Given the plethora of ongoing prosecutions brought by the EFCC in the Obtainment Scandal that has been tied indissolubly to the beleaguered former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki (hence Dasukigate), other corruption cases in the works and still others that are sure to follow, and given the creativity and ingenuity of our lawyers, I predict with a great deal of confidence that some exciting new terms will soon enter the lexicon of litigation in Nigeria.
The Affluenza Defence is coming. You haven’t heard of the Affluenza Defence?
Let me explain, then, starting with the term “affluenza.” It signifies not just affluence, but suggests powerfully that the condition is a psychological malaise with some negative ramifications.
At least one American court has recognised it as an extenuating factor even for conduct of the most egregious kind.
On June 5, 2013, Ethan Couch, 16, was driving under the influence of alcohol — his blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit for adult drivers — when he rammed his pick-up van into some pedestrians, killing four of them. Two passengers riding at the back of the truck suffered serious injuries, one of them to the extent that he can only communicate by blinking his eyes.
At the trial, in Forth Worth, Texas, a psychologist testifying for the defence blamed it all on affluenza. The juvenile on trial, he said, had been so coddled by his wealthy parents that he could not distinguish between proper and improper conduct.
Invoking her discretionary powers, a juvenile court judge more or less accepted the affluenza defence. She ordered that Couch be placed on probation in a long-term treatment facility. But Couch found his way out of there, skipped a parole appearance and, with his mother, fled to Mexico. They have since been brought back to face fresh charges.
The Affluenza Defence is just what you would expect in a litigious society, of which the United States is the quintessence. No charge is so frivolous you will not find someone pressing it and no plea so outrageous that you will not find someone canvassing it.
Here I am reminded of the man who stole a car from a parking lot in New York, and while driving it away crashed it, losing both legs.
He filed a law suit demanding compensation from the owner of the vehicle, claiming that the accident had resulted from the owner’s failure to maintain the vehicle in a good running condition.
The suit was dismissed.
But the fact that a lawyer saw some merit in it and took it up goes to show how far some people will go in trying to make the law work for them even in the most unpromising of circumstances. And how far some lawyers will go to accommodate them.
I will not be surprised if the case even went to appeal.
Another case involved a motorist who left the steering wheel and went to the kitchenette at the rear of his Winnebago to make some coffee. The vehicle veered off the highway and crashed, leaving him with serious injuries.
He filed for damages from the vehicle’s manufacturer, saying that nowhere in the operational manual or the terms of purchase was it stated expressly that you could not take a few minutes off while driving to make yourself some coffee or fix yourself any drink you fancy.
The case was also thrown out.
It is all of a piece with what they call chutzpah (kootspah), Yiddish for overweening impudence, the classic example being the man who killed his parents and at his sentencing begged for leniency because he is an orphan.
As the saying goes, you can’t blame a guy for trying.
So, don’t be surprised if someone freighted with far more lawless conduct than Couch and a rap sheet stretching from the Gateway City to Abuja and back blames it all on the suffocating affluence of his upbringing.
I certainly will not be surprised if a judge were to accept it. After all, there is example for it.
Stare decisis.
And the affluenza-stricken fellow’s travelling choir will dutifully intone, “As Your Lordship pleases.”
From affluenza, it is but a short, logical step to its opposite, what I call indigentza, the state of being indigent. I make bold to say that, like affluenza, it is also a psychological malaise with its own pathology, guaranteed to enter the legal vocabulary very soon, considering that the vast majority of Nigerians are raised in indigence , if not stark penury.
Now, indigence and penury are at least as likely as affluence to corrode character and judgment and to breed delinquency. So, why should they not be regarded as extenuating factors in criminal trials, and indeed in all matters before the courts?
So a political official before whom even court judges and traditional rulers cower because of his violent impulses, who brooks no dissent and carries on as an erratic emperor answerable not even to himself, and has withal a rap sheet stretching from the Fountain of Knowledge to Abuja and back – something tells me that if this political official is ever called to account, he will enter a plea based on the Indigentza Defence.
He will argue, assuming he submits to the authority of any court, that he was brought up in poverty so stark and pervasive that he never had a chance to develop a sense of right and wrong, and of decency and indecency. This condition, he will insist, lies at the root of his countless schizoid acts and omissions; in short, that he is more victim than villain.
A change of designation
Wearing another hat, I am also Editorial Adviser of this newspaper. This designation dates from its founding some 10 years ago.
But I find that, 21 years after I resigned from my former perch in Rutam House, I am still widely referred to in the media as “the former chairman of the Editorial Board of The Guardian.”
It is almost as if those vesting me with that title do not know or do not recognise my current status as Editorial Adviser of The Nation.
If they do not cease and desist forthwith from this practice, I will buy space in major print and online newspapers serving formal notice of a change in designation and send them the bill.
Here, for their benefit, is a draft of the announcement:
“I, Olatunji Dare, widely referred to as the former chairman of the Editorial Board of The Guardian, wish henceforth to be known, referred to and addressed as Editorial Adviser of The Nation. All former documents remain valid.”
