I do not expect President Goodluck Jonathan to reverse or revisit the executive clemency he granted his former boss, former Bayelsa State Governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, last week. He will ride out the storm of controversies generated by the pardon and other pardons; and he will likely grant a few more, equally or surpassingly controversial, before his time in office is over. So, let us ignore the controversies surrounding the pardons, such as the presidency’s poor recordkeeping that led to the late Gen Shehu Yar’Adua being pardoned twice, or the controversies swirling around the list of the pardoned, which we all know was expanded probably as an afterthought to legitimise the main beneficiary of the Jonathan pardons. Let us instead focus our attention on the pardon granted the former Bayelsa governor and the undue emotionalism surrounding the issue.
It is a given, as former United States president Bill Clinton argued in 2001 when he tried to defend the 140 pardons he granted on his last day in office, that “The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial.” I, therefore, do not expect that Jonathan would grant pardons without eliciting some controversies or attracting attacks, some of them vicious. Nor do I expect that considering the general nature of pardons, they would be extended only to less grievous offences or less recognisable individuals. I have no problem with the lawfulness of the pardons Jonathan has granted, though it is a different matter altogether whether he adhered to the rules and regulations governing the exercise. But whether the president followed established procedures or not, he has the constitutional right to grant pardon, irrespective of the nature of the crime, and whether it is murder or fraud.
Unlike the United States that has a copious history of controversial pardons and commutations, Nigerian leaders have been fairly laid-back, even stingy like Preisdent Barack Obama, in granting pardons. Surprisingly, it is the same US that first took potshot at Jonathan’s pardons. According to a twitter posting by a US embassy spokeswoman in Nigeria, Deb Maclean, the US was deeply disappointed by the pardon granted Alamieyeseigha. This was followed by another terse statement from a US State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, who warned ominously that the pardons could cause the US to reassess the kind of assistance it granted Nigeria in the latter’s anti-corruption war. She, however, stressed that no sanctions or punitive measures were being undertaken against Nigeria. However, Nigeria has in turn deplored the meddlesomeness of the US in its internal affairs and even invited the US Deputy Chief of Mission in Abuja to receive the Nigerian protest.
Interestingly, the Alamieyeseigha pardon is not even half as controversial as some of the pardons and commutations granted by Clinton. In the case of Clinton, and with references to the clemency granted the oil mogul, Marc Rich, and the commutation of the sentences of 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist organisation, FALN, who set off bombs in New York and Chicago leading to the death of six people and maiming of dozens of others, a bitter US Congress investigated the pardons but found no wrongdoing. Marc Rich had been jailed for tax evasion to the tune of $48m and 51 counts of tax fraud. Like the Marc Rich case, the Alamieyeseigha pardon is without prejudice to any ongoing investigations or future fraud cases the authorities might bring against him.
But as Clinton wrote in 2001 in his defence of the pardons he granted, “The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington’s pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding’s commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon’s commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford’s pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush’s 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation.”
I have no doubt that Jonathan acted within his powers. However, he was not as altruistic as his aides seemed to suggest. His prime objective, it seems to me, is driven by both political calculations for 2015 and the fact that Bayelsa and a large swathe of the South-South are covered by an ethical fog influenced by Niger Delta militancy and decades of appalling degradation of the oil regions. Both the ethical fog and the environmental degradation suffered by the oil regions, as well as the contumaciousness that these have unleashed, all but guarantee that the definition of financial cum political morality in Nigeria will vary from one region to another. Expectedly, Jonathan is not immune to the influences of his background, nor has he been able to extricate himself from the sometimes narrow and short-sighted uses of presidential powers and the even narrower cultural confines and prejudices of his adolescent years.
Critics have slammed the president for pardoning Alamieyeseigha, thereby jeopardising his government’s anti-corruption war. But the criticisms ignore two important facts. One is that the former Bayelsa governor, who is sometimes referred to as governor-general of the Ijaw, is immensely popular in his region. Jonathan is not unmindful of that popularity, and he apparently seeks to take political advantage of it. Even in the days when Chief Olusegun Obasanjo troubled Alamieyeseigha, militants came to his rescue by denouncing the rest of the country and the media for singling out their hero for abuse. He had not done a fraction of what others did, his supporters grumbled.
Second is that, except I err gravely, the Jonathan government has never really embarked on any anti-corruption war, whether in part or in whole. He has not even verbally campaigned against corruption, partly because he is not as hypocritical as the Obasanjo government that either selectively campaigned against corruption, using his enemies as case studies, or believed that corruption was something others, particularly non-PDP members, indulged in. Unlike Obasanjo who could defend good and bad with equal passion and plausibility, Jonathan is realistic enough to appreciate that the present configuration of Nigerian politics does not conduce to a corruption-free society or any high-sounding moralising campaign. His boyish innocence makes him fundamentally uncomfortable with any anti-corruption sloganeering.
Neither the political uproar nor the moral outrage that has visited the Alamieyeseigha pardon will produce presidential contrition. The reason is not because the constitution is defective or that it grants more powers to the president than he can judiciously use. Indeed, it is for people like Alamieyeseigha that the clemency provision is interred in our constitution. If not Jonathan, then some other president will use the provision on a hypothetical tomorrow to achieve some controversial ends. The reason the president will not be contrite is also not because his natural tendency is to underpin his policies and actions with questionable ethics, for he seems altogether shorn of any ethics, preferring instead to moralise on the minor political and constitutional issues of the day while dodging the great issues capable of defining his presidency.
Rather than seethe with anger on an anti-corruption war the president has shown absolutely no inclination to fight, seeing that no one could imbue an inexistent war with a grand notional purpose, the country should instead concentrate on the more nuanced national crisis that the pardons have seemed to underscore. That national crisis centres on the poor judgement Nigerian presidents have exhibited over the decades. Jonathan could have waited until the closing days of his presidency, whether he wins reelection or not, to grant as many controversial pardons as pleases him, but he chose to do it now perhaps because of political desperation or pressure. The 2015 polls will show whether he has shot himself in the foot or not. He has been accused of half-heartedly waging war on corruption; but by pardoning his former boss, he goes beyond half-heartedness to confirming he has no interest in any war except one that would furnish him victory in the polls at all cost.
I see no point in all the uproar over the pardons, except to note the depressing fact that it manifests the president’s poor judgement and perhaps incapacity to take great decisions. In this controversy of state pardons, Jonathan will conveniently and excusably hide behind the constitution. It is in fact those who rail against the president’s pardons that inadvertently give the impression they are vengeful and unforgiving, and confirm why Nigeria’s penal system and penal institutions pursue a criminal to his grave rather than reform him. The uproar also shows that Nigerians have only one view of a criminal: that once he is crucified by the law or by public emotions, his soul is forever damned. If the president has good PR managers, he will turn the table against his critics. But if the critics emphasise the point that the president’s choices are nearly always fallible, they may not be saying anything new, but they will be reiterating the sombre view that whenever Jonathan displays firmness and shows initiative, he unalterably fails to rise to the occasion.
