A response to Steve Sun on PUSAN Presidency- Sixtus Onuka

THE PUSAN PRESIDENCY IS OVER! REPLYING TO
STEVE SUN’S DECEPTIVE ASSERTIONS

When I saw my learned friend, Steve Sun’s article with the shouting headline which states inter alia that that “The PUSAN presidency is over!”, I took it with a bit of seriousness. Soon after I commenced reading, I realized that indeed, it did not deserve more than a scant attention, as it is totally bereft of supporting facts and law to give it any modicum of substance. In any case, knowing Steve’s antecedents and the pen-roles he played during the run-up to the NBA election, I was not entirely surprised, I was only disappointed. One thing that is outstandingly odd and disgusting about the article is the fact that it is replete with misrepresentations and deceptive assertions, euphemistically speaking.

Steve first said that “The OPNBA has been declared vacant, following his disgraceful arraignment….” I asked myself, by whom? The EFCC? The trial court? The NBA, or whom? I know that the court has not been asked to declare the seat of the president vacant and that indeed the court has not and could not have done so. The EFCC, on the other hand, has no power to declare the president’s seat vacant. They are also understandably not praying that the seat of the president be declared vacant. Of course, even Steve knows that the NBA has not howsoever declared the president’s seat vacant. So, why the deceptive assertion that that office has been declared vacant? Sensationalism, I guess!

Moreover, the learned counsel mischievously represents that there is now an “Acting President” in the person of Mr. Stanley Imo. I reckon that Mr. Stanley Imo remains the 1st Vice President of NBA. You see, lies can only get you ephemeral attention. Once the bubble bursts, your reputation becomes a tad less that it was before the lies.

In a final but inane attempt to beguile Nigerian lawyers, Steve audaciously called for a suspension of the constitution of the NBA, “…based on the equitable doctrine of necessity”. He also mendaciously asserted that “When the law and equity are in conflict, equity must prevail!”.

It appears to me that my learned friend believed at this point that he was addressing a pack of garage boys in his ill-fated article. In any case, let me remind you, Steve Sun, that we are still also lawyers and that is why you remain my learned friend. You know, or ought to have known that the reverse of what you posit is the law. It is either you are being, mischievous or your “LLB Equity” is shaky. I refuse to believe that the latter is the case. I know your pattern.

I just checked and it has been confirmed to me again by the Court of Appeal’s decision in MUDIAGA-ERHUEH VS. INEC (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt 812) 70 that the law indeed prevails where there is a conflict between the law and equity. You may wish to check out the interplay of the law, common law and equity at page 91. Be also reminded that the doctrine of necessity is not coterminous with equity, but a constitutional law issue.

I urge well-meaning Nigerian lawyers to, as always, ignore Steve Sun, while we walk and work towards a rebranded NBA of our dream.

Sixtus Onuka