Obasanjo vs. Obasanjo
By Reuben Abati

"If the father of a household chooses a bride for his son, and if his son has had intercourse with her, but later the father of the household also has intercourse with her, then the father of the household is to be drowned in the river" - Article 155 of Code of Hammurabi (1792-1750 BCE).

And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them" - Leviticus 20:12.

EVERY marriage has its own dowry. Couples throughout the duration of their relationship pay prices, to others, to each other, even to the community. But some people pay bigger prices which end up in divorce. And there are very few happy divorces - every divorce is marked by disappointed family members, flustered children, embarrassed friends, bitter truths and unverifiable half-truths, and two angry former lovers shouting at each other, all bridges possibly burnt, with the help of lawyers. But by all counts, the story of the divorce between Gbenga Obasanjo, son of the former President and Moji Obasanjo, now preserved in court records as Obasanjo vs. Obasanjo is bizarre, even by all known standards in that category. We are not only stunned, the public has since been primed for a voyeuristic adventure.

The publication in the newspapers about two months ago, of the details of Gbenga Obasanjo's petition had excited public interest. Public attention was drawn to a dysfunctional situation in the former President's family with allegations of incest, paternity questions, adultery, abuse of office and privilege and even more critically, allegations about the award of contracts to service and sustain an illicit sexual relationship. Now, the case is about to be heard in a court-room, at the High Court, Ikeja Division, Lagos.

One interesting development however, is the report in the papers two days ago, that the couple's lawyers are already arguing over whether or not the case should be heard in open court. Specifically, Moji Obasanjo's lawyers are praying that the Judge should keep all spectators, persons who are not parties to the case and the media out of the courtroom. They want the case heard in camera. They argue that the publication of the details of Gbenga Obasanjo's petition by the media was sensational and members of the family, including two innocent children whose paternity was ridiculed, are traumatised. Gbenga Obasanjo and his lawyers disagreed. They rose stoutly in defence of the media, citing the Constitutional role of the media. In this matter, the two Obasanjos would seem to resemble the two Biblical women in the Court of King Solomon fighting over the maternity of a child. But in this particular case, there are Constitutional and Statutory issues.

Sections 36(1), (3) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution on the question of fair hearing addresses the issue at stake. Section 36(3) states that "the proceedings of a court or the proceedings of any tribunal relating to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of this section (including the announcement of the court or tribunal) shall be held in public. Thus, ordinarily, court proceedings are held in public. This is why there is provision for the gallery. But although sub-Section 4 refers to "a criminal offence", the Constitution provides in Section 36(4) (a) and (b) exceptions to the provision in 36(3) as follows: "(a) a court or such a tribunal may exclude from its proceedings persons other than the parties thereto or their legal practitioners in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, the welfare of persons who have not attained the age of 18 years, the protection of the private lives of the parties or to such extent as it may consider necessary by reason of special circumstances in which publicity would be contrary to the interests of justice". Section 36(4)(b) additionally refers to a situation whereby a matter can be heard in private if it "would not be in the public interest" to disclose it publicly.

It is clearly with regard to the foregoing that the Federal High Court in Abuja recently decided that the treason case involving Henry Okah and Edward Atatah should be heard in private for reasons of "national security and safety of personnel", although opinion is divided on this. In Matrimonial Causes also, the Court may decide where appropriate under special circumstances, to hear a case in private. This is however again, an exception to the norm and usually with reasons. The basic expectation is defined in Section 103(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act Cap 220, The Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990: "Except to the extent to which rules of court make provision for proceedings or part of proceedings to be heard in chambers, the jurisdiction of a Court under this Act shall, subject to the next succeeding subsection, be exercised in open Court".

And hence, divorce cases have usually been heard in open Court. And the media often takes a keen interest in such cases, particularly in the Customary Courts. These are usually some of the most interesting stories ever reported about human relationships. I confess reading those stories with delight, ranging from those in which petitioners complain about their husbands taking another wife, or the husband protesting that his wife does not pay him enough attention or that she is having an affair with the neighbour. In many instances, details of sexual intimacy are revealed in open court! There is never an end to the scope and tenor of divorce stories. And the Obasanjo story with the few details already exposed to the public seems to be the stuff of great entertainment and public education.

But in Section 103(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the power of the court to declare that a case "should not be heard in open court", or to exclude non-parties to the proceedings and their legal advisers is stated. Further restriction is provided for in Section 108(1)-(5) relating to "the publication of evidence", and this is where the media is directly affected. The definition of the restriction is so strict, that in Section 108(3), any person who contravenes Section 108(1) of the Act may be fined or sentenced to a period of imprisonment not exceeding six months (for a first offender) or one year (for a second offender).

Clearly in Obasanjo vs. Obasanjo, it is entirely within the discretion of the Court to weigh the arguments on both sides and take a decision. We cannot anticipate or advise the Court. But there are certain issues of public interest that the presentations so far have thrown up. Before I deal with these, let me address a number of questions. Does the Obasanjo case in any way pose a threat to national security? No, I don't think so. Does it compromise public safety or public order? Not in any way. How about the private lives of the parties involved? More than enough is already known about the private lives of the parties to the proceedings. But is "the welfare of persons who have not attained the age of 18 years" likely to be affected? The unequivocal answer to this is yes. Mrs. Obasanjo's lawyers had drawn attention to the fact that the emotional security of minors is involved. But are they just remembering this?

It seems to me that the significance of the Obasanjo divorce case so far, lies in the lessons it provides for other couples in society. It is not every marriage that has a happy ending. Most marriages are indeed sick melodramas. But when couples decide to part, it is better to do so, without causing injury to others. In the Moji-Gbenga Obasanjo divorce mess, no one until now, thought of the innocent children and the family relations who are now caught in a web of sordid revelations. The big quarrel in the end is about money, about alimony, child custody, child support and on Gbenga Obasanjo's part, about vengeance. In other jurisdictions, the interest of children is considered paramount in Matrimonial Causes.

In many countries, the children in a divorce case are never mentioned by name, and the obvious purpose is to prevent them from emotional trauma. Here in Nigeria, the names of children are referred to. They are dragged into a messy drama in which their only gain is to get hurt. The equivalent can be found in the world of fiction: those haunting melodramatic films on television in which reality is deliberately stylised for effect. But in real life, long after the warring couples have gone their separate ways, the children continue to bear the scar for the rest of their lives. In the Obasanjo divorce case, so much damage has already been done with those undignifying aspects of family history that Gbenga Obasanjo's lawyers threw onto the laps of the public through the media in January. Nigerians do not forget such stories in a hurry.

But is it fair to demonise the media? Moji Obasanjo's lawyers accused journalists of sensationalising the story. It is unfair to blame the media. The media have only reported the facts of the divorce, the parties involved and the charges. Commentators have only taken up aspects of the case relating to public morality. It is always convenient to blame journalists. Are journalists responsible for the dispute between Mr and Mrs Obasanjo? Have they done anything to disturb the divorce proceedings so far? Did we cause or encourage the infidelity that is reported? Certainly not. Even if the court decides that the media should be shut out of the divorce case, and that the proceedings must not be published, it wouldn't matter anymore. This divorce saga is already in a class by itself. But the media has succeeded in conveying the shock of a public that has been treated to the incredulity of incorrect conduct in a troubled family.

There is however one unresolved issue and this has to do with aspects of the allegations by Gbenga Obasanjo relating to the award of contracts to companies belonging to his estranged wife by former President Obasanjo. In his statement of petitions, he had alleged that his father President Obasanjo gave oil company contracts to companies belonging to his wife, Mrs. Moji Obasanjo. Certain state governments also allegedly favoured her companies with contracts and some business associates of hers were named. What contracts are these? Did the companies collect mobilisation fees? Was there actual performance of the contracts? If the contracts are on-going, what is the level of actual performance? Did the award of the contracts follow due process, or those companies got the contracts because of the involvement of the President's daughter-in-law? These may have no direct bearing on the substantive divorce matter, but they are definitely issues of public interest which should be investigated in public.

In recent times, there have been too many stories about malfeasances relating to contract awards during the Obasanjo era. The more we know about that recent past, the more alarmed we become. In the end, the Obasanjos and their extended families on both sides would have to deal with the pains and the ghosts arising from this sad moment in their affairs. The real challenge before them does not lie in the law court, but out there in the future. There can be no true marriage, without vision and ethics. "Matrimonia debent esse libera (Marriages ought to be free).

Robot  # 1 | 22.09.2008 10:53

Obasanjo vs. Obasanjo By Reuben Abati "If the father of a household chooses a bride for his son, and if his son has h...Read the full article.