By Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja
Some weeks ago a debate broke out on a certain WhatsApp platform of lawyers as to whether certain lawyers who were formerly human rights activists such as Festus Keyamo, SAN and Dr. Monday Ubani SAN had not lost their activism (and compromised) as soon as they accepted appointments with the government of the day.
One lawyer who has maintained his consistency as a human rights activism is Femi Falana, SAN.
His consistency is remarkable because it comes at great personal costs and sacrifices.
However, Femi Falana SAN has by the choice to stand in support of the public interest provided an outstanding example and role model for my good self and other younger lawyers.
In the year 1999, Femi Falana SAN was the lawyer for the then Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu (BAT) of Lagos State.
That decision to represent BAT caused Femi Falana SAN to lose the friendship of the late Gani Fawehinmi SAN.
When BAT was announced as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in the year 2023, Femi Falana SAN would have viewed it as an opportunity to “cash out” from the regime of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT).
Instead Femi Falana SAN choose to take sides with the public interests by criticising the policies and actions of the government of PBAT that are not in the best interests of the public such as the Proclamation of a State of Emergency in Rivers State.
In a nutshell, when I look at the career trajectory of Femi Falana SAN, I have learned two very important lessons which can be summarised as follows:
- It is a personal conscious choice to choose a life of public interest advocacy as a lawyer, and this choice comes with personal sacrifices; and
- Wisdom must be applied to find and explore and exploit extra sources of income other than any income from the government that holds sway.
Any lawyer who makes a decision to speak out in the public choice must be conscious that it comes at great personal costs to both your reputation and finances.
This is because those who hold public offices also hold the instruments of coercion which they can illegally and unethically deplore to penalise anyone who utters any words of criticism against such public office holders (it doesn’t matter whether the criticism is constructive or delivered in the most polite of languages)!!!
So this is a choice that must be made before hand.
As the introductory part of the title of this write-up which is culled from a song by Jim Reeves says:
“I’d rather have Jesus than silver or gold
I’d rather be His than have riches untold
I’d rather have Jesus than houses or land
I’d rather be led by His nail-pierced hand
Than to be the king of a vast domain
And be held in sin’s dread sway
I’d rather have Jesus than anything
This world affords today”.
So having made the decision to cling to truth and public interest advocacy, such a lawyer must be prepared for the second and more important aspect which is the ability to endure the deprivations, personal insults, reputational damages, defamation lawsuits and economic hardships that can result.
In the course of my own public interest advocacy, I have grown a thick-skin to them and I now fondly refer to such as “love letters” that come in the form of letters of suspension, or even outright removal from any positions that one may hold.
This aspect can be summarised by the expression: “The Wounds of Honour Are Self-Inflicted”.
“The saying “the wounds of honor are self-inflicted” suggests that the negative consequences or suffering associated with a person’s sense of honor are often a result of their own choices and actions, rather than external forces. It implies that individuals who prioritize their honor may inadvertently harm themselves or others in pursuit of it.
Elaboration :
Internal Responsibility:
The phrase emphasizes the individual’s agency in shaping their experience with honor. It highlights that one’s actions, attitudes, and decisions are the primary drivers of the outcomes, both positive and negative, associated with their sense of honor.
Self-Imposed Constraints :
Individuals who are overly focused on maintaining their reputation or upholding their perceived standards of honor may inadvertently limit themselves, create unnecessary conflicts, or make choices that ultimately harm them or those around them.
The “Wounds”:
The “wounds” can be understood as various forms of suffering, whether physical, emotional, or reputational. These wounds are not necessarily caused by external forces, but rather by the choices and actions taken in the name of honor.
These words were uttered in the movie the ‘Last Knights’ starring Morgan Freeman.
It is a tale of valour and honour set against a backdrop of an empire boasting of ministers, noblemen and warriors of various ethnicity.
Freeman does not disappoint despite his brief role nor does the person who penned the dialogue.
Freeman’s powerful articulation on matters of corruption and oppression before the emperor is enthralling and could serve as a lesson for those in positions of power:
Morgan Freeman’s speech is reproduced below as follows:
“For far too long, I failed to recognise my own hypocrisy. I ignored my own cowardice, conveniently hiding behind a position of political compromise.
And for what? To retain the meagre wealth and rank that men desire.
“So I come before you a condemned man for having finally stood up to injustice. My shame and regret is failing to do so before it arrived in my own court.
“We supply the armies, we build the roads and we employ the nation. Still we remain silent while our coffers are emptied and our freedoms eroded.
“There will be times where we are powerless to injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
“Remember, the wounds of honour are self-inflicted.” (This quote is perhaps the most poignant of all)”
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
