Mohammed Dele Belgore is a quintessential legal personality and an astute politician. Apart from being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Belgore is a seasoned arbitrator; he belongs to many professional bodies and currently, the Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Nigeria Branch. Belgore, who is the son of the former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Late, Justice Mahmud Babatunde Belgore, contested the governorship election in Kwara State in 2011 under the platform of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and is today a leading figure of the state politics. This great legal mind last week spoke to our SENIOR LAW REPORTER, Tunde Opeseitan, on issues of national importance. Excerpts:

Sir, last week, the stakeholders in the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) community met in Lagos at an emergency session to discuss the Bill for the establishment of National Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulatory Commission, which seeks to regulate arbitration practice in Nigeria. What were the issues and conclusions at the meeting sir?

Well, as you know, there are a couple of legislations before the National Assembly. The main one, as you have rightly said is the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulatory Commission, which has been passed by the House of Representatives and has passed second reading before the Senate. The arbitration practitioners at that meeting, who are the stakeholders, took the view that the Bill is ill-advised for a number of reasons and an 11-point objection was raised, some of which include the fact that, one, there was no prior and wide consultation. Two, the legislation itself negates the very essence of Alternative Dispute Resolution, which is a private and voluntary process. So, insofar as the Bill seeks to regulate that private and consensus process, then it goes against the bedrock of all Alternative Dispute Resolution represents not just in Nigeria, but the world over. And that if we impose that kind of regime in our country, Nigeria will become unattractive place for Alternative Dispute Resolution, and that will affect investor confidence. Now, let me explain this investor confidence well so that you understand. Investor confidence is not necessarily that investors will not come and have arbitration here, but what it means is that a foreign investor coming into Nigeria to carry on business generally prefers arbitration whereby you subject your views not to the public law system of the courts of that country, but to a neutral third party which has no government involvement. Therefore, with this kind of regime where there will be government involvement, intervention and government regulation, such people will feel that that right has been taken from them because they knew that the courts were there and they did not want it because they did not want government involvement. So, now you impose this and take the other away. All the investors will just feel is that look Nigeria may be good for investment, but if we have a dispute, we are not happy with the dispute resolution mechanism available here, so we go somewhere else. There are so many other issues as well.

But then sir, who then regulate the ADR practice in Nigeria if government should close its eyes completely to it as the stakeholders are saying?

The ADR practice is regulated by the industry itself. Almost every ADR practitioner belongs to one or more arbitration bodies. Each of these bodies has governing councils; the members sign code of ethics; they have disciplinary procedures and so on. And besides, if an arbitration practitioner engages in an unbecoming act of, say, bribery or any other form of corruption, he is not going to be called upon the next time. So, the system itself is self-regulating. You see, there is no point in re-inventing the will. ADR has been in existence right from the beginning of mankind. It is a course that is coming at the later date, but right from the beginning of time, people always found a way to resolve their disputes. ADR is merely commercial men finding a way in which they will resolve their commercial disputes and that's all. So, they regulate themselves. If I'm appointed as an arbitrator and I totally mess up the process, next time they are not going to come to me. Aside from that, I could also face a disciplinary body.

Again sir, who then regulates ADR when there are disputes between the practitioners themselves? For instance, there is a suit before the Federal High Court in Lagos by two ADR institutions on certain issues?

You see, disputes are inevitable and they are necessary for growth. Wherever you have human interactions and you have mature, robust and differences of opinion, there will be disputes, but the system provide the way where the dispute can be settled. In anywhere you go in the world, there are several arbiter (bodies). Sometimes they corporate, sometimes they don't. Other times, they are jostling for positions. But that is not to say that those disputes involve necessarily lowering the standards. What this regulation seeks to do is to accredit practitioners; to accredit arbiter (bodies) and so on. What it then means is that if I'm not registered or accredited by the National Regulatory Commission, I cannot practice. I cannot be chosen by whoever wants me. And also, on what basis and what facilities do they have to be able to do what they even seek to do? The legal profession regulates itself, the medical profession regulates itself, the accounting job, the advertisers and all that regulate themselves, and so there is absolutely nothing new in this thing. Each professional body has self-regulatory system. More so, this is a body that arose from carrying out a voluntary exercise. You and I have a dispute and we decide that its Mr. X that we want to be the arbiter to resolve our disputes. That is our fundamental rights. Why should the government tell me no you can't have Mr, X. So, the issue is really as simple as that, and not to talk of other issues. As I have said there is an 11-point of objection which also consists of legal and constitutional basis for attacking the Bill. And again, you are passing a legislation which will involve billions of tax payers' money on a matter that is totally unnecessary. The industry does not need it. They don't want it and so why would anybody want to expend public funds on what we don't need.

I don't know whether the stakeholders are considering filing a suit in court if the National Assembly eventually pass the Bill into law?

I believe that is an option but the first option is dialogue. Through discussion with the parliamentarians and robust arguments as to why the Bill is unnecessary, I believe litigation can be an option, but dialogue remains a good option. However, should that fail, then litigation comes into play.

Away from ADR matters, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar has embarked on some reforms in the judiciary and some judges have been shown the way out. But some of the indicted lawyers are still practicing. Take for example the case of Osun tribunal imbroglio over which Justice Thomas Naron has been sacked but the Senior Advocate who allegedly committed the act together with the judge has not been sanctioned? 

Well, I'm not privy to what the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) might or might not be doing with regards to this Senior Advocate that you have mentioned. I do know that the LPDC has the powers to sanction any legal practitioner for act of wrong doing. But definitely I will say that if there has been any wrong doing, that must be dealt with. I imagine that in a matter like this, the LPDC will file the charges and will give the accused, if I could use the word, the opportunity to respond and then embark on some sort of disciplinary hearing, and thereafter judgment. Justice Naron's case was dealt with by the National Judicial Council (NJC), which is the body that discipline judges. I think it's a different body that discipline lawyers. So, the processes may be different and the timing may be different. I will just say that we should perhaps wait a while before we rush to judgment.

But generally sir, what is your view on the reforms being carried out by the CJN?       

They are good, they are welcome, they are necessary, but to me, they are not far-reaching enough. What we want is wholesome changes. You can discipline erring judges, but you are merely scratching the surface. You've got to look at the system. The overall system needs to be examined. If the system works more efficiently, there will be less temptation for corruption. If the cases are handled with every sense of responsibility, the public will have more respect for the judges and the lawyers for instance handling the cases. But where people have very little confidence in the system, they then try to second-guess it and that's where corruption comes in. They will say look, this system will not give me justice, let me try and help myself. What I'm saying in essence is that the reforms are welcomed, they are long-overdue but they are not far-reaching enough. You have to dig deep and strike at the core. You have to, as it were, revolutionize the system.

The declaration of state of emergency in three northern states without the removal of governors has elicited reactions of Nigerians for and against the action of the President, and it also brought up some Constitutional issues. What is your position sir?                         

Well, the removal or non-removal of democratic institutions is clearly a political decision because if you proclaim a state of emergency, then that in itself amounts to a suspension of democratic institution. If politically, it is agreed that the democratic institutions should be retained while a state of emergency has been declared, I don't see that as a legal issue at all. The power to proclaim is there and it has been exercised. How you then exercised it whether you suspend everything or retain everything to me is a political issue and not a legal one. Whether there should have been a state of emergency or not, to my mind, having done what the President has done by retaining the democratic institutions, then I don't think he should have proclaimed a state of emergency. He is a commander in chief, and therefore sitting in dialogue with the democratic institutions in the state, he can say listen we are deploying the armed forces to come and support the situation. So, a state of emergency therefore is unnecessary. You declare a state of emergency and you keep the democratic institutions. In the same states, the Spokesman for the Military is announcing on the Radio that there is going to be a curfew and so on, whereas you have a sitting governor who is there and he is not part of that decision. To me, I see an anomaly in the situation.

So, what then do you think the President should have done?

I will be fair to the President and say that I don't know the intelligence and military briefing he based his decision on. But one thing I clearly agree with is that we cannot allow the current situation to continue where a bunch of bandits have essentially taken over certain parts of the country and have become a law onto themselves. That kind of situation should never be allowed and support must be given to Mr. President in acting decisively against such actions. But I do not believe, looking at what is done, that that is how he should have done it. But he must have heard reasons for thinking that the democratic institutions should be maintained. Now those same reasons should then have recommended the fact that state of emergency should not have been declared.

You contested the last governorship election in your state, Kwara and a lot of people will like to know what next for you in the political arena?

Well, you know we started on a process through which we wanted to change the political, economic and social landscape in the state. We wanted to move the people away from a culture of dependency; a culture of looking up to certain people for livelihood and opportunity. Kwarans are vibrant people; they are intelligent people; they are educated and hardworking people. So, we told them to let us create a situation whereby the opportunity is there for everyone and then you can maximize it to the best of your talent and ability. That is how we started and that was what we took to the elections in 2011, and those conditions that led us to that prior to 2011 still exist today and so our mission has not been accomplished yet. Therefore, we are still committed to seeing our mission through.

But then sir, what do you think is actually wrong with our democratic system? You were able to articulate your points but you were not given the opportunity to govern?

Well, the first thing is that we must be able to have free and fair elections in the country. To achieve that, we must have a competent, independent and unbiased electoral body. With that and with free and fair election, then you can genuinely have accountability. Leaders will not govern with impunity because they know that they will be thrown out. But a situation whereby you know that you never got the mandate of the people, therefore you know that when you get there, you are not accountable to the people and it does not matter what they say because you know that the same old corrupt process that puts you there is still around to put you there again. So, for me, that is the first thing that needs to change. If you have an efficient and an unbiased electoral body who is able to conduct free and fair election, first of all, we will start seeing the right people in the process and when they get there, you will start seeing performance because they know that if they don't perform they will be thrown out and you will start seeing accountability. It is a long road but those are the immediate steps that will bring about visible and drastic improvement in our democratic system.

Many pundits have argued that the main aim of opposition parties under the All Progressive Congress (APC) is just to dislodge the Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP). So, they are of the view that the known devil is better than the unknown angel. Have you any claim to the contrary sir?

With all due respect, I think that is extremely negative thinking. We have had the situation where the PDP has been in power since 1999 and before our very eyes, we have seen the standard of living drop; we have seen the level of insecurity rise; we have seen our standing in the world decline. People are getting poorer and being a Nigerian is really becoming a burden at home and internationally. So, you then have a set of people who say look we have had enough of this and we are going to change it. The only thing you can judge APC by is the states where we have been governing. What definitely obtains in Lagos, Edo, Ekiti, Osun, Oyo and Ogun States are far better than what obtains in most if not all the PDP states. So, to me it's really a no-brainer. If from what you can see on the ground that the quality of governance in such states is better than the national average, then you need to give that a chance. Ask yourself, can things really get worse? It can and which is why there has to be a change. We ourselves have to be committed to a change. It's no point defeating yourself by saying look these people are bad, somebody else may come and be bad too so let's just leave them there. When you do that, it means the electorate themselves do not appreciate the power they have with their votes because with your votes, you can say ok this is bad and we are getting you out because you are bad, you the other party this is what we demand from you. So, I think APC should be given a chance because the salvation of this country lies in a completely new direction which I believe APC can provide.