The best thing to do may not always be the right thing. In fact, the best thing to do may just be the wrong thing to do as the case may be. Empathy is a quality an individual may possess but it is however meaningless to the law in its purity. Is it enough that an action is well intended? While it may be appealing to the layman as a matter of convenience, the intellectual must not accept this kind of reasoning as he must probe the vast consequence and the depth of implications of such matters. How do they fit to structures that are already in place? Structure is a basic element of order and can not be separated from it without destroying its meaning altogether. Can structure in itself be defined without reference to pattern? It is an obligation to the intellectual that order be preserved in its intended pattern. How else can this be effectively achieved if the consequences of even the slightest form of disorder is not overemphasized? Order is the system, structure is what comprises it and pattern is the constitution, our laws.

Is the constitution not what distinguishes our society from those of the other social animals and even insects?

The constitution is supreme. This was exactly the point professor Wole Soyinka was trying to buttress upon. While it is important to secure lives, whatever actions taken by the government must be done constitutionally and more importantly without misinterpretation of the constitution. Compromising the supremacy of the constitution at any instance regardless of the peculiarities of any circumstance whatsoever gives an excuse to subject the law for any other reason. Otherwise, If not the constitution, who or what decides what is right in such a case? Or within what premise should these circumstances be defined?

It must be noted that justifying any action that undermines the supremacy of the constitution at all times is simply dismissing the relevance of the constitution in any case. As an antecedent, this case alone gives a valid instance of when the law was dismissed as dealing with matters of the states and therefore can be cited as a reference in the future hence would justify any argument that follows. The law even without its adaptation by the state secures its respect in purely intellectual terms in that it contains within itself the context or situations to which it is applicable and the extent to which it remains valid. In other words, it sets its own limit on stated generalizations. But the dynamics and complexity of the interpretation of these situations is wherein the job of our lawyers lie. That these interpretation be within context as stated by the constitution is what they must ensure.

Lastly, I must add that the structure of order is very delicate as any slight change in pattern that is accepted or undisputed becomes embedded within the rigid structure, maybe permanently. In other words, the constitution must be interpreted for what it implies and not just what can be made out of it. Any form of misinterpretation of the law today becomes an accepted norm tomorrow if it is not cross-checked and addressed appropriately.

Ask him

Please Our NIGERIA CONSTITUTION is a MILITARY DICTATE, AND IS FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI HUMAN RIGHTS. THAT'S WHY BUHARI, A RETIRED MILITARY DICTATOR IS BASKING IN THE SYSTEM. MAY CORO--NA-- VIRUS FIRE BOKOHARAMS AND MIYETTI ALLAH FULANI HERDSMEN THAT WILL NOT IMMEDIATELY SUBSCRIBE TO FULL AUTONOMY OF POLICING RESOURCING AND ELECTIONEERING CONTROL FOR OUR 36 CONSTITUTIONAL STATES.