The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Judiciary

  • ‘Society has not been fair to the Judiciary’

    ‘Society has not been fair to the Judiciary’

    What do you mean by the idea of law Pavilion?

    Law Pavilion, the way we understand it, is a mixture of law orientation and technology. Law Pavilion is a dream, it is a passion, it is a vision to speed up the administration of justice in Nigeria. It is our contribution, in our own little way saying we would like to see improvement in the speed in the administration of justice in the country. And for us, it is not an issue of sitting back and watch things. For us it is an issue of making contributions to the development of the legal industry. So we thought of developing solutions that would work well and work well in Nigeria.     Without being philosophycal, we thought of developing software for the legal industry. We started with Law Reporting, gradually we move on to  case management and justice management and we strongly believe that it is a major contribution to democracy in Nigeria.

    Given your background as an engineer, how did you get into the system?

    As I said, I have a lot of lawyer friends while on campus and I knew that over the years, they always go to the library to look for one case or authority or the other. My elder brother is also a lawyer. This is why I have interest in law books. Even when I watch television programmes, I always look out for the one that has law issues in it. I just enjoy looking at the courts, looking at how lawyers argue, how they argue applications, cross examinations and so on and so forth. So it has always been of interest to me. So on personal interest, watching lawyers have always been a second nature to me. So that is why I did technology engineering. My own reason of going into engineering was because I want to find solution to real life issues and that is what informed my idea of coming into engineering.  With engineering. You can dream, you can create  things on your own and my idea is that by creating things, you can solve human problems.

    Most law documentation have been in the printed form and you are now putting it into electronic form. To what extent would this help theindustry ?

    I strongly believe that we are just complementing each other. There can’t be one school of thought. There will always be several  schools of thought. There will be those who would prefer their law books and there would be those, maybe young generations  who would say we do not want mobility. We want freedom, speed, efficiency, to do things more quickly, we would rather go with something more lighter. We want to have access to more information within record time. I was reading an article recently that in the UK, grand parents  are already complaining that their grandchildren are no longer asking questions, that on the average these days , a grandchild would rather consult google . The truth of the matter is that the printed copy can only hold a little of what is available but electronically, you can have a lot of information compressed into a very tiny chip.

    Law profession as we all know has been very conservative. Do you think the system is prepared to this innovation that you are introducing?

    On the issue of the profession being conservative, the issue is that they are just been cautious. The issue is that a single mistake can cost the life of someone. So, the question is in order to protect the human dignity, they have to be very very cautious. They have to look at issues critically from all sides before they can come to decision. What the profession is really after is that if I am going this way, let it be the truth. So what we have tried to do is to make sure that we worked. Very well on the quality of what we are doing. Yes, there are challenges here and there but we are consistently and continuously improving on what we have so that as many of them lawyers that  are moving into electronic platform, they are sure that they are taking the right decision and they can be guaranteed of the quality of what they are using. So far we have recorded very good progressive success. We have quite a lot of judges, even at the Appeal Court and Supreme Court who rely and fallback on our platform. Incidentally, the current CJN has been very emphatic on the need to integrate   Information Technology in the administration of justice because the moment it becomes obvious to everybody that to move the judiciary forward, move the legal industry forward and for it to be at par with current trend worldwide, they have to embrace IT. So it is no longer difficult to convince them because they have been conservative. They are conservative but are just been cautious. And with everything put in place we have been able to allay their fears. And convince them that information technology is the way forward.

    Often times, a subscriber is not able to access websites owing to one problem or the other. What measures have you taken to prevent this?

    One thing we have been working on is to ensure real package and we  always advise organisations to have backups and that cannot be over emphasised. In every aspect of public life, you always have backups. For example the kind of backup for us is also an online version. So even if your computer crashes or there is something you don’t have access to immediately, you can still have them if you are online to our server. Every system has its own challenges and the major thing is to overcome those challenges and make sure you block all the loop holes.

    How has it been documenting law reports in electronic form?

    Very challenging. Not discouraging but fulfilling because I have had very many instances where judges called me and say, ‘Ope, thank you. Now I feel very well. I no longer spend all the time looking for authority. Another told me that there was this law position that he thought was right until he got onto Law Pavilion and saw several other authorities that diffuse what he had thought was the right thing. I remember this particular judge that handled a particular matter. As he saw several authorities on it, he said, ‘Oh my God, oh my God. I have made a mistake’. He had delivered judgement on it only to discover that there are several authorities that actually say otherwise. So those are things that give me joy, not necessarily the monetary gain. It is the feeling that you are adding something of value to the industry, you are adding to development and is being acknowledged in the industry.

    Would you agree to the belief that Nigerians are losing confidence in the judiciary in view of recent developments?

    Nigerians don’t so much believe in the judiciary but I would rather say that the society has been very unfair to the judiciary. I have related well with a number of judges in the judiciary. I have seen their plight and I have seen several side of parastatals. As far as I am concerned, the judiciary still remains one of the most beautiful set up in Nigeria. Yes, everybody wants the judiciary to be almost like God. Everybody wants the highest level of performance from the judiciary but we still have the judiciary today that is still begging for funding, that is still going cap in hand to the executive to ask for fund allocated to them. So these are some of the challenges and those forget that the judiciary act as an umpire between to so many warring factions, but who takes care of the judiciary as it should? A number of times, there are several challenges, I do not want to go into several aspect of them here. But the judiciary is due for growth, is due for improvement but I think it deserves better support from the executive and legislature at the federal and state levels. They(judges)  just feel neglected, they don’t seem to have a life so to say, they can’t be seen to have so much social life like other people would do, they are not easily seen on the streets. They live that kind of extremely conservative and secluded life style and then they are not given the basic things that would make them to perform their duties. And the society would expect them to perform miracle. It is not done.

    What then can be done?

    What we can do is to come up with things, provisions that can make them do their work much better, much more efficiently and be better for it. Your company is behind the launching of a book, “The Attorney General”. What is the concept behind the book ?

    The concept is to celebrate the office of the Attorney General and of recent there has been a lot of arguments on what the office should look like. So, it is a compilation of several opinions on the office of the Attorney General and very importantly, the book chronicles all the past AG’s of the federation, who they are, what they have achieved in office and to serve as reference for future Attorney Generals for them to know what has happened previously and then plan for the future. It is also in honour of Prince Bola Ajibola, the longest serving Attorney General Nigeria has ever produced.

    Why the focus on him?

    Well, he is the longest serving and contributed to the development of law in Nigeria. Apart from that, he was a member of the judges of the world Court in Hague. That is a rare combination. So we believe in celebrating our own, we believe in celebrating success. If we in Nigeria, excellence is not celebrated, mediocrity is the order of the day; we just want to bring back who Prince Bola Ajibola is.

    You are involved in activities that are far from your calling. You are into e-law publishing  and now book publishing. What are the motivations?

    The society. The passion to build a better Nigeria. I am not the type that likes passing the bucks. So the little way, no matter how minute, that we can contribute our quota is through this book publishing.

     

  • Billionaire thieves and the Judiciary

    In Nigeria, all things are possible. This is a country of big things. If you want to do anything, just do it the big way. If you do it in a petty way, you would have fixed a date with agony. All one needs to do is to “grow a liver” and just do it with a bang. Men and women will talk and bicker but beyond that, nothing happens. Nigerians in authority know their size – monumental corruption and big scandals. The business of sleaze is transacted in billions.

    The nation was held spellbound, a few weeks ago, when an Abuja High Court convicted a self-confessed police pension fund thief and former director in the Police Pension Office, Mr John Yakubu Yusufu. The convict was sentenced to two years imprisonment with an option of fine.

    Yusufu stole big. He is an example of Nigerian billionaire thief. He siphoned 37 billion naira from the pension coffer. The ill-gotten wealth was withdrawn from the retired police officers’ funds, which he and his co-travellers were entrusted to administer.

    This is not new; it happens every day in Nigeria. No shaking. Alas, what appeared to be a grim picture of our national in the grand conspiracy to rob and assault the sensibilities of the Nigerian people is the miscarriage of justice perpetrated by Justice Abubakar Talba.

    Yusufu was sentenced two years in prison or a fine of N750,000. Now, let us do the calculation: N37 billion minus N750,000 gives us N36.250 billion. It means that Yusufu could pay the fine and the convict would still be a billionaire all his life. This is a dividend of stealing big!

    Every day, the Nigerian population decries the manner in which corruption is encouraged and nourished by disturbing judgments coming from the courts. It is only in Nigeria that a court can grant a permanent injunction, preventing public officers from standing trial over financial misappropriation.

    The judgment of Justice Talba has further buttressed the fact that judiciary is a cauldron of corruption itself. The verdict will surely encourage massive stealing and diversion of public funds. Instead of stealing in millions, a serving public officer can steal billions and go scot free.

    Dare the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and the Nigerian public. Go to court. Tell the judge you actually stole the money. No qualms! Of course, you will be asked to return some of it. The judge – if he is the Talba kind – would simply appreciate you for not wasting time and being honest to the court.

    Your lawyer could even argue that if you are simply fined and released, it will encourage other thieves to come over and return part of what they have stolen! Is this not a confirmation that Nigeria is an animal farm where some thieves – sorry animals – are more equal than the others?

    Now, we are not talking of funds that were idle somewhere – even though that would not in any way justify the theft. We are talking about pension funds. Police pension funds! Men and women in the force spent their lives facing danger so the rest of us could live in safety. In their old age, they get robbed of their life savings through the satanic and insatiable greed of the likes of Yusufu. Why should I encourage my little brother, who wants to be policeman, to join force?

    We are all witnesses to the needless stress our senior citizens are subjected to whenever they are called to receive their pensions. Some have had to travel from their villages to far places to participate in screening exercises that may last many weeks, even though many of them are too old for that kind of exercise. We have seen many who have died in the course getting their pension money. That is how they get rewarded for serving Nigeria!

    One thing, however, is certain: the people of Nigeria are not amused with this and similar stories. Big thieves like Yusufu may never face justice in the courts. They own the courts! But we remember Dele

    Giwa’s words that: “Evil done by man to man shall never go unpunished. If not now, then later, and if not by man, then by God, for the triumph of evil over good is but temporary.”

    A revolution is imminent in this country, and it is being hastened and precipitated by the actions of big thieves and the judges that set them free in the full glare of the suffering masses.

  • Judiciary workers on strike over allowances

    The Bauchi State chapter of the Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) is in a face-off with the Bauchi State Government over the suspension of the workers’ allowances approved under executive fiat.

    But the government said the suspended allowances are those approved by Governor Isa Yuguda under his executive fiat, which has led to the suspension and withdrawal of their salary structure approved by the Federal Government and is being implemented nationwide.

    In a signed statement by the JUSUN Chairman Musa Abubakar three days ago, it asked its members to embark on an indefinite strike, which they have complied with.

    Abubakar also directed the newly-employed judicial workers, whose salaries have been put on hold by the government, to be patient, as the union is working to ensure they are paid.

    But in defence of the government, Commissioner for Information, Mohammed Damina, told the workers to suspend their strike and dialogue with the government to resolve the matter.

    He said: “Government has suspended the payment of judicial workers’ allowances under the executive fiat because of the dwindling resources of the state and it affects civil servants in the state. Government did it in the interest of the state. When our economy improves, the allowances will be restored.”

    Besides the Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools (ASUSS) that embarked on a strike over the suspension of the payment of allowances under executive fiat on February 6, JASUN is the only union that has embarked on a strike despite government’s threat to sack the striking workers if they refuse to call off the over one month strike.

     

  • Don’t stop the tsunami in judiciary

    Don’t stop the tsunami in judiciary

    SIR: In any progressive clime, the essence of the rule of law is basically for the creation, preservation, enthronement and advancement of a civilized society, hence, when judges responsively punish wrongs, protect rights and resolve discord by thoughtful, independent and unbiased application of laws, the justice system secures the freedoms, tranquility and equality that engenders a social environment in which man’s highest aspirations and evolution can be realized.

    A weak judicial system, on the other hand, is manure to all forms of social ills.

    Sadly, Nigeria has not been particularly fortunate in its drive at evolving functional democratic governance, which could deliver the often-touted, but elusive dividends to the people, principally because of the credibility crisis bedeviling its judiciary.

    A ray of hope glittered in what can be best described as a judicial tsunami, when the National Judicial Council spurred President Goodluck Jonathan and Governor Jonah Jang of Plateau State into the sacking of two suspended judges – Justice Charles Archibong of the Federal High Court, Lagos, and Justice T. D. Naron of the High Court of Justice, Plateau State, respectively.

    The two judges were accused of joining the bandwagon by delivering controversial judgments that many described as ‘embarrassing’ to the judiciary.

    Specifically, Naron drew the anger of the NJC over his poor handling of the governorship battle between ex-Osun State governor, Olagunsoye Oyinlola, and the incumbent Governor Rauf Aregbesola while Archibong’s indictment bordered on his controversial ruling in the case involving a former managing director of Intercontinental Bank, Erastus Akingbola.

    President Goodluck Jonathan has since approved the compulsory retirement of Justice Archibong, following the recommendation of the NJC.

    While the latest action of sacking is commendable, it is worthy of note that these two judges are not the only ones delivering or have been found to have delivered kangaroo and controversial judgments.

    The NJC should then, beam its searchlight on other judges who might have been compromised by flushing them out of the bench, if we are ready to win the war against electoral and other forms of judicial corruption in the country.

    The Nigerian Bar Association has promised to clean the Augean stable by effectively punishing its members – irrespective of their status – who contravened the ethics of the legal profession.

    Cases of corruption in the judiciary seem to be more prevalent in the political turf. For instance, it is alleged that since 1999, nearly all elections into major political offices in the country had resulted in petitions as the losing parties challenged the outcome of the polls.

    It was reported that over 7,000 suits were filed at the various tribunals after the 2007 general elections alone!

    No wonder, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Afe Babalola raised some concerns when he said, “Time was when a lawyer could predict the likely outcome of a case because of the facts, the law and the brilliance of the lawyers that handled the case. Today, things have changed and nobody can be sure.

    To get out of this quagmire, the judiciary must be well funded, corrupt judges sanctioned, courts should be adequately equipped and most importantly, the government must summon the political courage to put an end to judicial corruption.

    The NJC has taken the right path with the tsunami – and even going the extra length – by setting up a fact-finding committee to investigate allegations brought against Justice Abubakar Talba of a Federal Capital Territory High Court, who recently gave a convicted pension thief, John Yusufu, an option of N750, 000 fines for conniving with others to defraud the Police Pension Office of N27.2bn.

    This portends a good sign since what the nation badly needs now is a break-away from its past in entrenching a courageous, independent, unbiased and financially autonomous judiciary that will have the muscle to stem the continued gangrenous reign of the hydra-headed monster called corruption.

    • Adewale Kupoluyi

    Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta

  • ‘Corruption is fuelled by judiciary’

    ‘Corruption is fuelled by judiciary’

    Cross River State Resident Electoral Commissioner Mr Mike Igini spoke with MUSA ODOSHIMOKHE on the proposed centenary celebration, threat by the Boko Haram sect, corruption and other national issues.

    How are you able to combine human rights activism with your current role as a public officer?

    First, in my current capacity, I am a political appointee, not a career civil servant, I am not angling for the plateau of a career ladder, furthermore, the mandate for this job under Section 2 of the Electoral Act includes the education of Nigerians on sound knowledge of good democratic practices, this is a statutory obligation, and so, I will be failing in my obligation if I hide behind a transient public office that would come to an end shortly and fail to point out those wrong actions that are making life difficult for us all. Since these issues align with public interest matters and advocacy within the framework of civil society, I see no reason to change my disposition or convictions that we can do far better than we have done and achieve more if we can be honest enough and tell ourselves inconvenient truths of the reality of our situation. If I sense that I may be required to undermine my convictions, I will respectfully go back to my Law practice.

    How can Nigeria get rid of corruption?

    What worries me the most about corruption in public office are three very disturbing observations; one is the level of lack of remorse on the part of a number of public office holders or what seems to have engulfed the conscience of public officers who are trustees of public good and interest. I don’t understand how for instance someone can go to sleep, come to work every day and watch innocent retired policemen struggling for their retirement benefits, when you know you have kept billions of such funds in your own private account. Or how someone can drive to work to a dirty office sweating under poorly furnished and poky working environment when he knows he has kept the funds to refurbish such office to himself, or how someone can drive through very terrible roads knowing he has kept the funds to repair or maintain such roads in a private account. The second observation is the impunity from a sense of a lack of consequences, and in this I attribute most of the blame to law enforcement and judicial administration. The reason democracy is always qualified with the phrase “ the rule of law” is that without the law, democracy is a futile exercise. Corruption in Nigeria has been fueled largely by the shinanigns in our court rooms when it comes to high profile corruption cases where frivolous applications are filed and pursued up to the supreme court just to stall trial, hence, what we have now is democracy without the rule of law, that ingredient must be in place if we want to mitigate corruption.

    The third observation is that whenever we talk about corruption in public office we often single out a few visible actors. This is a very wrong approach because we have never seen a governor who goes to the bank to collect state funds from the bank manager. We demonize the main leaders, yes we cannot excuse the leaders because they should be value exemplars regarding accountability and corruption, but before any of the ex- Governors or any executive head in any public organization can collect public funds, it has to pass through processes involving a lot of paper work. So how do we keep demonizing chief executives and we leave out the motley crowd of chief officials in the entire bureaucratic systems who were involved in the paperwork required to safeguard such funds. Our problem is that of a systemic failure; therefore, it must be given a systemic solution. How, for instance, do we hope to tame corruption, when there are no administrative triggers that can immediately raise multiple control alarms when a pension fund manager moves N37 billion to the wrong place, is there any bank in Nigeria which will close for work, if it cannot account for N5 billion at the end of a working day?

    You have maintained that the system that allows corruption to thrive should be held responsible for pervasive corruption. What about the individuals who run these systems?

    The individuals are components of a system, the system is far more important than the individuals and must be stronger than the individuals. Management controls in any system should embody the whole system; that is why you have in any management system both bureaucratic and normative controls. Bureaucratic control includes financial controls, quality controls and so forth, while normative control includes the codes of good practices expected of any member of an organization, all control mechanisms should have consequences for avoiding variance from expectations. We can see from the degree of variance from the expected performance in our public services that the control mechanisms are either anaemic, absent or defective. The important question is what are we doing about it, or what do we plan to do about it? Because as the doctors say, accurate diagnosis is 70 per cent of treatment. Now that we know the disease, how do we plan to cure it and rehabilitate our system?

    Is that the reason why you have consistently declared that, without the rule of law, Nigeria would not make any meaningful progress?

    Absolutely yes! The rule of law through consequences for wrong doing with negative impact on society or variance from expected conduct. If you give six months imprisonment for embezzlement of N30 billion and you allow the convict to spend that six months in the executive annex of a high class hospital, or restrict the convict to a government guest house, what message or consequence has been sent to the empirical world of those who undermine the sources of the collective wellbeing of the people in a society?

    How can Nigeria overcome its security challenge, particularly the unending killings by the Boko Haram sect?

    We must take a hard look at our security structure in order to meet the challenges of our time. There is no country which can secure every part of its border and every single spot, hence the current trend is for community policing, where we have a ‘whole of society’ approach to securing the community with everyone playing a role in the welfare of the community. But it is the responsibility of government to create an ambiance in which everyone must feel a sense of belonging and an obligation to contribute. It is true that we cannot expect everyone in any society to conform, but we have to find a way to attain a consensus of the majority in order to manage pockets of deviation.

    The Boko Haram phenomenon is not a novelty in state development; we have a situation in which non-state actors take up an anarchic strategy and try to impose their ideology upon the state. This is not the first time people have made such attempts in human history, on social, religious or economic motivations. However, what we must find out is, what is sustaining such efforts and what impels people to be captive of this motivation? Because we can repress the acts of Boko Haram, but if we do not try to understand the idea behind it, we cannot extinguish it, because the best weapon against an idea is a superior idea, when you present the superior evidence of an idea to contest other ideas, in the end humans will tend towards what suits them best, this is why I find the methods of Boko Haram very suspicious, particularly because it purports to be a religious group, how do you bring people to God by killing innocent people, the best persuasion for any religious principle should start with the relationship of its adherents to other people and its respect for the life of others..once you start any argument by taking the life of innocent people, in my view you have nothing to say that is worth listening to, and when you propagate ideas by compulsion and not persuasion, It has no place in the modern world because conviction to any idea must be voluntary to be sustainable.

    What is your reaction to the Federal High Court ruling that N37 billion should be paid as compensation for the destruction of Odi communities in Bayelsa tate?

    The massacre and total destruction that took place in Odi was reminiscent of the civil war. The action in a supposed ‘civil rule’ reflected the lowest point of discredit of our democracy. The action was uncivil, crude and savage to say the least. The court of law has just added its voice and seal to what has been well condemned and has moved beyond mere condemnation to a deservable award of monetary compensation. It is a confirmation of the views some of us held then, that the wanton killings and total destruction of a whole community by soldiers ordered by the government of former President Obasanjo was a retaliation for the unfortunate and extremely condemnable killing of a number of policemen by militants and not an action to restore law and order nor taken in search for and arrest of those who killed those policemen in the course of serving the fatherland, because no militant was arrested or killed in that unfortunate incident. Instead, government soldiers led action on rather innocent able-bodied young men and women law abiding village people, mainly old men and women who were unable to run and escape the shooting of the ravaging soldiers who set houses ablaze, as recalled and graphically shown a few days ago on AIT news bulletin. The judgment could not have come at a better time than now when former President Obasanjo has been in the news recommending this same approach over the Boko Haram challenge that would have led to wiping out communities in the northern part of the country, if adopted by the current government because of the action of a minority extremists group, that do not represent the values of the majority of our brothers and sisters in the North. Just imagine what would happen in the northern part of the country, if this method had been adopted. One hopes such judgment would be extended to the victims of the Zaki Biam massacre where similar killings and destruction took place.

    What is your reaction to the federal government’s plan to appeal against the judgment?

    To appeal against the judgment is to justify the ‘Assad type’ method that was used in an attempt to solve a militancy problem that led to mass killings and total destruction of a whole community, a method which turned the protective weapons of the state against the people it should protect. That method has not found attraction to the current government with respect to the Boko Haram challenge; and more importantly a court of law has condemned it and has awarded compensation. What government should do now is to simply comply and ensure payment of the compensation ordered by the court because the court judgment also portends a moral judgment which seeks to ask the question of how much we value the lives of innocent citizens, to negate the court judgment would be to belie the constitutional claims made on the welfare of citizens in section II of the constitution.

    By next year, Nigeria will be 100 years as a country on account of the 1914 amalgamation. What are your thoughts about this milestone?

    My thoughts are questions like why are we still grappling with the problems of nationhood? Why are we just a country and not a nation? And why are we not at peace with ourselves as a people with common goals? People from every part of the country are talking about the urgent need for development. In fact, the challenges, either of militancy, kidnapping or the current Boko Haram’s murderous campaign, that is religious in content, have all been attributed to lack of development.

    Yet, we have refused to address those factors that have undermined development. We abandoned the federal template and its fiscal features, which those who fought for our independence settled for as the best arrangement that would accommodate our diversities and at the same time promote rapid development and competition as witnessed in the First Republic. The key issues that create such centrifugal forces that tear us apart are known; yet, they remain unaddressed. Now is the time to come together in a forum and address issues that have undermined the smooth runing of this country.

     

  • Olanipekun’s rebranding of judiciary

    Olanipekun’s rebranding of judiciary

    Chief Wole Olanipekun, (SAN) is a veteran of many wars. As student leader, he fought against Gowon who at the end prayed for him. As NBA president he confronted Chief Obasanjo and came out unscathed. As a resourceful lawyer, he has secured victory after victory for his clients usually the high heeled in our society. For him water has no enemy. He approaches all cases with passion because according to him “We as lawyers must appreciate our calling as a covenant with God.”

    In this regard, On November 21, 2011, he defended Bola Tinubu, the ACN national leader before the Code of Conduct Tribunal. “I led his very formidable team to ask the Tribunal to discharge and acquit him. By 2.30 pm same day, I was in the courtroom of the Court of Appeal in the same Abuja to as part of defence team of the Jonathan election petition”. This did not stop him for also defending Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) governor in Nasarawa against the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    It is therefore not surprising that Chief Wole Olanipekun has brought his usual passion to bear on his current defence of Ifeanyi Ubah against Access Bank. He is capitalising on Access Bank’s decision to file “documents before a London High Court, wherein the bank alleged that part of the reasons it avoided instituting an action against Capital Oil and its Managing Director, Ifeanyi Ubah in Nigeria was because the Nigerian judiciary was corrupt.”

    Such action, the chief insisted, amount to the denigration of Nigerian judiciary and dragging its image in the mud in the United Kingdom. Contrary to Access Bank’s deposition before the London court, no one person according to the chief can have “the judiciary in his pocket” in Nigeria.

    The judge, Justice Abang in a bid to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and the judicial process, agreed with him and ruled that “by supplying information which scandalised the Nigerian judiciary, the bank’s Corporate Counsel, Fatai Oladipo and Deji Awodein one of the bank’s Deputy General Managers were guilty of criminal contempt”. This may win a case but will unfortunately not win the battle over the minds of Nigerians who have come to see the judiciary as our major problem.

    Chief Olanipekun who has indicated he is uncomfortable with the situation of things in the country, whereby “we are running people’s affairs like a game of chess” however did not see anything wrong with the judiciary. If the third tier of government has any problem at all, it is because it has been overwhelmed by those created by the executive and the legislature.

    First, I am sure the outside world is amused by the chief’s attempt to exonerate the judiciary from the current problems bedevilling the nation, chief of which is corruption. In a globalised world and with the ascent of the new social media, everyone is a witness to history as it unfolds. The macabre dance between the senior members of our judiciary (SANs), some corrupt judges, thieving members of the political class, criminals as bank owners and oil fraudsters are daily documented for the world.

    Besides, UK of all places is a wrong choice for a rebranding effort of our judiciary. This is a nation that has just jailed James Ibori proclaiming him ‘a thief in the state house’ along with his counsel, long after the Nigerian judiciary had found him not culpable of the same set of charges. Besides, Britain is one place where some of our judges and SANs, would have been disrobed and banned from practice for life.

    A few sickening events that are currently playing out in the judiciary which make Nigeria feel like throwing up and unfortunately shared with the rest of the outside world will suffice.

    Recently, after a long deafening silence in spite of calls by Nigerians that erstwhile chairman and secretary of the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee on fuel subsidy probe, Farouk Lawal and Boniface Emenalo, be taken to court, their very resourceful SANs, to satisfy all righteousness brought them to court where they were detained. A week later, trial Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi okayed their release.

    This followed a ‘profound’ argument of the SANs that the’ ‘court should take cognizance of the fact that prior to his (Farouk) arraignment, he had ample opportunities to run away, having travelled outside the country four times since investigation into his alleged complicity in the bribery scandal began.’ Thus a man caught by video camera receiving bribe from Otedola in a sting operation master-minded by government will now attend trial from home and have the rights to attend to health issues abroad.

    The globalised world is also watching with keen interest how our resourceful SANs have effortlessly secured relief and shield their high profile clients such as Mahmud Tukur, son of the national chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, Bamanga Tukur; Mamman Ali, son of the former national chairman of PDP, Ahmadu Ali; and Abdullahi Arisekola-Alao, the son of Ibadan based businessman, Abdulazeez Arisekola-Alao facing a ‘nine-count charge of conspiracy, fraud and forgery,’ of N1.8 billion from the Petroleum Support Fund.

    The suit first fixed by judge Onigbanjo for November 13 and 14, 2012, for trial has again been ‘fixed for the 6th and 7th of May 2013. The defense SAN, has already persuaded judge Onigbanjo to grant his clients bail while Abdulazeez Arisekola-Alao also got his impounded international passport back to enable him travel and take care of his sick son in the United States.

    The prosecution of Erastus Akingbola, the former owner and Managing Director of Intercontinental Bank for an alleged stealing of N47.1 billion has dragged on for three years. This is despite his indictment by a London court which directed him to refund about N164b back to the new owners of his former bank. The case against Akingbola who had earlier been discharged in another case at the Federal High Court for what the trial judge, Justice Clement Archibong, blamed on “lack of diligent prosecution.” has according to Human Rights lawyer, Femi Falana(SAN) now been ‘technically resolved in his favour’ because of the new appointment given Justice Abiru, the presiding judge.

    In 2010, Cecilia Ibru accused of a 25 count charge of money laundering and mismanagement of depositors funds totaling over N160 billion, was aided by her celebrated SANs to sign a plea bargain deal. Two years after she was sentenced on 25 counts of fraud and ordered to reimburse $1.29 billion in assets and cash, Anti-Corruption Network executive secretary Otunba Dino Melaye has alleged that many properties in the United States and United Kingdom claimed to have been forfeited are still in Ibru’s custody directly or indirectly.

    The SANs that negotiated on her behalf probably know where “these properties, monies and aircraft are since there was no evidence they were “deposited with the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Company (NDIC) and AMCON for onward transfer to the shareholders of Oceanic Bank”.

    Corruption may be another name for the executive and the legislature. The press might have been greatly compromised according to Sonala Olumhense whose views count for much in the media, but a failed state beckons when the judiciary is turned into the last bastion of the privileged scoundrels by its SANs and some corrupt judges while lonely petty thieves or vagrants arrested for wandering spend years in prison awaiting trials. These are facts not lost on Nigerians.

  • Judiciary workers give govt 21 days strike notice

    The Judiciary Staff Union of Nigeria (JUSUN) has given a 21-day strike notice to the Federal Government over non-implementation of the Consolidated Salary Structure for Judiciary Workers (CONJUSS).

    The notice is contained in a communiqué by Mr Marwan Mustapha, the union’s National President and Mr Issah Adetola, the General Secretary in Abuja.

    They said the decision was reached at the end of the union’s National Executive Committee (NEC) in Minna.

    They said unless steps were taken to implement the CONJUSS, the union had no choice but to shut the courts.

    They said failure to comply with the notice could lead to an industrial crisis in the federal courts.

    It condemned the actions government agencies and stakeholders, saying that they frustrate the implementation of the scheme.

    “National officers will be overseeing the full compliance of JUSUN members during the strike, until the government fully complies with the salary structure,“ the communique said.

    NEC urged states that are yet to comply with the payment of CONJUSS to do so to avoid disruption of judicial services in their states.

    “This is because JUSUN will pursue the implementation of the salary structure in all the states of the federation,“ it said.

    The NEC commended Justice Suleiman Dikko, the new Chief of Nasarawa State, for resolving the lingering face-off between the branch executive and the management.

    NEC reaffirmed the position of the union’s amended constitution on the tenure of the national and state executive committee of JUSUN for four years, adding that it instructed its branches to comply.

    Mustapha, in an earlier statement, warned that the union should not be held responsible for any breach of industrial harmony in the sector in 2013.

    He had lamented the fact that government was taking the union’s peaceful and sensitive nature for weakness.

    He said that several agreements signed with the union had been jettisoned by government.

    He said: “We want to congratulate Nigerians for seeing us through 2012 in spite of several challenges faced.

    It said it believed that the year would be better. It appealed to the government to step up on its promises to Nigerians by ensuring the protection of their lives and properties.

    “Another burning issue is the non-implementation of the CONJUSS to federal courts which has been foot-dragging for a while.

    ‘’We are afraid that we cannot guarantee industrial peace in all the courts across the country in 2013, if nothing is done to solve this issue,”he added.

  • ‘Judiciary not insulated from self-imposed malaise’

    ‘Judiciary not insulated from self-imposed malaise’

    Elder Oyibo Chukwu was National Assistant Legal Adviser of the pan-Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo. In this interview with JOHN AUSTIN UNACHUKWU, he speaks on politics, specialisation in legal practice, the Ohanaeze crisis and sundry national issues.

    Have you been involved inpartisan politics. Whatinformed your involvement in Ohanaeze politics?

    Yes, I have been involved in partisan politics, even though I prefer to regard myself more as a political activist and a pragmatic liberal democrat with neo-welfarist in inclinations, who only use political platform to achieve social engineering. It is this altruistic motive that led me into active participation in Ohanaeze activities, and politics. I felt that as an Igbo patriot, I should contribute my modest inputs for the wellbeing of Ndigbo, and as a nationalist, to use Ohanaeze to build bridges across ethnic lines. It might interest you to know that I founded and organised the ohanaeze youth and was its first leader. I served in the local government administration and in 1988, I was elected into the then Constituent Assembly to represent Nkanu Federal constituency. I have also been the National Auditor of the ANPP and was a Presidential candidate in the S.D.P under the option A4 arrangement. I also ran for senate in PDP in 2011. I was the immediate Past National Assistant Legal Adviser of Ohaneze.

    Are you satisfied with the politics of today. Why and how we can get it right?

    The waters of the politics is getting murkier by each passing day and the composite respect for the Nigerian Politician, has largely diminished by each transition era or republic, if you may. Politics is no longer considered a calling, but a profession and a means of cheap livelihood for many. It has become a battle field for a large army of the unemployed and fair weather politicians. It has also metamorphosed into an easy vehicle for vulgar acquisition of wealth and obscene rise to stardom. There are still some patriots who can still be counted among the contemporary politicians. You asked how can we get our politics right? I will put my answers in a rather simplistic form. Firstly, institutions of government must be overhauled and strengthened. Secondly, the effectiveness of these institutions must be enhanced through decentralisation in such a manner that the central government is not over burdened and do not bite more than it can chew. Finally all the centripetal forces must be unleashed to eliminate corruption, reduce waste and encourage productivity and merit. I endorse also some form of dialogue to redefine our national arrangement to encourage full Nigerianisation, equity, equality, fairness and participatory democracy.

    How would you compare Law practice in your early days at the Bar with what obtains now.?

    My days as a green horn in Law practice was part of the glorious days gone by. It was an era when the profession was truly professional indeed and commanded respect. Lawyers conducted themselves with decorum both in and outside the court. It was unimaginable in those days, for instance, for a lawyer to engage in unprofessional conduct like fraud or any other anti social conduct. It was a beauty to see senior lawyer show understanding in court when a junior or younger lawyer was floundering in court in his case. Colleagues were ever ready to extend a hand of fellowship to one another. All these have changed. It is now a rat-race and standard appears now to have fallen.

    People have called for specialisation in the profession, what is your view?

    I am of the school of thought that believe that specialization will bring proficiency and expertise. But recognition must be given to the fact that ours is a developing economy and compartmentalization and division of labour in the economy has not fully taken root. It is my sincere hope that full specialization will take root in the profession as soon as the economy develops further.

    As a member of the immediate past leadership of Ohaneze Ndigbo, what is your appraisal of that leadership?

    Ohaneze Ndigbo has always provided sublime leadership for the Igbo people at very critical moments. It has been the Igbo Mouth piece, but some of these changed with the entrance of Amb. Raph Iwechue as the president General of Ohaneze Ndigbo. Amb. Iwechue who was drafted into that office with the singular purpose of giving a sense of inclusiveness to Igbo Deltans in Ohanaeze affairs, never understood the internal mechanisms of the organization nor its dynamics. Therefore, he deviated from Ohanaeze style, practices, conventions and constitution.

    He betrayed the trust reposed in him as the alter ego of the Ohanaeze National Executive committee and pursued his personal agenda. His style was dictatorial, mendacious and selfish. I will give you a few examples. He did not consult nor sought the mandate of the various organs of Ohanaeze including the Imeobi and the General Assembly before he endorsed President Ebere Jonathan in the 2011 presidential election.

    Some of us who were vociferous supporters of the president, were piqued and embarrassed. He made that endorsement which was published by him in most national newspapers without consulting any organ of Ohanaeze. We all read it like every other Nigerian to our amazement. He was thoroughly blamed in the executive meeting for his thoughtlessness. We had to give a retrospective endorsement to his action. Again, Ohanaeze is the only major social-cultural organisation that did not have a formal meeting with President Jonathan. Other ethnic organisations went and discussed issues effecting their people, most times with a shopping list and lengthy demands. Raph Iwechue frustrated any such visits, but preferred to visit Aso Rock alone, and indeed made up to 10 trips till date. He never deemed it necessary to brief the executive as to what was discussed or the outcome of his visits. Now he has conducted an inglorious and Kangaroo election into the National Executive Committee of Ohanaeze, foisting on the organisation, an army of his cronies and some of them a carryover from our now defunct executive committee. For example the fellow he imposed into office of the National Publicity secretary, a position zoned to uwechue’s Delta State, one Mr. Tony Osita Oganah, was never a member of Ohanaeze Ndigbo and had indeed written and published in a news magazine that he was not an Igbo. This is a generous picture of the executive I served in.

    We have hitherto had one and united Ohanaeze, how come, the organisation is divided into factions now?

    Ohanaeze is not factionalised. We have been through this kind of challenge during the Prof. Joe Irukwu tenure and the organisation came out of it more organised, united and stronger. We will just decapitate the uwechue-led infamous bunch of a adventurers and their very few privies and move on. Perhaps what you have called faction is Prince Richard Ozobu’s disengagement from the obnoxious election conducted by Raph Iwechue. Prince Ozobu, as you know is the secretary of the election committee Iwechue had set up to peacefully resolved in the interest of Ndigbo.

    What are the issues in contention in Ohaneze now?

    The first contentious issue was the way and manner Amb. Raph Iwechue, who was caught up by the sit-tight syndrome, sought to extend the tenure of his office and that of the entire Executive committee by two solid years. That attempt, as we are canvassing in court of Law, was unconstitutional, disingenuous and immoral because the whole amendment abracadabra of Ohanaeze Constitution did not follow the constitutional procedure provided for it and was all about self. In some instances, some of those that attended the constitutional amendment meetings of various organs of Ohanaeze, were not the approved members but mercenaries and hired hands. In the face of these illegal extension of our tenure and at the expiration of that executive tenure, I felt it was morally repugnant to continue, and I withdrew from the executive committee. Secondly, our position is that Amb. Raph Iwechue, having served out his tenure along with the entire executive committee, lacks the competence to conduct that election. Of course he lacks the fairness and balance to conduct such an election.

    But we read that he has successfully conducted election of new officers of the association, what is the problem with that?

    Predictably, the election Raph Iwuchue purported to have conducted has engendered wide spread agitations and protests in all the Igbo States, for example, the Chairman of Imo State traditional rulers council, has written and sent in his objections. The election was neither fair nor credible. Again, while I served in the National Executive Committee Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Akachukwu Nwankpor, special adviser to Mr. President, had approached Ohanaeze to seek our approval, mandate, consent and authorization to register Ohanaeze foundation for Ohanaeze Ndigbo. That was freely given and he was working for Ohanaeze. But but breach of the agreement and understanding that was reached, Raph Iwechue and Chief Akachukwu Nwankpor, registered the foundation with themselves as the only two trustees of the foundation. Worthy and credible Igbos like Retired Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, Dr. Arthur Nwankwo, Chief Dozie Ikedife, Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma etc. were suggested to be trustees, but were sabortaged by Iwuchue and his group, we want the duo to hand over the foundation to Ohanaeze and account for her assets. Again, we will want Amb. Raph Iwuchue to give a graphic account of all the monies he received during his tenure on behalf of Ohanaeze including from some government sources and individuals. There are many more.

    Is there no way to resolve these issues be resolved peacefully and amicably rather than court action?

    There are internal mechanisms within Ohanaeze for resolutions of conflicts like this. As I said earlier, Raph Iwuchue became a dictator and emasculated all the organs of Ohanaeze which would have looked into the conflicts. People were shot out from speaking in meetings he presided over. For instance, for the two years I served in the Ohanaeze National Executive Committee, Raph Iwuchue whose constitutional duty it was to call Imeobi and General Assembly Meetings, which were supposed to hold once a month or at least once in three months by Ohanaeze Convention, called a questionable Imeobi twice in two years and a rancorous general assembly once in that two years, which was for the sole purpose of seeking to sail through his infamous tenure extension agenda. It was practically a one man show. So if those internal mechanisms I spoke about are properly invoked, then the issues can be discussed and possibly resolved. But the impostors and pretenders to the National Executive Committee of Ohanaeze must stop Parading themselves as such.

    The judiciary has always been referred to as the last hope of the common man, do you think this assertion is true today, if not, how do we restore the integrity of the judiciary?

    The Judiciary is not insulated from our self imposed national malaise. These include incompetence, corruption and partisanship. A good starting point to checkmate these national maladies is to put in place a national legislation that can enable citizens to come to court by way of information (charge) and affidavit, detailing cases of corruption in both the public and private sectors, against an individual, and the burden of proof being placed on that individual to prove his innocence. Penalties should be stiff with the guilty person risking life sentences and total forfeitures of all their assets. There should also be special courts or tribunals to try such cases for expeditious trials. But the consolation we have, is that we still have some people in the judiciary who still maintain their honour and integrity.

    We read that Ohanaeze is in court, which faction is in court?

    I do not belong to any Ohanaeze faction and as I said earlier, Ohanaeze is not factionalised. My compatriot, Prince Emeka Onyesoh and I, are in court to challenge some of the excesses of Ambassador Raph Iwuchue and his cronies I have already enumerated. If they stop troubling Ohanaeze and Ndigbo, retrace their steps and make amends, there shall be peace. We are the spear-head for the aggrieved teaming majority.

  • Judiciary on trial

    Judiciary on trial

    • Talba’s verdict stirs anger

    Since Justice Abubakar Mohammed Talba sentenced John Yakubu Yusufu to six years imprisonment with N750,000 fine option for a N32.8 billion pension funds fraud, the judge has been under fire. The Judiciary too is not spared. Critics are angry that Yusufu could get away with what they called “such a light sentence”, considering the “grave offence” he committed. Who is to blame; the judge, the EFCC or the law? Eric Ikhilae reports.

     

    IT was a spontaneous reaction. Nigerians virtually rose as one to condemn the verdict of Justice Abubakar M. Talba of the Abuja High Court, sentencing John Yakubu Yusufu to six years imprisonment with N750,000 fine option for the theft of N32.8 billion pension funds. Yusufu was arraigned with six others. Unlike others, he pleaded guilty after entering into plea bargain with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    In unison, Nigerians deplored what they called a “light sentence”. Some called Justice Talba names, others defended him, saying he was only applying the law. EFCC arraigned Yusufu and others on March 29, last year before Justice Talba on a 16-count charge. They all pleaded not guilty; but Yusufu changed his plea last week and entered into plea bargain with EFCC, which earned him the controversal verdict from Justice Talba.

    They were charged with conspiracy and criminal breach of trust under Sections 97 and 315 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532 Laws of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria 2007.

    Charged with Yusufu are then Director of the Police Pension Office, and later Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Niger Delta, Atiku Abubakar Kigo; Esai Dangabar, Ahmed Inuwa Wada, Mrs. Veronica Ulonma Onyegbula and Sani Habila Zira.

    When EFCC entered into plea bargain with Yusufu, the charge against him was reviewed. The amended charge raised the counts to 20; included two others and changed the law under which they were charged.

    Those included are Christain Madubuike and Mrs Uzoma Cyril Atang, a serving Director, Finance and Accounts, Ministry of Communications.

    In line with the plea bargain, the accused were re-arraigned on January 29, under the amended charge. While others pleaded not guilty, Yusufu pleaded guilty to counts 18, 19 and 20 brought under Section 309 of the same Penal Code.

    Following his plea and conviction, his lawyer, Maiyaki Theodore Bala urged the court to be lenient in sentencing his client. But EFCC’s Rotimi Jacobs (SAN) urged the court to reject his request.

    Jacobs agreed that Section 309 prescribes a maximum sentence of two years, but urged the court to impose “such sanction that will send out a clear message that the era of impunity is gone.”

    Section 309 stipulates: “Whoever commits a crime of misappropriation shall be punished with an imprisonment term which may be extended to two years or with fine or both”

    In sentencing the convict, Justice Talba began by deprecating Yusufu’s conduct. He said: “The court has a duty to do justice for, not just the convict, but for the society at large.

    “Today, Nigeria is bedevilled with the cankerworm of white-collar crime which has subjected the citizens to abject poverty. It is not in doubt that the standard of living of an average Nigerian is declining day by day.”

    He sentenced Yusufu to two years imprisonment with N250,000 fine option on each of the three counts and held that the sentence should run concurrently.

    There was outrage over the verdict, which also threw up some questions. These include: What informed the decisions of the prosecution and the judge? The role of the judiciary in the context of ensuring social justice and whether, in deciding cases, the judge could be excused for being blind to societal mood, bearing in mind that the court operates within the society and exists to mediate social conflicts?

    There are also questions on the benefit of plea bargain in resolving criminal cases? The adequacy of the criminal justice system and criminal laws to effectively deal with crimes? The quality of mind of judges and whether it is time to review the process of appointing judges?

    There are conflicting views on the reason for the judge’s decision. Those in his support argued that he acted within the law, adding that EFCC should be blamed. Others think otherwise.

    Those,who believe that Justice Talba has not erred-argued that the law under which Yusufu was charged prescribes a maximum sentence of two years, an option of fine or both, and gave the judge the discretion to apply any. To them, by applying the option that his mind preferred, the judge cannot be crucified.

    Critics, however, wondered why the judge chose to exercise his discretion in favour of the accused, having earlier regretted the harm corruption and white collar crimes have done to the country.

    They wondered why the plight of millions of retired policemen, whose savings were stolen by the accused, the social implication of his decision and its effect on serving public officers did not prompt him to exercise his discretion to reflect that the accused was actually punished, by combining both imprisonment and fine and even imposing a huge fine, since there is no ceiling on the fine he could impose under Section 309.

    Those who query the EFCC’s motive in entering plea bargain with Yusufu, are wondering why he was charged under the Penal Code, one of the relics of the colonial era, enacted in 1916.

    They wonder why the EFCC charged them before the Abuja High Court and not the Federal High Court where the more recently enacted Criminal Code and EFCC Act would have been applicable and available for more offences to tie the culprits with higher sentences.

    They asked why the EFCC charged Yusufu and others with criminal misappropriation when the offences for which they were linked have elements of fraud, conspiracy to defraud, obtaining by false pretences, money laundering, administrative mismanagement and stealing, among others.

    Critics also wonder why the EFCC is still pushing plea bargain when past cases have ended at the detriment of the state. They cited the cases of former Bayelsa State Governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha; former Edo State Governor Lucky Igbinedion and former Chief Executive Officer, Oceanic Bank, Mrs Cecilia Ibru.

    On December 19, 2008, an Enugu High Court fined Igbinedion N3.5 million after a plea bargain arrangement with the EFCC. Igbinedion was initially arraigned on a 191-count charge which, on December 17, 2008, was reduced to one-count after his plea bargain.

    He was made to plead guilty to the charge: failure to make a declaration of his interest in the Account No: 4124013983110 with a new generation bank in the declaration of assets form of the EFCC, an offence it said was punishable under Section 27 (3) of the EFCC Act 2008.

    By the arrangement, Igbinedion freed himself from the hold of the law in the country but the international community was not amused.

    The same EFCC in 2010 ensured that Ibru pleaded guilty to a watered down three-count charge, under the same plea bargain arrangement. She spent just six months in the hospital, rather than in prison custody having earlier been charged with three other senior banking executives, in a multibillion-dollar banking scandal.

    Critics argued that Ibru and all other cases where plea bargain had been deployed made a mockery of justice.

    They compared the Ibru case with that of Bernard Lawrence Madoff, an American former businessman, stockbroker, investment advisor and financier who pleaded guilty to 11 federal felonies and admitted to turning his wealth management business into a fraudulent scheme, with which he defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars. He is currently serving a 150-year jail term. Ibru was only made to forfeit assets worth N1.29 billion.

    Others have particularly faulted the plea bargaining, arguing that it has tainted the image of the judiciary since its adoption some years back.

    Plea bargain, by its nature, is an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant, under which the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor.

    This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less-serious charge or to one of several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

    Although advocates of plea bargain argue that the arrangement prevents a lengthy criminal trial and waste of public funds, critics contend that a situation whereby an accused person is offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a minor charge is unhealthy for any justice system because it sends the wrong signal that it is profitable to steal.

    Those who said the judge acted within the law urged the government and all other relevant bodies to amend of the criminal and civil laws with a view to ensuring their relevance in today’s world. They argued that it is ridiculous that the nation’s statute books contain fines so ridiculous that a convict would readily pay and walk into freedom.

    There is also the argument that the court must always be guided by societal mood in taking decisions. Critics argue that judges must never be blind to what the society thinks else a wrong decision that sets the society ablaze will not spare the judge and his court.

    To them, this decision has not only disproved the government’s claim to be fighting corruption, it has sent a dangerous signal: That those in service should not think of pension. They should help themselves to what they can grab now. They ask: if policemen are not sure of their pension, who then is?

    Others also suggest an overhaul of the process of judges’ appointment, noting that the current arrangement where external influence dictates who mans the Bench leaves room for manipulation and the emergence of individuals with flawed attributes.

    The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and lawyers have reacted to the development and suggested ways of preventing a recurrence. Those who spoke include NBA President Okey Wali, Malam Yusuf Ali, Adeniyi Akintola, Rickey Tarfa, Emeka Ngige (all Senior Advocates of Nigeria), rights activist, Bamidele Aturu, Wahab Shittu of the University of Lagos, Allens Agbaka, Richard Chukwuocha and Abubakar Shamsudeen.

    Wali, while reading a communiqué issued at the end of NBA’s meeting last week in Abuja, said: “On the conviction of Yusuf, it is obvious that the law is inadequate and so the sentence is inadequate; that is why we are calling for the amendments of the law.

    “Our position on the conviction of Yusuf is that we do not speak off the cuff but from what we gathered: the law on which he was charged says two years with an option of fine, so we would be calling for an amendment of that law, because he is getting away with so much with little punishment.”

    He said the criminal/penal code in use in Nigeria is a 1916 ordinance, stating that it should not still be in use this present day and age.

    Wali said there was no noticeable strong will on the part of the government to fight corruption.

    Ali said nothing short of death sentence or at least life imprisonment would curb corruption or reduce it to a minimum. To him, the punishment should have been more severe.

    He said: “Of course the punishment is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence but we must remember that the law gives the judge discretion in awarding punishment.

    “I have advocated several times that corruption should attract the death penalty, or at least life imprisonment,” Ali said.

    Akintola said the laws need a review. He urged the Federal Government to revisit recommendations of the late jurist, Kayode Eso, in 1991, on how to deal with corruption.

    The senior lawyer said he would not blame the judge for handing out the sentence, as he could not have gone outside what the law states.

    “People should comment on issues they know of the facts. Comments should not be made based on sentiments or emotions. We should first of all ask: Under what law was the defendant charged? What was the penalty prescribed?” Akintola said.

    Tarfa agreed with Akintola, saying the issue lies with the laws. “It will depend on the law and the evidence placed before the court,” he said.

    Ngige argued that the laws need to be overhauled, especially on punishment for graft.

    To him, it is also not a question of whether the laws are stringent enough, but the need for the EFCC to have laid-down guidelines on how to negotiate plea bargaining with accused persons.

    “The commission ought to have included the fine payable by the accused in the bargain. Leaving issue of fine payable to the judge is very unsafe and prone to abuse. This is the second time EFCC is being outsmarted by accused persons in plea bargaining deals.”

    Mr Bamidele Aturu described the sentence handed to Yusuf as unacceptable. “It is very baffling and I must say, very embarrassing, not only from the standpoint of legal points involved, but also from the standpoint of the so-called war against corruption.

    “The noise about fighting corruption is being exploded by this sort of embarrassing sentencing that we are getting here and there. I think it is very clear now that the Nigerian judiciary, the Nigerian legal system, Nigerian lawyers and the Nigerian public are not able to fight corruption.

    “What is being done now is to give corrupt people a slap on the wrist. This is not even a slap on the wrist any longer. It’s now a handshake, because if we call it a slap on the wrist, we’ll be wrong. So it’s a handshake with corruption.”

    Shamsudeen said the judge was without blame because he acted within the law. He said although the sentence was inadequate, the prosecuting agency and the law should be blamed.

    “This is not the first time. EFCC should learn. Those, whose duty it is to put the law up to date should act. Nigerian laws are replete with ridiculous provisions and fines,” he said.

    Agbaka faulted the adoption of plea bargain by the EFCC. He described it as a lazy approach to criminal prosecution. He said it was open to manipulation and abuse in a corrupt society like this. He argued that the problem was not necessarily with the laws but their application and those applying them.

    Chukwuocha argued that the decision on Yusuf mocks the government’s vaunted fight against corruption. He stressed the need to review the EFCC Act, particularly as it relates to plea bargain.

    “One of the fundamental reasons for punishing criminals is to deter others from passing the same route. The judgment is unfortunate and sends out wrong signal to Nigerians.

    “What difference it would have made had the convict been denied the option of fine? I cry for the helpless police pensioners. This slap on the wrist judgment must stop,” Chukwuocha said.

     

  • ‘Why Judiciary performed poorly in 2012’

    An Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecutor, Mr. Sebastian Hon (SAN), has said the Judiciary performed poorly last year due to “institutional and legislative problems.”

    He said the Judiciary was also faced with the challenge of archaic laws, adding that failure to convict former Delta State Governor James Ibori in Nigeria, for instance, was a sign of the “rot” in the system.

    Speaking in an interview with our reporter, Hon said: “As a prosecutor for the EFCC, we have our challenges. The judiciary did not perform well in Ibori’s case, I must admit. It is not only in Ibori’s case. This is not a personal indictment of anybody. We have institutional and legislative problems.

    “Our laws are outdated, judges are still using longhand. We have a lot of challenges. So, Ibori’s case is one signpost of the rot in the judiciary. It is one of the cases that show that there is a problem in the Judiciary.”

    He said the fight against graft would not be won if Nigerians continue to encourage it.

    “There should be reforms in the Judiciary. It is very important because the Judiciary is the last hope of the common man,” he said.

    Hon added: “Remember that the EFCC went and arrested Ibori, and his kinsmen in the village blocked the way, saying he could not be arrested. Corruption is not just a thing that affects the Judiciary. We are all corrupt.

    “If the Delta people felt that Ibori was not corrupt, why were they shielding him from arrest? It is a general problem. We have to navigate out of this problem before there will be no Nigeria.”

    He decried the state of Nigerian prisons, saying the money meant for reform is not properly utilised.

    “We need prison reforms. I don’t know when last we built a prison in this country. Yet, everyday, thousands of people are convicted and detained. So, the matter may even be beyond the Attorney-General of the Federation.

    “Apart from building new prisons, if you go to advanced countries, their prisons are better than some of our five star hotels. Prison is not meant to be punitive. Jurisprudence has taught us that prison is meant to be corrective and reformative. But the system here is different.

    “When politicians come onboard, they just pack all the monies meant for basic things that would have transformed this country institutionally, politically and fundamentally.”