late teens, I was in great conflict between understanding my sexuality and embracing spirituality, I could never square the situation of being naturally attracted to men and yet feeling condemned for what I did not choose as a matter of cause or course.

Meanwhile, I found amenable and willing partners for sexual expression into my twenties. On one occasion, we were caught in the act and literally blackmailed into complying with some norms. At the eve of my departure from Nigeria, one such liaison had revealed the tryst to another party and they both schemed to blackmail me, I refused to budge, told them to do their worst as I was also about to leave Nigeria.

The journey to accepting myself

By then, I had become aware that there were much more people like me, even if I did not know where to meet them. Back in the UK, I sought out men like me, I found a bar in the West-End called the Brief Encounter, now defunct, and from the moment I stepped into the bar, I began to the journey to the acceptance of who I was.

There were still many battles to fight for being homosexual in 1990, the police still found opportunity to harass, coming out had grave consequences for life and well-being, Justin Fashanu had just come out as gay and there was a great backlash, gays were being queer-bashed without finding any recourse or redress, discrimination was tolerated everywhere against homosexuals with homophobia expressed from politics to pulpit without sanction, we existed in an underclass of secrecy finding community in minority and the persecuted.

We were also in the first decade of the AIDS epidemic, I watched friends and acquaintances grab each day as it came, them wasting away until they expired. It was scary, then there was Section 28 enacted in 1988, which stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship." That’s Russia today and worse.

We’ve come a long way

Within this period, I found companionship and love, great tolerance and understand at work where my managers protected me from abuse from colleagues and much else. Many never understood homosexuality but accepted we existed and respected us for who we were. Our sexuality and sexual preferences do not define us, we are first human beings and there is much to us than labels.

In the West, in 50 years, we have come a long way, equality is the norm, discrimination is condemned, expression is free, gay marriage is legal in many countries, we’ve had gay heads of government in Iceland and Belgium, and currently in Luxembourg, Ireland and Serbia, coming out is not such a big deal anymore.

The spectre of AIDS that strafed the gay community is not so much the sentence of death it was some 20 or 30 years ago, because of new treatments that limit the debilitating effects of HIV.

Many battles remain

Yet, there is much to do for gay minorities, to tackle sexuality and status stigma, to address homophobic laws gaining traction in other countries where gays are abused, persecuted, prosecuted and murdered, just for being who they are.

Many are caught in that morass of being against the law – of nature to some when that is what they naturally are. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, it is part of our humanity and human nature, but the journey to accepting, tolerating and respecting our varied and diverse humanity is still a long one.

Today, I must celebrate that where I live, my homosexuality is not against the law.

Nigeria: Our drool of flaws

A fantasy at best

Late last night I posted a cryptic tweet about a perception of the rule of law in Nigeria.

The 'rule of law' fantasy we so espouse in Nigeria is a leap of faith from our flat-earth reality to an undiscovered circumnavigation dread.

— Akin Akíntáyọ̀ (@forakin) January 11, 2016

In the Presidential Media Chat conducted recently, President Muhammad Buhari appeared to express strident and incalcitrant views towards the continued detention of Nnamdi Kanu and Sambo Dasuki against presumed rulings of the courts.

Suddenly, we all became constitutional experts on the matter of the 'rule of law' and implicitly the 'separation of powers'. Follow the links for definitions.

The executive in the person of the president could not be seen to be sacrilegiously disobeying court orders infringing on the rights of citizens and thereby arbitrarily instituting a seemingly extrajudicial process.

The underlying issue

President Buhari having been at the head of the armed forces and of the generation that fought to defend the integrity and entity of Nigeria could not have concealed his anger and the sense of betrayal if as a foot soldier he was sent into battle ill-equipped as the actions of Sambo Dasuki portrayed when he diverted moneys for arms to fight Boko Haram to currying political favours for the ruling party or the sense of duty he had when Nigeria faced secession in the Civil War and we had Nnamdi Kanu soliciting weapons to fight a war for a new Biafra in Nigeria.

Blog - Nigeria: A view on #DasukiGate

As an ex-soldier what Sambo Dasuki did was beyond a civil infraction, it was criminal in the extreme and if he were still in the military, a court martial will have been instigated and guilt will have led to execution.

If at any time Dasuki would have wanted a reckoning of his military service regardless of government dispensation, it goes without saying that the one of his disservice to the military must be addressed with equal vehemence.

A martyr to stupidity

Nnamdi Kanu could well have advocated for a Biafra movement by civil and democratic means, but once he started soliciting for weapons for his cause to buttress his telegraphed incitements by radio, he had crossed the line from having a civil case to threatening the integrity of Nigeria.

His effrontery of leaving his vituperative armchair of comfort in the UK to visit Nigeria for whatever purpose was as much the stupidity of sticking your head in the gaping mouth of a hungry lion. He was not going to sashay around Nigeria with his propaganda given free rein and the means to equip his followers with arms to create a new front beside what we face in the north east with Boko Haram.

If he seeks martyrdom, he will assuredly die for nothing, but having cast himself as a seeming enemy combatant and a possible threat to Nigeria's peaceful existence, he invariably forfeited his rights to roam free. His UK citizenship is by naturalisation, it does not excuse him from sanction if he has violated Nigerian law and he consequently entered Nigerian territory.

If either man is aggrieved by their treatment, they must exhaust the judicial process and I have as yet not seen a Supreme Court ruling that the executive has ignored.

No law on which to rule

On the matter of the fight against corruption, despite having the EFCC and the heft of the state behind it, most of the highest profile indicted have literally run rings round the system.

The EFCC has never been able to land any big whales, only small fry have seen the full force of the law.

Money is so awash in the system and most big fish have been able to buy the justice they want rather than face the justice that is right, just and fair.

They troop an embarrassment of SANs into court and either by intimidation or unbelievable sophistry obtain the most incredibly atrocious rulings that leaves everyone stunned.

Case in point is Peter Odili's perpetual injunction where the defendant had not even conclusively proven his case. John Yakubu Yusuf who stole NGN 32.8 billion from the police pension fund and was handed a two year sentence or the option of a NGN 250,000 fine. James Ibori who resisted arrest with a militia in Nigeria and only came a cropper in Dubai at the behest of the British, it is like we have no law on which to rule that the prospect of a rule of law in Nigeria is a fallacy. We have institutionalised the immunity for impunity, if you have the means to buy it.

Reading - [Circumstances Under Which A Defendant Can Be Granted An Injunction Against The Plaintiff In A Case.]

An egregious judiciary run amok

There is no doubt that our judiciary is in need of radical reform, much as the process of legal redress needs scrutiny, whether by purge or by re-education, the criminal justice system in Nigeria is crippled by procedure and maimed by excess of influence of power and money.

There is a need to win battles within the greater wars and somehow, the Dasuki impasse is yielding interesting dividends, a method to the madness of the tail wagging the dog, because people who took money are fessing up without prompting.

It would appear an extrajudicial process of denying Dasuki bail and freedom is putting the fear of God and a semblance of conscience into the heart of thieves, it is a better result than we have ever been able to get without international assistance or from our courts.

Maybe there is hope

Fix the system and then use and test the system, however, before we get bogged down with a messed up system and a moribund war against corruption towards our aspirations of a Utopian rule of law, the burden of responsibility is on the government to pursue its aims to a satisfactory conclusion.

Those who have sinned, be prepared to far unusual justice and rue the law, those who haven't have nothing to fear, the expectation of the rule of law and they must continue to pursue their Nigerian dreams in hope, in peace and in all the determination they have to hand and heart.

South Africa: Rest In Peace, Reeva Steenkamp

Talking Uber

I have the most interesting discussions with Uber drivers who form the basis of my regular mode of transport in Johannesburg.

Usually after the exchange of pleasantries, a question or two about where I am from, I make an observation during the journey and the deeper conversation begins.

What I find amongst the drivers, either the economy UberX or the luxury UberBlack fares are inquiring and inquisitive minds with questions and an openness to new thought and angles.

South Africa in the time I have been here, has presented flux and frenzy in the socio-economic and political world that we have a surfeit of topics to cover.

They are usually quite amazed at how much I follow South African current affairs, but that is the creature that I am, I try to keep abreast of things.

Justice many times denied

Before Oscar Pistorius appeared in court yesterday, on my way to work I was asked what my view of the situation was.

I lamented the fact that the courts had not given much succour to victims of violence citing Reeva Steenkamp and Anni Dewani as examples of where the men allegedly behind their deaths got away literally scotfree.

However, my only hope this time would be for the judges to ask themselves one question in coming to their decision. All arguments exhausted, where is the justice for Reeva Steenkamp in all this?

Yesterday, evening the answer came in a 53-minute unanimous ruling that the act of Oscar Pistorius on that fateful Valentine Day's morning constituted murder regardless of who was behind that toilet door.

Now fix this

Whilst we find ourselves referencing the Latin dictionary of legal terms that Judge Thokozile Masipa compelled us to acquire when he was sentenced to 5 years for culpable homicide it would appear her ladyship read her own annotated copy erroneously.

We have now to be schooled anew on the application of dolus eventualis to this case, that shooting four shots into an enclosed place regardless of the state of mind of the shooter can only lead to death and there is no reasoning to suggest the shooter, Oscar Pistorius did not know that death will occur after those shots.

The Supreme Court of Appeal which is the highest civil court in South Africa thereby found in favour of the National Prosecuting Authority that was dissatisfied with the ruling of Judge Masipa's court.

With Judge Masipa suitably scolded by superior legal opinion, she has been offered a second opportunity to balance the scales of justice to visit the crime of murder with a suitable punishment that hopefully takes consideration of the indisputable fact that a life was brutally extinguished at the hands of a thoughtless gun nut.

It is no doubt as Judge Eric Leach said, that this is a human tragedy of Shakespearean proportions, but the greatest justice will only be served when the sentence says, Reeva Steenkamp, we're sorry, now rest in peace.

Opinion: Kim Davis is in jail because she is a clerk, not a cleric

She is a devout Christian, no doubt

Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County in Kentucky is in jail for contempt of court and I think that is right and just.

The reason why Kim Davis is in jail was because she refused to grant marriage licences to gay couples after she had been instructed by the courts at various levels up to the supreme court to do her duty.

Now, Kim Davis would have us believe that she is a devout Christian and I have no reason to question her beliefs, her convictions, her persuasions or her conscience.

She is also a public servant

However, Kim Davis as a public servant is someone who has a duty to perform for which she is paid and for which she should be accountable if she fails to perform her lawful duty. A public office in civil society must never be where to wage religious wars of conscience and conviction.

I say this because any community setting might have the same religion, but rarely have similar convictions or devotions, the imposition of which can so easily infringe on the rights of those who are not similarly adherent.

When I last checked, the United States of America is a democracy and whilst many might deign to wear their religion on their sleeves, it is not a theocracy, it is not governed by religious books or dogma, but by a constitution and amendments to the same along with a body of living jurisprudence that interprets questions of law, rights, freedoms, liberties, causes, policy and much else.

She is clerk, not a cleric

I also note that Kim Davis ran for office to be a clerk and not a cleric, so for the multidimensional community that she serves, she is duty-bound to treat everyone to whom she provides the service of granting a marriage certificate equally, with respect, with dignity and without prejudice.

Yet, I respect the fact that Kim Davis due to her religion, her convictions, her beliefs and her conscience might well disagree with the law that grants the right for same-sex couples to receive marriage certificates, those elements of her devout Christianity do not automatically confer on her the right to disobey the law, most especially a direct court order commanding her to do her job.

She has every right to do her job reluctantly, grudgingly, even abusively if she is so disposed, but the law must be upheld.

We should not mistake Kim Davis’ tribulation with one that represents the persecution of Christians, rather this is a case of stubborn presumptuousness engendering stupidity and ignorance.

Why we have civil law

There is a reason for civil law, it makes everyone equal before the law and allows for everyone to be judged on the merits, the facts and the arguments properly made to defend a position based on extant law and constitutional interpretation along with appellate processes that can be exhausted to the highest court after which the decision of that court is final and it must not be impugned.

If we have a situation where everyone is allowed by reason of their devotion and conviction to act according to their conscience regardless of the dictates of the law we risk a society falling into anarchy. We cannot have public officials acting on the whim without regulation or conduct, where depending on how they feel, what they perceive, which prejudice appeals to them most or what judgement they have in their heads they serve without any public accountability, but to God alone.

This brings me to a blog I wrote on the matter the separation of church (religion) and state, I implore you to read the blog.

Blog - The case for State law over religious guidance

The state must think for itself

The aptly named Lord Justice Laws made a number of pertinent statements in his judgement, which I highlighted in that blog, one that I find most critical I have copied to this blog.

“The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.”

Invariably, the learned judge is saying the people need the option to decide who makes their laws and this option is exercised through their judges and their governments, it is only then that the people can truly say they are free because the state to which they belong does not have to answer to anybody else but the selfsame people from whom are selected those who are the judges, the representatives and the government. That is human government in a nutshell.

Kim Davis by her histrionics was trying to take this option away from the people and give it to her preconceived higher power of God, she can do that in her own house as an act of individual conscience, but as public servant, the people decide through their representatives and this is the judge.

There was a scenario in the bible where the rulers questioned Jesus Christ about the paying of taxes and in the ensuing conversation his answer was good enough to send his challengers on their way.

Don’t confuse the renders

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” Matt 22:21 (KJV)

Jesus as the initiator of Christianity knew clearly the difference between civic duty and religious devotion. In his answer, one must note that he first addressed the matter of civic duty where the understanding of the rules is clear to everyone before talking of God where that might well be a matter of individual conscience.

I make bold to say that what Jesus intended in his answer was without equivocation that regardless of personal conviction or individual conscience, the laws of the land must be respected. The disarray and disorder comes when certain ignorant religious adherents or extremists confuse the instruction by rendering what is Caesar’s to God and what is God’s to Caesar, sometimes not even knowing what is Caesar’s from what is God’s and that is why Kim Davis is in jail.

Obey or resign

As a clerk, she should have been rendering what is Caesar’s to Caesar, respecting the law and doing her job, she decided to render what is God’s to Caesar and well, Caesar does not trade in God’s currency and technically, that is fraud and frauds go to jail.

Kim Davis in my view belongs in jail until she is ready to obey the law as a clerk who grants marriage certificates to all who are legally entitled to one, including same-sex couples, regardless of her conscience or conviction or she should resign and go home to worship her God without interference from the law or the people.

Thought Picnic: What am I supposed to do?

What for?

I woke up to an astonishingly atrociously unwarranted vicious message in my mailbox this morning. Much as I have received threats, abuse and worse before, I have usually consigned the message to the bin and marked it as spam.

Over time, I have learnt not to allow things like this is perturb or upset me, these are messages from generally inconsequential people with whom I have no contact or relationship, that it should never matter.

Fight this

However, on this occasion, I decided not to overlook the situation. Too many times, people have sat behind their keyboards with a deluded sense of anonymity to lay invective and vitriolic abuse on strangers without consequence.

For instance, if you were abused without cause on the street or a public space, you can either have other members of the public intervene or even have the police deal with the issue.

Consequences abound

The fundamental especially in the free world I have the privilege to live, is that we all have the freedom of expression but the licence to threaten and abuse crosses the line into menace, illegality and possible criminality. That licence, if anyone deigns to use it is not protected speech and should be sanctioned.

Whilst there might be many reasons why I was abused in the mind of the perpetrator and I cannot care to imagine what they might be. My acting now might well ensure no one else gets attacked like I was and also make clear that the full force of the law is just round the corner as a result of acting in a reprehensible manner.

I won’t hurt a fly

The person oblivious of what I can do, I traced the particulars and indicators of message and forwarded the information to the administrator of the hosting facility he used along with a complaint. I probably will not get more than an acknowledgement, but it was a necessary action.

It reminds of someone who in the process of trying to defraud me left me with a number of his bank account details, it was not long before I obtained his home address, birth certificate and a few other private pieces of data that I forwarded to the authorities. He, at the end of the day, was responsible for his misfortune.

I am as docile as a sleeping dog, kick me and you’ll wake a rabid dog with a vicious bite. But then, some people just have to scratch their itchy noses with the gaping fangs of a viper. What am I supposed to do?

Double life: Brief encounters of the uncomfortable kind

Angst meetings

There are lessons to be learnt from the collision of pseudonym and a reality that generally carries stigma that suggests the anonym is the best representation of self with the fleeting and the incidental.

People live secret lives and find places for the expression of such with sometimes dire consequences for others who are in many ways accepting of who they are.

Experiences of angst-ridden double-life episodes should make one the wiser of such encounters that the less said, the less harm is done and consequently the less trouble for all concerned.

Rein in

Why there is any need to rein in is a dilemma met by many in settings that are supposed to provide the freedom of expression, yet one learns that reining in risk and reining in honesty are the valid actions in self-preservation; that being the preservation of anonymity and sanity, if you rein in loquacity.

Sadly, where some refuse to take responsibility for the actions they as sane, sober adults in pursuit of a thrill or fantasy indulge in, deciding to have others shoulder such for them in a society where the blame culture is the first sanctuary of the irresponsible, the honest and true is bruised.

The ignorance is worse

Beyond angst, the worst encounters are those with the ignorant, despite the surfeit of knowledge and information of risk, precaution, protection and vulnerability, they have not taken the time to understand the basics, such that it becomes a crash course in passion-killing discourse, the cue taken to immediately abort the liaison.

No words except for what one will not deign, no truths except for when it is necessary, avoiding the tangling webs of deceit woven by the curious in search of the abominable to those with whom they partner in life, to wit the visitation of the magi of the law, that in fright anonym, pseudonym and orthonym collide, with all laid bare by the intimidation of that number.

Jots taken, future uncertain, ringing in the new on the wings of controversy. Becalm thyself, ye have done naught wrong.