Recently, Gov. Hope Uzodimma, the executive governor of Imo state who is now the harbinger of equity and justice in Imo politics made a remark that appears to negatively affect the concept of charter of equity in Imo state. By declaring that he is only interested in a successor who can sustain his achievements rather than someone aligned with the Imo charter of equity, he carefully dismissed the idea of seeing the governorship position on the platform of zoning. The statement has been given different interpretations by different political class that are of different schools of thought.
The declaration by Imo state governor invariably leaves the political door open for every zone, including Orlu. Gov. Uzodimma understands the dynamics of Imo politics and consequently made a constitutional statement that can be justified by the laws of the land. The issue of zoning is not enshrined in the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. By virtue of such declaration, Owerri and Okigwe zones are very free to vehemently oppose any attempt by any opposition made to subvert the principles of equity and fair play that should guide the 2027 election. The stance of the Governor may unite the two zones and may further consolidate the opportunity for them to grab the four and half Local Government Areas in Orlu zone, (Isu, Njaba, Nkwerre, Nwangele and half of Orlu LGA) called the Isu nation. These are the over marginalized LGAs in Orlu zone.
However, let us see through the mirror of justice and equity to find out if the governor is truly justified by the principles of equity and justice in making such assertion. First, it should be on note that the science of rectificatory justice is the science that has equity as its object. It also means equity, fairness, fair play, just or being considerate in its various aspects.
Even as old as the human society is, Aristotle who lived in the 4th Century AD, remarked the inevitability of equity and rectificatory justice in the social realm. It was the above conviction that propelled Edmund Burke to infer, “Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society, and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all”. Justice is power and this power is truth in action. In my opinion, the search for equity, must follow certain and systematic process that is intertwined with fact. We all know that facts are series of events and an event is series of actions while an action is a happening. It may be a conduct by expression, consent, implication, acquiescence or ‘condonation’ by an individual. Action and non-action constitute a person’s reaction to a given circumstance no wonder Webster’s New Encyclopedic Dictionary defines Equity as “Justice according to natural law or right; specifically, freedom from bias or favouritism…”
Equity often refers to fairness and impartiality, particularly in relation to access, opportunities and treatment. Equity acknowledges that different individuals or group may require different treatment or support to achieve equal outcome. Justice, on the other hand, typically refers to the principle of moral rightness, fairness, and adherence to the laws of the land. It encompasses not only fairness but also accountability, rights, and responsibilities. It’s good to infer here that what is good for equity can often contribute to justice, they are not always interchangeable. Equity can be means to achieve justice, but justice is a broader concept that encompasses legal, moral, and ethical dimensions. In many contexts, promoting equity is seen as a way to achieve greater justice by addressing systemic inequalities and ensuring that everyone has access to the same opportunities and resources. Like I said earlier, justice also involves upholding the law, protecting rights, and ensuring accountability, which may not always be directly related to equity.
From the above, one is tempted to ask whether the cap of Imo chief executive in 2027 fits justice or equity? If it goes to Orlu zone, it represents justice (constitutionally right), but if it goes to either Okigwe or Owerri zone, it represents both equity and justice (morally and ‘constitutionally’ right). Now between equity and justice which is superior? Also note that what is constitutionally right may be morally wrong.
Equity is the oil that greases and lubricates justice because it is an inspired philosophy of social justice; its characteristics include the tentacles of validity in syllogistic deductions and conclusions. It asserts and maintains that any state of oppression, repression, exploitation or suppression is not synchronous and is therefore out of focus of naturalism. For John Kennedy, “The achievement of Justice is an endless process”. It is Justice that renders to each one what is his and does not claim another’s property which informs why St. Augustine concludes, “The soul has four virtues whereby, in this life, it lives spiritually, namely, temperance, prudence, fortitude, and justice. The fourth, justice is which pervades all the virtues.”
Equity is the basis of honesty. In equity and justice our honesty make us deal fairly with friends and foes without causing an unbalance that creates envy, violence and revenge no wonder Aristotle say “If a man is interested in himself only, he is very small, if he is interested in his family, he is larger, if he is interested in his community, he is larger still”. Confucius {550-478 B.C.} the Chinese sage, was asked if he knew a secret for happiness. He answered that he did not know any. Then another of his disciple asked, “Do you know any secret to ruin a country?” “Yes” Confucius replied. “When its rulers do not accept criticisms, equity and justice…”
Aristotle in Book 5 of his (Nicomachean) Ethics[i] noted that “equity and justice are neither absolutely identical nor generically different”. Equity for him is superior to legal justice but not to justice as being a different genus. “Thus, justice and equity coincide, and although both are good, equity is superior. What causes the difficulty is the fact that equity is just but not what is legally just: It is a rectification of legal justice”. Aristotle further defined an equitable man, (a virtuous elite, an equitable politician and political office holder aspirant) as, “one who chooses and does equitable acts, and is not duly insistent upon his rights, but accepts less than his share, although he has the law on his side. Such a disposition is equity”. By rectificatory justice, Aristotle meant remedying an inequitable division between two parties by means of a sort of arithmetical progression- the mean relative to us (or to a particular situation and circumstance). Consequently, he ruled that “in arithmetical proportion the equal is a mean between the greater and the less”.
Equity is an inter-human concept; it is a disposition that corrects anomalies or wrong situations. Consequently, a just man is one who does and prefers balanced acts, knowing his rights but does not insist on it; instead, gives in to the mean, to what is virtuous at a particular instance- The mean relative to us. Equity thus is an objective and realistic concept that is employed or sought for; for the correction, rectification or remedying of an inequitable sharing between or among parties. Without equity as rectificatory than distributive justice, (which favours merits and rights, survival of the fittest and might is right), concentration of goodies will be overloaded or excess in some places while rare and deficient in others.
[i] The Ethics of Aristotle (The Nicomachean Ethics, Trans. by J.A.K. Thomson). London: Penguin Books, 1953 (1976), Book 5, 1131b14-1132b3-27.
