Who wants to defend Kidnappers?

Who wants to defend Kidnappers?
on december 19, 2013 at 1:51 am in the hub
By Josef Omorotionwan
THIS is a spill-over from last week. It is becoming
clearer what people mean when they talk of running
from pillar to post. In 2011, the ink on President
Goodluck Jonathan’s inaugural papers had hardly
dried when he started toying with the idea of a
single tenure – first, of eight years; then seven
years; and finally, six years.
At that time, we were told about the numerous
advantages accruable from the single tenure and
that the incumbent President, Governors, and
Assemblymen would not benefit from the measure.
*Suspected kidnappers
This idea was taken to the town hall meetings, so
called, but it was thrown out of the window in
virtually all the constituencies.
Suddenly, at a time when the popularity of the ruling
party is waning fast, Senator Ike Ekweremadu must
quickly resurrect the idea, except that this time
around, the incumbent are permitted to benefit
handsomely from their iniquities. This is simply the
masthead of illogic.
Wouldn’t it have been safer to deepen their
research on new election rigging technics? Whoever
tells them that they can muster the extra-ordinary
majorities required to pull the absurdity through?
Again, the President is not alone in this trickery.
Ekweremadu probably sees in the design, a way of
easing out other contending forces at the Enugu
gubernatorial front. This is a quick aside. It is not
the topic for today.
Meanwhile, the lawyers in EdoState are visibly
angry and justifiably so. The Medical Doctors are
also annoyed. These professionals render their
humane services to all, including the bad elements.
But these bad people turn round and kill, maim and
kidnap their members with impunity.
When they go on their escapades to kidnap lawyers,
judges and doctors, they sometimes receive
gunshots in their encounter with the police. Some of
them get arrested and charged to court. The
wounded ones are rushed to the hospitals for
treatment by doctors; while the lawyers are asked
to go and defend the ones arrested.
The professionals are now beginning to say, “Our
mumu don do. For how long shall we continue to
help those who give us hell?. Enough is enough!”
The bag won’t contain it but the native doctor won’t
let go. Yes, the country’s Constitution is laced all
over with guarantees of the right of the suspect to
fair hearing and legal representation, particularly on
crimes that carry the ultimate punishment of death.
However, the same Constitution also protects the
lawyer on the choice of who to defend and who not
to defend. It would also be more  painful to watch a
notorious armed robber or any of these professed
kidnappers set free on the defence lawyer’s
technicalities.
And this is not the first time in this country that
lawyers are showing their distaste to a criminal
gang. It would be recalled that the Lawrence Anini
saga of the 1980s terrorised this part of the defunct
BendelState, to the extent that when members of the
gang were eventually arrested, lawyers did not
want to touch their case even with a ten-foot stick.
Benjamin Iserhienrhiien, a bright upcoming lawyer
who was then fresh from law school, took it upon
himself to defend them. To the rest of society,
Benjamin’s effort was more like a suicide bid and
he was never the same after that. People looked at
him with disdain and he was literarily renamed
Anini’s lawyer and everywhere he went, he was
booed until he finally relocated to the USA.
In a society where evil is predominant, selective
enforcement is also evil. Lawyers who refuse to
defend kidnappers should have no moral
justification in defending politicians who rig election
and merchants of death who deal on fake and
adulterated drugs.
It is painful to think of the harm that these evil men
bring on society but the problem inherent in refusing
to defend them also weighs heavily on society. For
one thing, we know not of many trial judges who
would still proceed with a case when the defendant
is not represented by counsel. To the chagrin of
society, we are going to witness an alarming
increase in cases of awaiting trial and the
concomitant prison congestion in the months ahead.
For another thing, we see the non-appearance of
lawyers for suspects as a valid ground for cases to
collapse on appeal in which case, the courts will
just be a revolving door for the criminals that we
say we don’t want to be recycled to our streets.
More importantly, there are cases where innocent
people are accused unjustly. Should these ones
also be allowed to die?
There is a way out of this jam lock – Let the
Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Edo State Chapter,
rescind its decision and take on the suspects, if
only to fulfill all righteousness; so that those who
merit to die can, indeed, die quickly!
Elsewhere in the advanced world, the right of the
suspect to counsel and his right to information have
long been established at every level – from arrest to
conviction. We are quickly reminded of the case of
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966), where
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with
kidnapping and rape. At the police headquarters, he
was identified by the complainant. He was
interrogated for two hours by detectives who
admitted at trial that he was not advised of his right
to counsel. Miranda signed a written confession and
was subsequently convicted at the lower court.
The Supreme Court, however, held that the
confession was improperly obtained and he was
therefore discharged and acquitted. The basic
principle established by this landmark case has
since remained that prior to any questioning, the
person must be warned that he has a right to
remain silent; that anything he says may be used as
evidence against him; and that he has a right to the
presence of a lawyer, either retained by him or
appointed for him where he is too poor to afford
one.