The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Much ado

  • Much ado about Executive Order 6

    President Muhammadu Buhari has thrown everything into the fight against corruption. His latest weapon is the Executive Order 6, which empowers him to restrain owners of assets under investigation from tampering with them or using their proceeds to pervert justice. But the National Assembly is kicking against the Order, claiming it is reminiscent of Decree 2 of 1984. The President, it said, could not issue such an order without the input of the legislature and the judiciary. Lawyers agree with the lawmakers. ADEBISI ONANUGA reports.

    President Muhammadu Buhari may have ruffled the National Assembly’s feathers, with his Executive Order which is aimed at strengthening the war against corruption. The order is for “the Preservation of suspicious assets connected with corruption and other relevant Offences”, was signed under Section 5 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), Section 5(1) (1) stated: Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the executive power of the feeratin shall  extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly, and to all matters with respect to the National Assembly, has for the time being, power to make laws. According to the President, he derived his power to issue the order from the above provision as well as Section 15(5) of the Constitution. His powers, he noted, were however, not limited to those provisions. Section 15(5) stipulates: The state shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.

    The Order seeks to restrain owners of assets being investigated from any further transaction on them and stops owners of such assets from further using the proceeds to pervert justice. The order also targets specific politically exposed persons, who are currently being tried in courts for corruption.

    Why Order 6?

    There are laws through which assets of corrupt persons and institutions some government agencies including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) got forfeiture orders from the court against those suspected to have plundered the country.

    So, why Order 6?

    Buhari: corruption a national emergency

    In signing the order, Buhari noted ”a strong link” between corruption and peace and security of the country. He explained that corruption was an unusual and extraordinary threat to the well-being, national security, and economy of Nigeria.

    The President said he was mindful of “this serious challenge” before coming into government and that this was why his administration specifically promised to address the country’s challenges in the three areas of security, economy and corruption.

    He said in furtherance of the anti-corruption programme, he embarked on multi-sectoral reforms on anti-corruption, including the enforcement of Treasury Single Account (TSA), strict implementation of the Bank Verification Number (BVN) Policy, signing of the Open Government Partnership, while efforts were on towards building and developing anti-corruption institutions, among others. According to him, he had so far kept faith with the promise.

    The President said after three years in office, there was need for a review of the achievements of his administration against set goals, a re-appraisal of strategies in order to achieve outstanding objectives, admiting that there are more grounds to cover in the war against corruption.

    Buhari said: “It has thus become necessary to re-kit and re-tool our arsenal to be able to effectively tackle corruption’s perilous counter-attack against the Nigerian state.

    “Accordingly, the Federal Government of Nigeria has declared a national emergency to deal with that crisis. In this regard, the Federal Government of Nigeria in line with its anti-corruption strategy seeks to ensure that the end of justice is not defeated or compromised by persons involved in a case or complaint of corruption.

    “It is in consequence of this that I have decided to issue the Executive Order No. 6 of 2018 to inter alia: restrict dealings in suspicious assets subject to investigation or inquiry bordering on corruption in order to preserve such assets from dissipation, and to deprive alleged criminals of the proceeds of their illicit activities, which can otherwise be employed to allure, pervert and/or intimidate the investigative and judicial processes or for acts of terrorism, financing of terrorism, kidnapping, sponsorship of ethnic or religious violence, economic sabotage and cases of economic and financial crimes, including acts contributing to the economic adversity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria  and against the overall interest of justice and the welfare of the Nigerian State.”

    To preserve Nigeria’s political and economic systems, the President sought the support of stakeholders and every Nigerian to give effect to  Executive Order 6, having ratified the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating with 39 other African states at the just concluded African Anti-Corruption Year, which held in Nouakchott, Mauritania.

    The ‘controversial’ part

    But the most topical of the Executive Order 6 is Section 1(a) which empowers the President to freeze assets of individuals with corruption cases and those related to him or her pending the resolution of cases in court.

    Executive Order 6 empowers the President to take over assets of suspected corrupt persons even when the defendant is not on trial, or when he/she is on the run or when the defendant has passed on.

    For instance, Section 1 (b) states that a government official or a person acting for and on behalf of such an official, directly or indirectly, engages in corrupt practices such as misappropriation of state assets for personal gain, receives any form of bribe or engages in corrupt practices related to the performance of his/her duties or the award or execution of government contract among others, shall forthwith be subjected to the disciplinary procedure in accordance with the Public Service Rules and investigation by the Code of Conduct Bureau.

    Section 5 (a) defines “asset’’ to include all properties, including funds, liquid assets (bank balances), receivables, stocks and bonds held in portfolios, insurance policies, shares in listed or unlisted companies, and all manner of fixed assets and all such assets held directly or indirectly through corporate entities, trust structures and intermediaries;

    (b) The term “corruption or corrupt practices’’ means as may be defined under any enactment: (i) any corrupt activity involving matters of corruption generally economic sabotage, human trafficking, drug trafficking and terrorism involving funds or assets in the sum or value in excess of fifty million Naira (N50,000,000) or its equivalent in foreign currency; and (ii) any misappropriation of government asset, corruption related to government contracts or bribery; or (iii) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption among others.

    Also of note is the first schedule to the Order, which listed 155 specific cases pending in court and persons to whom it applies.

    Like Order 6, like Decree 2 of 1984?

    Unlike other laws, which the country has in place to fight corruption, reactions to Executive Order 6 have been mixed grill.

    Last Wednesday, the National Assembly rejected the Executive Order 6.  According to the lawmakers, the President cannot approbate and reprobate unilaterally without the inputs of the Legislature and the Judiciary, which make up the pillars of democracy.

    They asked the President to suspend  the implementation of the Executive Order 6. To them, the Order is similar to Decree 2 of 1984, which could be used to witch-hunt, traumatise, harass and victimise perceived political opponents.

    While, the House of Representatives constituted an ad-hoc committee with a four-week mandate to investigate all the executive orders signed so far by the President, including subsidiary legislations, the Senate summoned the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami, to explain the constitutional basis for the order.

    The House equally directed Malami and the Nigerian Law Reform Commission (NLRC), to make available to it a comprehensive list of all subsidiary legislations published in the Federal Government gazette within two weeks. He was also summoned to appear before the House.

    This followed the adoption of a motion, sponsored by Nicholas Ossai and 25 others on “Urgent Need to Investigate the Constitutional Compliance of All Subsidiary Legislation and Executive Orders by the Executive Arm of Government”.

    The motion, which generated a heated debate, led to a walk out by some All Progressives Congress (APC) lawmakers in protest against the decision.

    Ossai had argued that the Executive Order was an attempt to usurp the powers of the legislature. He found support in Bode Ayorinde, a member of the Reformed APC, who said the action of the President was an aberration.

    “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Section 4 has given the parliament the power to make law. A situation where the executive without combining other arms of government by way of executive order, we must rise against it, otherwise, there is no democracy. It should not be allowed,” Ayorinde argued.

    Describing the motion as “hasty and premature,” some lawmaker said the only option before the House was to approach the Supreme Court on the issue.

    But Mojeed Alabi, who rose in opposition to the motion said the President did no wrong and that the question of the legality or otherwise of the Executive Order 6 did not arise, noting that there were precedents. ‘Poor attempt at power grab’

    Former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, in a national daily, described the Executive Order 6 as “a poor attempt at a power grab or an untheorised act of constitutional vandalism in defiance of the separation of powers in the 1999 Constitution. It is not worth the paper on which it is written”.

    The Church of Nigeria, Diocese of Enugu (Anglican Communion) last Friday expressed its displeasure over the Order. The church advised that it should not be used against perceived enemies or opposition.

    ‘Order 6 doesn’t affect human rights’

    But some civil society organisations see Order 6 in a different light. Project Manager, Strengthening Citizens Resistance Against Prevalence of Corruption (SCRAP-C) and Action Aid Nigeria (AAN) on Thursday commended President Buhari for signing the Executive Order 6 to check corruption, which it said would bolster the socio-economic development of the country.

    SCRAP-C President, Mr Newton Otsemaye, said corruption had hindered efforts of both the government and private sector to drive economic growth, retarded development, aggravated inequality and poverty, among the citizens.

    “Those against the Executive Order should know that it does not affect citizens’ human right, but improve the wellbeing of the citizens and the economy that had hitherto been affected by corrupt practices,” he said.

    According to him, forfeiture or confiscation of proceeds of crime is an anti-corruption tool, in line with international best practice, recommended by the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which Nigeria is a signatory. He said Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture was a recommendation of the UNCAC, which provided a legal framework for fighting corruption and asset recovery.

    He noted that the Executive Order, if properly implemented, would boost Nigeria’s image globally, reduce inefficiency and misappropriation of funds and lead to more development.

    Otsemaye argued that Order 6 would not allow people accused of stolen wealth to use the proceeds to fight back the government. According to him, there is every possibility for  a suspected person to get information that his asset is about to be seized or being forfeited, to sell off the assets quickly, and this dissipates stolen assets.  He added: “If the government confiscates the asset, it does not necessarily belong to the government. However, the accused can go to court and prove that the asset genuinely belongs to him. If he can convince the court on how he legitimately acquired the assets, then it will be released to him.”

    Otsemaye said there should be a collective action and behavioural change against corruption, and that the fight should not be left to government alone, as corruption affects all citizens.

    Did President err with Order 6?

    Analysts are, however, worried about the new face off between the executive and the legislative, given the intention of Order 6. Some reasoned that legislature’s position on the matter was self-serving as some of them are under investigation for corruption. Some questioned the rationale for questioning Order 6 and alleging usurpation of their function as there had been five orders earlier issued by the executive, which were not opposed by the legislature. While some argued that the new order usurped the power of the judiciary to make such pronouncements only after finding a corruption suspect guilty of the offence.

    Did President Buhari err in issuing the Executive Order 6? Did he usurp the powers of the legislature and the judiciary as claimed by them? And what is the legality or otherwise of the Executive  Order 6?

    The Order is unnecessary, say lawyers

    Constitutional lawyers have described the Executive Order 6 as unnecessary and an usurpation of legislative powers. To them, the President does not need law to successfully fight corruption. The order, they argued should be withdrawn.

    The lawyers include former President, Nigerian Bar Association of Nigeria (NBA), Dr Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), Lagos lawyer and activist, Femi Falana (SAN) and social critic and law lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Lagos (UNILAG) Akoka, Wahab Shittu.

    According to Dr Agbakoba, Order 6 is issued pursuant to powers granted by Section 5 of the Constitution. He said: “Under this provision, the President can make orders “and so, in answer to the question whether the President can make executive orders, the answer is yes. But the real issue here, is what happens when the President exceeds the powers given under Section 5 of the Constitution? The answer is that the executive order will be null and void.

    “So, the question is whether the Executive Order 6 exceeds the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Constitution?

    “I reviewed the executive order and my first comment is that the Order was unnecessary as it simply repeats laws, rules and regulations relating to corruption.There is really nothing new and all that is required is to implement existing laws rather than make executive orders.

    “The second point is that the Order is a naked usurpation of the legislative and judicial function as it purports to assign to the executive powers to seize corrupt assets and this is clearly the function of the Judiciary and legislative organ, in this case, the National Assembly.

    “In summary Executive Order 6 exceeds the power of the President conferred by Section 5 of the Constitution.”

    Falana, who spoke at a workshop on Assets Forfeiture organised by the Presidential Advisory Committee on Corruption, PACAC in Abuja on Wednesday, asked the executive to withdraw the Executive Order 6. He contended that the executive order violates constitutional right to own property.

    Shittu described the “Executive Order 6 as a surplusage”. He noted that there are actually existing provisions under the EFCC, lCPC, Advance Fee Fraud Acts, providing for interim and final forfeiture of assets when a suspect is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence.

    He noted that these provisions can be invoked to initiate non conviction based forfeiture proceedings even when the defendant’s guilt  has not been established.

    He also said the provisions apply even when the defendant is not on trial, or when he/she is on the run or when the defendant has passed on. The state in such circumstances can proceed against the assets as opposed to the defendant in forfeiture proceedings.

    “With these provisions in place, including international instruments reinforcing  confiscation of assets, Executive Order 6 in the circumstances is not only surplusage, unnecessary, but will amount to encroachment of the statutory powers of Anti graft agencies vested with forfeiture responsibilities,” Shittu said.

    He argued that the other challenge of the order will be its seeming conflict with constitutional prescription of presumption of innocence guaranteed to all suspects standing criminal trials or accused of any offence.

    According to him, “there are no such fears about criminal forfeiture given that such presumption of innocence by best practices standards around the world does not apply to non-conviction based forfeiture proceedings”.

    “The rationale being that such proceedings are actions in rem targeted at property or assets, the subject matter of proceeds of crime and not the person. ln the case of no conviction based forfeiture proceedings,the subject of trial is the property or assets, the proceeds of crime and not the person who  owned the property. As a result, presumption of innocence does not apply. Whereas in the case of Executive Order 6, the element under investigation is the person and assets confiscated in exercise of powers thereof is in consequence of investigation of the defendant.

    “Consequently the possibility of potential violation of presumption of innocence entrenched in the Constitution is real indeed. The other compelling argument is the seeming encroachment of legislative powers since Executive Order 6 touches on corruption for which the National Assembly had legislated upon extensively as shown above.

    “The President may have encroached on legislative powers by Executive powers 6 in a manner which is derogatory of separation of powers.

    “ln my view Executive Order 6 is unnecessary, given the fact that there are sufficient constitutional and statutory provisions to cover the subject,” Shittu said.

  • Much ado about the removal of security chiefs

    The wave of bloody violence across the country especially in the Middle Belt is taking a frightening dimension following the recent pogrom in Plateau State; killing of the vulnerable innocent people, women, children and the elderly.  Insecurity and insurgency are not relenting in the least, not even in the Northeast where we are told that the Boko Haram terrorists have been degraded.  The insurgents may not be holding swaths of land and hoisting their flags as it was before the 2015 General Elections but there are still trails of blood as suicide bombers carry out wholesale kidnapping, engage soft targets amongst the civil populace, killing of troops and carrying their weapons.

    The worst form of violence has now manifested in the form of ravaging herdsmen marauding in the landscape of the Middle Belt down to the southern part of the country.   They carry out offensive scorched earth method against their targets leaving nothing on their path; killing their victims, burning their homesteads and farmland in a genocidal faction.   The herdsmen violence has been reputed to have claimed more lives that the Boko Haram insurgents since its manifestation in 1999.  The entire country has become a killing field.

    What is most troubling about the herdsmen attack is the government ambivalence in first recognising it as serious security problem and dealing with it as such.  Government and its security agencies have approached the herdsmen violence erroneously as a product of ethnic intolerance of people who do not want the co-existence with itinerant herders’ lifestyle.  This approach is poisoning the well and setting one ethnic nationality against the others thereby deepening the resentment across the demographic fault-lines.

    I am worried at the ethnic and religious colorations of the violence that is consuming our country especially the inability of the political leadership to tackle it by rising above ethno-religious barometers. Insurgency and insecurity have thrown up all manners of security experts all pontificating and suffocating the airwaves with outlandish theories, lacking in praxis. Many people have called for the overhaul of the security architecture of the country by removing the heads of the security agencies claiming that it is one sided and not designed to reflect national character for neutrality and effectiveness.  This school of thought may have its own point but I will hasten to add that it would require more than mere change of the personality to solve the amalgam of security problem confronting us as a nation.

    Some have also argued that the troops and fighting forces are poorly motivated and ill-equipped to deal with a more formidable and daring insurgents.  Again, it requires more than equipment to win a battle.  It would require well trained, disciplined and highly motivated soldiers to drive the equipment to achieve result.  It is on record that the federal government have dumped huge sums of money on the security agencies to tackle the insurgency and insecurity which the higher commanders and leaderships have embezzled and allowed the armed forces and the country to be humiliated by the local insurgents. Our security forces have become fractious more than ever before and have to flee at the rumoured approach of the enemy. That is how bad it is.

    In all the security analyses, we have ignored very vital aspects which have made the security agencies to appear ineffective. The first is political consideration in appointing the heads of the security agencies.  This goes along with its twin sisters of ethnic and religious considerations which have greatly diminished the espirit de corps among members of the armed forces.  This is the reason why we have seen the security agencies sinking deeper into partisanship and being used to conduct and rig elections.  Another area that is often ignored is the quality of training the troops are exposed to in the course of their career.  A soldier is trained to be tough to withstand inclement weathers in the face of adversaries and apply his training and weapons with dexterity in combat. A soldier is not trained to flee before the enemy no matter how formidable.  Now the politicians have populated the armed forces and other security agencies with their children and relations who see it only as providing employment for bread and butter like chocolate soldiers.  The rot in the armed forces was sown by the Ibrahim Babangida administration as far back as 1985 and that demon has refused to go. The Nigerian Armed Forces used to rank among the best in Africa and they have so acquitted themselves creditably in all their international engagements with admirations. Go and ask the former rebels in both Liberia and Sierra-Leone; the fear of Nigerian troops was the beginning of wisdom.

    For those calling on the president to remove the heads of the security agencies, they should understand that the president is not gifted with the spirit to remove his appointee even if it would add impetus to their departments.  The president is not broad minded to look beyond his circle of friends within his limited lens view to choose competent hands from across all divides to help him run an all-inclusive government.

    The insecurity the country is facing today is not of common criminality but politically rooted.  The security architecture is in sync with the political administration and we cannot separate the two for the purpose of cutting off the umbilical cord of violence especially, the herdsman variant. The mutual distrust amongst the ethnic nationalities has reached a crescendo in this government and it would require someone with uncommon passion for the country to galvanize people to rescue the country from running into a stormy weather which we may not survive a second time.  More than the heads of the security agencies, the current political leadership of this country need immediate overhaul to give way to a generation with hunger to prove that we can live together as one.  It is overdue for the president to change not just the service chiefs but his entire cabinet to give impetus to drive the nation in a different direction that can save our nation from immediate collapse.

     

    • Kebonkwu Esq is an Abuja-based attorney.

  • Much ado about looters list

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) called for it, but when the list came out, the party protested. Why is the looters list generating so much heat? When can a person from whom money and property were recovered be called a looter? ADEBISI ONANUGA asked lawyers

    WITHIN a week, the Federal Government released two looters lists, and almost set the country on fire. The People Democratic Party (PDP) and its top echelon protested, claiming that the lists were released to ridicule them. The first list, released on March 30, by Minister of Information and Culture Alhaji Lai Mohammed contains names of six persons who allegedly looted the treasury under former President Goodluck Jonathan.

    On the list are top politicians, who allegedly collected various sums of money from the former National Security Adviser, Col Sambo Dasuki (rtd), and are on trial for corruption-related offences.

    Among them is PDP Chairman Uche Secondus, who was alleged to have, on February 19, 2015, taken N200 million; a former PDP Financial Secretary,  who on October 24, 2014, allegedly took N600 million; PDP’s former National Publicity Secretary  Olisa Metuh, on trial for allegedly collecting N1.4bilion; Chairman of DAAR Communications Dr. Raymond Dokpesi, on trial for allegedly taking N2.1 billion; former Senior Special Assistant (SSA) to President Jonathan Dudafa Waripamo-Owei, on trial over alleged N830 million kept in accounts of four various companies and former President Jonathan’s cousin Robert Azibaola, who a Federal High Court on March 29, ruled that he has a case to answer for allegedly collecting $40 million.

    The barrage of attacks by some of the alleged treasury looters and the PDP had hardly settled when Mohammed, on April 1, released another 23 names. On this list are ex-ministers, ex-governors, senators, former party leaders and campaign chiefs.

    They include:

    • Dasuki: based on EFCC investigations and findings alone (this is beside the ongoing $2.1billion military equipment scandal), a total of N126 billion, over $1.5 billion and 5.5 million British Pounds was embezzled through his office and allegedly shared to persons and companies without any formal contract awards.
    • Former Petroleum Resources Minister Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke: who in just one of the cases the EFCC is investigating involving her, about N23 billion is alleged to have been embezzled. She is also alleged to be involved in the Strategic Alliance Contracts of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), where the firms of Jide Omokore and Kola Aluko allegedly got oil blocks, but never paid government taxes and royalty involving about $3 billion. It was said that government is considering the duo’s trial.
    • Lt.-Gen. Kenneth Minimah (rtd): N13.9 billion. N4.8 billion recovered by EFCC in cash and property
    • Lt.-Gen. Azubuike Ihejirika: N4.5 billion. N29 million recovered by the EFCC so far.
    • Alex Badeh, former Chief of Defence Staff: N8 billion. EFCC has recovered almost N4 billion in cash and property.
    • Abdullahi Dikko Inde: former Comptroller-General of Nigerian Customs Service: N40 billion, and N1.1 billion recovered in cash and choice properties.
    • Air Marshal Adesola Amosun: N21.4 billion. N2.8 billion recovered in cash. 28 properties and three vehicles also recovered.
    • Senator Bala Mohammed, former Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister: N5 billion. Interim forfeiture order on some property secured.
    • Senator Stella Oduah: N9.8 billion. Interim forfeiture order on some property secured.
    • Former Niger State Governor Babangida Aliyu: N1.6 billion.
    • Senator Jonah Jang, former Plateau State Governor: N12.5 billion.
    • Bashir Yuguda, former Minister of State for Finance: N1.5 billion. $829,800 recovered.

    1• Senator Peter Nwaboshi: N1.5 billion.

    • .Aliyu Usman: Former NSA Dasuki’s aide: N512 million.
    • Ahmad Idris: Former NSA Dasuki’s PA: N1.5 billion.
    • Rasheed Ladoja: Former Oyo Governor: N500 million.
    • Tom Ikimi: N300 million
    • Femi Fani-Kayode: N866 million
    • . Hassan Tukur, former PPS to President Goodluck: $1.7 million
    • Nenadi Usman: N1.5 billion
    • Benedicta Iroha: N1.7 billion
    • Aliyu Usman Jawaz: Close ally of former NSA: N882 million
    • Godknows Igali: Over N7 billion

    Mohammed said the list earlier released was just “a tip of the iceberg” of how Nigeria was looted blind under the PDP’s watch”, adding that the Federal Government has a large number of alleged looters on its list.

    According to him, the list is based on verifiable facts, including the amount involved, the date the amount in question was collected and from where it was taken. He said many of the cases were in court and the records were available and that some of the people on the list were seeking plea bargain.

     

    Critics kick

    The list was received with outrage by some, while a few others approved of it.

    Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) urged the government to “immediately withdraw the clumsy, arbitrary and selective looters’ list’’, released last week, as the list seemed to serve a political objective or carry out political agenda.

    Its Executive Director, Adetokunbo Mumuni, said: “This kind of action can only diminish the government’s ability to fight corruption, frustrate its oft-expressed goal of a transparent governance, allow suspected perpetrators—whether from the All Progressives Congress (APC) or the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) – to escape justice, and ultimately, deny victims of corruption justice and effective remedies.

    “The authorities should withdraw the looters’list and come up with a comprehensive list as ordered by Justice Hadiza Shagari last year. Allowing the published looters’ list to stand will undermine the credibility of the government’s claim to fighting corruption, and signal to Nigerians that it is not serious to satisfactorily address the allegations of grand corruption under the former government of President Goodluck Jonathan and involving those close to this government.

    “If Buhari is truly interested in vindicating the rule of law and the proper administration of justice, his government will do well to genuinely obey Justice Shagari’s judgment ordering the authorities to ‘tell Nigerians the full names of all suspected looters of the public treasury past and present.’ Few things would go farther in fostering and nurturing our system of constitutionalism, democracy, and the rule of law.”

    A spokesperson for former President Goodluck Jonathan, Reno Omokri, criticised the government for failing to include names of members of the APC accused of or being tried for corruption.

    In a statement, he said: “The real looters list that Buhari and Lai Mohammed do not want you to know about.

    Omokri released names 10 members of the APC who he said were alleged to have collectively looted over $2 billion and should have been added to the government’s list.

    According to him, they include:

    “Rotimi Amaechi: Indicted by the Justice George Omeregi-led Rivers State Judicial Commission of Inquiry for looting N97 billion along with co- indictees, including a former army general.

    “Saminu Turaki: Alleged to have looted N36 billion. First charged before Justice Sabi’u Yahuza of the Federal High Court in Dutse, Jigawa State. Currently facing trial before Justice Nnamdi Dimgba at the FCT High Court.

    “Timipre Sylva: A well-known financier and supporter of the APC administration of President Muhammadu Buhari. Alleged to have looted N19.7 billion and was facing trial before Justice A. Y. Mohammed of the Federal High Court, Abuja. However, two days after President Buhari was sworn in, the new APC government withdrew the charges preferred against Sylva on June 1, 2015 and on October 3, 2018, the EFCC returned to Sylva, 48 houses seized from him during former President Jonathan administration in 2013 to him.

    “Murtala Nyako: Alleged to have looted N29 billion. Currently facing trial before Justice Okon Abang of the Federal High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja

    “Senator Danjuma Goje: Alleged to have looted N25 billion. On trial at the Federal High Court in Jos, Plateau State.

    Senator Abdullahi Adamu: Alleged to have looted N15 billion with the help of 18 co-accused. Charged on March 3, 2010. The case is pending in court.

    “Orji Kalu: Alleged to have looted N3.2 billion. Facing trial before Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos.

    “Kayode Fayemi: Indicted by the Ekiti Judicial Commission of Inquiry headed by former Ekiti State Chief Judge and the Oluyin of Iyin-Ekiti, Ademola Ajakaiye, of sundry financial malfeasance totaling over N2 billion.

    “Senator Joshua Dariye: Alleged to have looted N 1.2 billion. On trial before Justice Adebukola Banjoko at an FCT High Court.

    “Babachir Lawal: former Secretary to the Government of the Federation. Allegedly gave a N200 million contract to his own company from monies meant to look after Internally Displaced Persons. Has been sacked after protest by the opposition and civil society. Has still not been charged. Was allowed to be replaced by his own cousin”.

    He contended that by the omission of these names, the Federal Government has vindicated Transparency International (TI) corruption perception index that Nigeria is more corrupt under Buhari than at any other time since TI started keeping records.

    Also reacting to the disclosure by the Information Minister, the PDP dismissed the list as an extension of the Federal Government’s media trial. The party’s National Publicity Secretary, Kola Ologbondiyan, in a statement, said the list issued by Mohammed showed that the APC and the Presidency had no proof of corruption against the PDP.

    “The Buhari-led Federal Government has manifested its frenzy by going after matters that are in court and in which none of the persons have been convicted, thus betraying their wickedness and desperation to mislead the public, the court and divert attention from the heavy looting involving their members.

    But former Niger State Governor Babangida Aliyu said in Minna that he did not loot the treasury during his eight-year tenure. He threatened to challenge the allegation in court.

    He also said nobody had confronted him with any document that he received N1.6 billion from Dasuki, describing the development as an orchestrated plot to tarnish his image.

    Secondus, reacting to the inclusion of his name in the list gave the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, 48 hours to withdraw his statement against him or face litigation.

    Secondus, who on Saturday spoke through his spokesperson, Mr. Ike Abonyi, made the demand in a letter to the minister by his lawyer, Mr.  Emeka Etiaba (SAN). The minister had alleged that the party chairman collected N200million from the Office of the National Security Adviser in 2015.

    In his letter reference number EESE&C/1/31/03/18 dated March 31, and addressed to the minister, Secondus demanded a retraction, apology as well as payment of N1.5bn as damages.

    The letter noted that if Mohammed failed to meet the demands within 48 hours, “we shall within 72 hours from today, proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction to ventilate our client’s right under the law and shall further seek the protection of the court against you.”

    Metuh also alleged that there was a plan by the Federal Government to convict him for corruption.

    Metuh, who is on trial before a Federal High Court in Abuja for alleged corruption, in a statement titled: ‘My reply to the media trial’ on Saturday, said, “By this publication, the Federal Government has breached our constitution by seeking to burden me with two criminal trials on the same charge, one before Justice Okon Abang and the other before the media.

    “The major crux of the prosecutions argument is that I ought to have known that the money was part of an alleged and yet-to-be proven unlawful activity of Col Sambo Dasuki(retd.), a former NSA to President Jonathan.

    “In view of the weakness of the case against me, the APC-led Federal Government resorted to all kinds of dirty tactics to dehumanise and intimidate me.’’

    Analysts, however, viewed the development as not healthy not just for the government, but also the country.  Some said it was simply contemptuous to name those who were still in court fighting to extricate themselves from the charges preferred against them by the various anti-corruption agencies. They said the lists were capable of prejudicing the trials in court. Others said the government did no wrong, particularly naming those from whom huge sums of money and properties have been recovered.

    But how can “naming and shaming” of looters, particularly those with iron-clad evidence, be done within the confines of the law? Is it fair to brand somebody a looter without waiting for the courts to say so? Does this amount to jungle justice and mob mentality? Could the receivers have known that the cash came from questionable sources?

     

    Lawyers react

    Some lawyers agreed while others disagreed with the government on the release of the lists.

    They include Chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Professor Itse Sagay (SAN) Keyamo (SAN), Yusuf Ali (SAN), Sylva Ogwemoh (SAN), Sebastine Tar Hon (SAN), Babatunde Fashanu (SAN) and Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Vice President, Monday Ubani.”

    Sagay, in his reaction to the list said there was nothing wrong with it.

    He recalled that a court had ordered the government to publish the names of those who have looted the nation’s resources, emphasizing that the disclosure was in accordance with the court’s directive and to address the issue of public interest.

    Sagay said he would not be surprised if more names of alleged looters surfaced. He said: “there is a very large number of these people who presided over the looting of the assets of this country.”

    On those condemning the list, he said, “It’s a free society, the government has provided its own list. Those who are complaining must surely know the persons who are omitted from the list. So, let them bring out their own list and let them correct the list which is incomplete.”

    The PACAC chairman was however confident that the judges handling corruption cases cannot be influenced by the views of other people as they have the knowledge to make their own opinion on the facts of the case before them.

    He admitted however that government might not have mentioned the names of some individuals due to ‘strategic’ reasons, adding that such reasons would unravel themselves in the course of time.

    Keyamo said: “If you have the facts at your disposal that somebody is a thief, and you know your facts are unassailable, you can go ahead and name the person as a thief. The person does not need to be convicted before you, based on the facts, can name the person as a thief. But this is so long as you have your unassailable facts that you can present at the appropriate time to defend yourself if you are sued for defamation.”

    He said the government may also  charge those on the list who are not under trial.

    Nevertheless, Keyamo urged the aggrieved persons to sue, saying: “It is left to the person to go to court. Going to court is not a threat to anyone. It is a welcome development. A welcome development because it is even in court that the Federal Government will have the opportunity to lay bare the facts.

    According to Ali, the release of names, either by the government or by the opposition, amounts to media trial because the matters are before courts constituted in Nigeria.

    “It is as if the government has taken the law into their own hands. I don’t think it is right because the matter is already before the court. The average Nigerian does not understand that making an allegation is different from proving an allegation. To an average Nigerian, the government cannot be wrong. So the average Nigerian, their thinking is that once the government makes something public, even when one has not been found guilty by the courts, the tendency is to start thinking that, even if the matter is striked out by the court, and the person is not found guilty, the tendency is to start having insinuations that, ‘oh, the judiciary has been compromised’, that that is why they let him off. That is the danger of naming somebody who has not been convicted of an offence. That is why I called it media trial,” he said.

    Ali lamented that the whole thing is becoming a ridicule because the government mentioned some people who are in the opposition as looters, the other party also came out with a list of people in the ruling party also named as looters.

    “It is sad that a very serious matter is being trivialised this way because they are pronouncing people guilty even before they are tried by the court. Now they are also passing judgment when the court has not passed judgment. They have already been found guilty.

    “I don’t think it is right to call anybody a looter because these are allegations. It doesn’t matter what it is. If the court does not find you guilty of the names you have been called, then what happens? For me, it is like sabotaging the rule of law. All the things that happened showed clearly that I can’t support this kind of behavior by anybody. I am trained as a lawyer to respect other people’s right and nothing can justify calling somebody a looter when the person has not been found so by a court of competent jurisdiction,” he argued.

    Ogwemoh argued that under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended) there is a presumption of innocence until otherwise guilt is established.

    “It is, therefore, wrong in all ramifications to refer to defendants in pending criminal charges before the court as looters when their guilt has not been established in a court of law. Disclosing the names of the defendants in the news media and calling them looters, in my opinion, is wrong in law. Of course, if the cases have been fully tried in court and guilty verdict is entered against any defendant, the judgment becomes a public document and anyone is free to publicly discuss the judgment and not before.

    “When you use the phrase “stolen money and property”being recovered, it raises the presumption that guilt has already been established. Where money and property have been recovered and a charge is still pending in court, you cannot call the defendants to charge looters until guilt has been established because the charge has to be proved by evidence, which the law says must be beyond reasonable doubt. It is after the due process of trial has been followed and conviction secured that the “name and shame” can be done.”

    To Fashanu, the release of the list was not well-thought out.  He argued that except for people who looted and returned the looted funds, the government has no right to publish the names of people who are merely accused of looting public funds or are still under investigation or are being tried in courts, but are yet to be convicted because they are presumed innocent until and unless convicted by a court of law after due process as guaranteed as a fundamental right in the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    He said: “Naming those being tried in courts as looters is highly prejudicial to the cases because the government, who is the accuser and prosecutor in those cases, is prejudging the outcome of the cases by concluding that the accused are already guilty. This actually amounts to contempt of court and can be punished by the  courts involved, but, on a much higher scale, it amounts to the executive arm of government interfering or usurping the function of the judiciary invested by the constitution with the duty and power to try and adjudge people for criminal offences such as looting of public funds”.

    According to Fashanu, the only thing the government can do is to publicise the ongoing cases just for that purpose only without any prejudicial bent because “the fact that someone is being tried for such criminal offences, to my mind, is no shaming because he can be found to be innocent of the crime at the end of the day.

    “This underscores my belief that the publication was merely to score political points, otherwise, why are all so-called looters not including any member of the ruling party, APC, or are there no looters there? Well, the counter looters list by the PDP persons says otherwise,” he said.

    Hon pointed out that by Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, an accused person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. This is the adversarial system of justice practised in all common law jurisdictions, as opposed to the inquisitorial system practised in some jurisdictions, where it is the accused that must prove his innocence. In this, the prosecutor is the same Federal Government that is yet to secure conviction of the so called ‘looters’! Some of the alleged looters have not even been arraigned in court, not to talk of their being convicted. The conclusion that they are looters, therefore, cannot be correct and is most likely done for political expediency.

    “This inglorious step defies legal logic and is, even for those of the named persons who are facing criminal charges, defamatory. The Minister of Information, a lawyer, ought to know better and should have held himself back on this, no matter the alluring and extenuating circumstances in this case,”, he stated.

    Ubani explained that whether the step taken by Mohammed is legal, the question is: whether the disclosure is in response to a legal requirement or whether it is to satisfy a political desire? To the best of my knowledge, it was not in response to any legal requirement, but it was obviously to satisfy a political requirement as a result of a challenge thrown to the ruling party by the opposition party to mention names of those they claimed had looted Nigeria’s treasury.

    “My opinion, therefore, will be that as long as the disclosure was not made in accordance within  any known law or made to satisfy a legal requirement, it is clearly illegal, especially as those mentioned are undergoing trial and have not been convicted by the courts in the land,” he said.

    Ubani enunciated that the position of the law is that “anybody accused of any crime at any point in  time is “presumed innocent” until he or she is convicted by the court. This position applies even to those who are caught committing the said crime at the crime scene, and it also applies to those are alleged to have “returned” money. Those who confess to crime are taken to court to be appropriately tried  and convicted before they can be called “convicts”.

    “Even if they desire to enter into a plea bargain, the process is through the judiciary where the terms are properly executed and admitted as exhibit and judgement entered thereafter for record purposes. This procedural process are necessary in the criminal justice sector because of the stigma that attaches to those who are convicted by the court and so due and lawful process are expedient to avoid stigmatizing an innocent fellow.

    “As stated earlier, every accused person in the eyes of the law is presumed innocent, therefore disclosing the names of those who are undergoing trial as if they have been convicted is prejudicial and not a right step in the right direction”.

    Ubani advised that the criminal process be expedited so that the status of the accused persons can be known quickly to avoid making them look as convicts when they are not yet convicted by the court. “The courts must not be placed in an unnecessary difficulty in some of the cases presently before them, reason being that when these persons who are branded “looters” are discharged and acquitted after a thorough court trial where the ingredients of offence are not proved, the judiciary will be called names by the members of the public who have been  misled to belief that these accused persons  are already guilty through the disclosures”.

    The NBA Vice President said one could only name and shame those whom you had convicted or those who had entered into a plea bargain with the authorities, adding: “What the law requires the state to do in cases where crime has been committed, is to investigate, charge and arraign the suspects before a court of competent jurisdiction. You do not name and shame someone whom you have not investigated let alone convicted.

    “Chief Secondus, chairman of the opposition party, is a case in point. We have never heard about any investigation concerning his matter. The next thing we heard is that his name is among the names of the alleged looters. Has he ever been investigated by this government, let alone tried and convicted? However, his action for civil defamation may fail, if Mohammed, the minister can provide evidence to justify the inclusion, in other words “truth” is absolute defence in a case of defamation,” he noted.

    He added: “The government has put the fight against corruption on the front burner and that is commendable. But they must try as much as possible to follow due process, observe the laws of the land and sustain the political will to prosecute any person irrespective of political affiliation, religion or ethnicity who have one way or the other bled the treasury of our great country. It is an enormous responsibility, which every Nigerian expects this government to execute successfully since one of the primary reasons Nigerians voted massively for them was their promise to tackle corruption headlong before corruption kills Nigeria. We watch and wish them success.”

  • Much ado about Islamization

    SIR: The whole idea about ‘Islamization’ was surreptitiously introduced and later amplified, during the 2015 general election by desperate politicians, to sway gullible Christian population in their direction. There have always been two major religions in this country, but never in its political history, were people so polarized along religious dichotomy, as was the case during the last general election.

    There was this erroneous impression, in the build-up to that election in some quarters that an APC’s victory will lead to Islamization of the country. As unfounded as this sounded, some Christian leaders surprisingly bought into it and eventually indoctrinated their unsuspecting docile followers. Therefore, these rampant pretentious alerts on plans to Islamize the country, is a face-saving antic, orchestrated in a desperate effort to prove that their prediction was not after all crying of wolf. Though the price of peace is eternal vigilance, it is also instructive to add that unnecessary false alarm will vitiate such vigilance.

    But I think , this is a joke taken too far, as an average high school leaver knows that, most  key decisions in a constitutional democratic governance is always subjected through the crucibles of parliamentary processes, before approval is secured, upon obtaining a mandatory two third majority endorsement.

    Our National Assembly, as it is presently constituted, makes such a wild dream unrealistic, as even the least educated or the most fundamentalist member will dare not contemplate such possibility. Come to think of it, if the incumbent president did not Islamize the country when he was a de facto military head of state, how would such be possible in the present dispensation?

    Is this fear actually justified?  Is there any antecedent to warrant such presentiment? It is quite clear that mischief makers are at work, but what is puzzling, is their unwillingness to let go, after the election.

    Recall the aborted epochal June 12, 1993 presidential election, that featured an Abiola/Kingibe both Muslims, which received a nation-wide endorsement, with a purported overwhelming victory. Yes many have argued that, such a feat can no longer be possible again. This is a rather sad commentary of how contemporary politicians have divided us due to unconscionable politicking. It is a glaring fact that when politicians are deficit of issue-based campaigns, they become maudlin and whip up undue religious and ethnic sentiments.

    A couple of months ago, the media was awash with the news, about the purported removal of Christian Religious Studies (CRS), from the nation’s educational curriculum and the palpable fear of Islamization this evoked, was quite alarming. The whole story about this development was not told by those who raised the dust, as even Islamic Religious Studies (IRS), was equally delisted, yet there was no hullabaloo. The ignorance expressed, in not being able to differentiate between Islamic and Arabic studies cannot be excusable at all.

    See this interesting analogy: our numerical system is Arabic. Has it Islamized anybody?  English alphabetic writing system has Christian provenance, has it Christianized anybody? I am sure if these basic learning skills, were to be introduced today, there would be a caveat of what should not be embraced.

    Also, the recent introduction of Islamic non-interest banking system in Nigeria, has stirred a storm of controversy among some Christians. One wonders why it was embraced in even non-Muslim countries like India, South Africa, Germany, Canada, United States, Britain et al. The fact that Central Bank of Nigeria’s governor, Godwin Emefiele – a Christian, serves as the chairman of International Islamic Liquidity Management Cooperation (IILMC), raises concerns about the propriety of those casting aspersion on the banking system. In any case, if anyone feels threatened, it is only wise for a reputable organization like CAN to float similar interest free banks, after all even the Holy Bible frowns at receiving interest on loans.

    The fact that, the almighty God in His infinite wisdom has allowed plurality of religions ought to teach us the necessity of prudent management of our divergences, so as not to offend another’s sensibility. Both the Bible and Quran have emphatically harped on the need for a peaceful co-existence. Therefore, anyone who cunningly manipulates these differences in order to cause disaffection and disunity for selfish reasons acts in a clear violation of this holy injunction.

     

    • Itaobong Etim,

    Calabar.

  • Much ado about attire

    When agents of disunity can’t see beyond disunity, all they can see is disunity.  Perhaps this explains why the separatist group called Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) condemned specific Southeast governors for wearing “Hausa/Fulani” clothes in public.

    The group reacted to a meeting between Acting President Yemi Osinbajo and Igbo leaders at the Presidential Villa, which was prompted by divisive tendencies in the Southeast and the North.

    MASSOB leader Uchenna Madu said in a statement: “Although, MASSOB has respect and regard for Igbo governors, we openly disagree with them on certain moves that are against the general interest of our people. MASSOB condemns the attitude of Dave Umahi and Hon. Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, governors of Ebonyi and Enugu states, respectively, during the Igbo leaders’ meeting with Osinbajo, where they wore Hausa/Fulani traditional attire.”

    A report said: “The governors’ style of dressing had cast doubt on their ability to represent the interests of the Igbo, Madu observed. No Hausa/Fulani governor would ever appear in public with Igbo attire, the pro-Biafra activist stressed.”

    It is not quite clear what the group meant by “Hausa/Fulani traditional attire.” But its position clearly reflects intolerance, to put it diplomatically. To put it less diplomatically, the group’s position may suggest hate.

    It is unacceptable that the clothes the named governors chose to wear are unacceptable to the group. It shows how ludicrously far this group has progressed on the path of disunity.

    According to the report, “MASSOB also faulted the Federal Government for leaving out leaders of the pro-Biafra groups in  discussions with Igbo leaders over the agitation for Biafra, and the attendant quit ultimatum issued to Igbos in the North by some Northern groups. Madu noted that the activists, particularly leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, should have been at the meeting.”

    Why should they have been there? MASSOB and IPOB separatists didn’t deserve to be dignified by such inclusion. The two groups are living in blissful denial of their ultimate irrelevance; they are irritants inspired by an exaggerated and unrealistic sense of self-importance.

    This piece of information helps to define their hallucinatory perception:     “The MASSOB leader claimed the governors and other political, traditional, religious and opinion leaders that met with the Acting President were not actually in charge in Igboland.” So, these groups imagine that they are in charge. Well, they are free to imagine things, but need to be told that they are imagining things.

  • Much ado about a uniform

    Much ado about a uniform

    •The senate lacks the moral authority

    When the senate invited the Comptroller-General of the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS), Colonel Hameed  Ali (rtd), to appear before it to explain a controversial order requiring motorists to show proof of payment of the appropriate duties or pay up on demand, it was exercising the oversight function it is vested with by the Constitution.

    As such, the senate’s invitation was unexceptionable.

    The NCS’s drive for additional revenue is unexceptionable also, especially in a system riddled with leakages and corruption.  It has the unquestioned responsibility of ensuring collection of duties on imported goods and chasing down those it reasonably believes paid far less than the appropriate duty or evaded payment altogether.

    To that end, it launched what can only be called an indiscriminate ambush, demanding from motorists proof of payment of duties on vehicles that have for the most part changed hands several times over several years. That was carrying its revenue drive too far, and the Senate was right to call the NCS to order.

    It is not enough for the comptroller-general to suspend the controversial directive; he should rescind it and seek other sources of revenue that do not prey on the citizens buffeted by the recession. He must know, surely, that the practices he seeks to root out are often aided and abetted by his own officers and men, and that the crackdown should begin at home.

    That, more or less, is the course the matter should have followed.

    However, the whole thing degenerated into farce when the senate angrily walked the comptroller-general out on the curious ground that he had not come wearing his official uniform as the lawmakers had requested. The senate then set another date on which he must report in the comptroller-general’s full regalia.

    The uniform became the issue.

    At this point the embattled Customs chief served notice that he would no longer answer any summons because a lawsuit filed against him and the senate had rendered the whole thing sub judice. The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice wrote to the senate confirming the development and advising it to desist from further action.

    The senate’s reaction was nothing if not petulant. It disparaged the comptroller-general in language most un-parliamentary and demanded his resignation, failing which it urged President Muhammadu Buhari to dismiss him.

    This recourse is even more disturbing in the light of what is now known – that the senate had been engaged in self-dealing; that it had sought to evade payment of appropriate custom duties on an armoured SUV costing N300 million for the use of its leader, and all this in the time of recession, when the senate’s  high-living leaders already have at their disposal fleets of the finest automobiles provided  at the public expense.

    We wish Ali would don his official NCS uniform occasionally, if only to identify with its rank and file, regardless of whether he never belonged in the NCS, and regardless also of the fact he is a retired military officer specially appointed to the position by President Buhari. But the senate cited no law mandating him to wear the uniform, much less one requiring him to appear before the lawmakers decked out in that manner.

    The senate not only overreached; its conduct was overbearing. Its authority, real and presumed, now  stands tarnished. And when that authority was flouted by an official who has nothing to lose, the senate found, to its humiliation, that its power is limited.  This is in a way like the taming of the proverbial schoolyard bully finally confronted and worsted by a playmate who could take it no more.

    Power is most effective when sparingly invoked. The senate must learn to exercise its constitutional powers judiciously, without the indecorous tantrums and vacuous posturing that often characterise its proceedings, and the transactional calculations that usually inform its conduct.

    Above all, it needs to establish its moral authority rather than merely assert it, or expect the public to take it as given. A good way to start is to publish its budget and open its books to public scrutiny, as organs of the state are enjoined to do.

  • Much ado about prosecutorial powers

    Much ado about prosecutorial powers

    There is growing debate over whether the police should retain their prosecutorial powers. The Nigeria Police Force, NPF, is saying that it must be accorded the powers to prosecute criminal matters before the law courts. This may not be a wrong idea after all. Perhaps, it should be seen as a zealous desire by the NPF to be part of a justice system that is supposedly under reform. It can also be seen as an intention to ensure that ‘good police work’ is followed up with even better police prosecution. In that case, the public should be moved by what seems like a gallant effort to protect those powers.
    But make no mistake about it. The issue has been brewing for several years in the light of seeming incompetence of the police in prosecuting cases in the law courts. At any rate, the public is not fooled. The public is unmoved, but is only wary of police work in general and the entire justice system as a whole. In truth, there ought to be no controversy over this issue at all. The present round of debate was reignited recently by the Chief Judge of Delta State, Justice Marshall Umukoro, while speaking at the 2017 Aquinas Day Colloquium of Dominican Institute in Ibadan, where he suggested that the police should be stripped of all prosecutorial powers in order to stem its abuse of those powers.
    The fact is that this recently renewed call was not instigated by Justice Umukoro’s recommendation. A piece of legislation passed in 2015 as part of the apparent reformation of the justice system, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, ACJA, began the process by stating in section 106 that only qualified legal practitioners can prosecute criminal matters in the courts. This provision had already excluded “lay prosecutors” within the police force who have no legal training – evidenced by a call to the bar – from prosecuting criminal matters. This put to bed the Supreme Court pronouncement in F.R.N V Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (pt. 973) 361, which affirmed that all police prosecutors, with or without legal training, can prosecute cases in court. That case has been notoriously cited by the police when challenged in the past.
    It has been said that the police now employs many trained lawyers and as such may still actively prosecute cases through these trained officers. In truth, the trained officers are not so easily distinguishable from the lay prosecutors within the force. This is because they employ the same tactics and are motivated by the same factors, ending in the same results – needlessly endless prosecution, easily reversible convictions upon appeal, and dismissal/discharge of the accused for varying reasons connected to poor prosecution.
    There have also been reports of ‘soft padding’ of charges in exchange for pecuniary benefits that sometimes reach all the way to magistrates who, overtime, have developed improper relationships with police prosecutors within their jurisdiction. In short, the corrupting influence of the wider police force and their shoddy practices rubs off on all police prosecutors, trained or not. In the end, the real issue may not be about formal legal training of police prosecutors, but lack of confidence in the police force as a whole.
    Perhaps, it was in consideration of this that the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, Abubakar Malami, SAN, signed an order in August, 2016, going further to remove all powers of prosecution from the police, without exception. Even then, the police prosecutors continued to defy the order by the AGF who is considered as the Chief Prosecutor for all criminal matters, meaning that all powers of prosecution by any other person or body are derived from, and are at the instance of, the AGF. Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution grants the AGF wide powers to institute, take over or discontinue all prosecutions over any matter in any court in the land. The Supreme Court has acknowledged these wide powers in previous cases, describing the AGF as “a law unto himself” in this regard.
    Despite the mounting campaign to rid the justice system of police prosecutors, the police force has remained adamant for reasons undisclosed. Even if the ACJA left a window for continuation of prosecutions by trained police officers, surely the AGF has the power to remove that power, as all powers of prosecution are at his pleasure, so to say. This is why any kind of controversy or defiance by the police is not only unwarranted but perplexing from a legal stand point, especially on the back of the bad record of prosecutions recorded by police prosecutors till date.
    The lay prosecutors, some of whom may still be actively prosecuting cases, are no match for well-versed defence lawyers. Lay prosecutors are also unable, by force of law, to make replies to issues raised on points of law during trials. Their trained colleagues are not much better off as one would imagine. One should then ask: Why is the police so eager to continue prosecuting cases? Surely, there are many more demanding issues that require police attention.
    The argument against police prosecution goes beyond incompetence. It has been directly linked to the incidence of thousands of awaiting trial inmates who are arrested on sometimes flimsy grounds and have to remain remanded whilst the police saunter about courtrooms unsure of what charges to bring, or delay the proceedings indefinitely, aided by an overindulgent magistrate. Case files have been forgotten for years, and when they do get to trial, as Justice Umukoro pointed out in his speech, magistrates sometimes become assistant prosecutors, descending into the arena in what can only be described as a legal faux pas of the worst kind, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The police prosecutor becomes trapped in a routine that kills any legal ingenuity that he/she might have once possessed. One only needs to visit a courtroom to observe a police prosecutor in action, to understand what this means.
    While some, like Ahmed Raji, SAN, have said that the AGF cannot make an order of the kind made in August 2016, without the sanction of a federal government committee, it is clear that the issue needs to be put to bed. This should be done in the interest of the reform taking place and for clarity and uniformity. Although no legal provision qualifies the AGF’s powers in this regard, it is not unsurprising that everything in Nigeria is politicised.
    As an alternative system, Justice Umukoro advocated that a separate body responsible for prosecutions on behalf of the government should be created, similar to the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales. This is because there are too many agencies with power to prosecute, which sometimes overlap and lead to issues in the courts, thereby delaying proceedings. At the end, the move to strip police prosecutors of their powers is traceable to the need for swift and effective dispensation of justice. This is why the suggestion to create a specialised body with well-trained professionals may be a veritable option.
    The issue with this proposition, however, is the problem associated with the creation of yet another body, adding to the many government-funded and operated agencies already in existence. For this reason, a preliminary streamlining of already existing agencies involved in the justice system may make introduction of this new body less problematic. Alternatively, or in addition, a reformation of an already existing department like the Department for Public Prosecutions, DPP, can achieve the same objective.
    However, whatever step is taken going forward, the present reality where agencies of government jostle for “prosecutorial rights” is untidy, especially when it does not translate to well-prepared prosecutions. The police may function better if it focuses on investigations and works closely with dedicated professionals who handle the prosecutions. There are also bound to be fewer possibilities for abuse if the investigators and prosecutors are properly separated. This is why the federal government and the AGF need to align their intentions and put this matter to bed now before it graduates into a bigger problem for the justice system.

  • Much ado about minimum wage

    Much ado about minimum wage

    Workers umbrella body Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) opened the New Year with a demand for an upward review of the national minimum wage from N18, 000 to at least N56, 000 by the Federal Government. Labour is justifying its demand on the ground that a minimum wage review was overdue, reports TOBA AGBOOLA. 

    Governors’ position on new minimum wage

    Two years ago, the 36 state governors said they could no longer pay the minimum wage of N18, 000. Their reason was the dwindling allocations from the Federation Account.
    After their meeting under the aegis of the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF), at the Old Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa in Abuja, they said the falling prices of oil prices at the global market which reduced the revenue accruing to the Federal Government had taken a debilitating toll on their financial capabilities.
    In a communique read by the NGF chairman and governor of Zamfara State, Abdulaziz Yari, the governors said the wage burden became heavier after the price of a barrel of crude oil went below $40.
    Yari said: “We resolved that we must look at ways to enhance revenue generation and at the same time look at ways to cut our overhead costs, more especially, the political office holders’ salaries and other overhead expenses.
    “The situation is no longer the same when we were asked to pay N18, 000 minimum wage, when oil price was $126 (per barrel) and continued paying N18,000 minimum wage when the oil is $41 and the source of government expenditure is from oil, and we have not seen prospects in the oil industry in the near future.
    “We will diversify our economy in the area of agriculture and mining. But, at the same time, we should understand our situation where some of us (states) today are taking N100 million take home (monthly allocation) and then have salaries in particular of over N2 billion to pay.”
    Analysts have cautioned the Federal Government against repeating past mistakes by unilaterally reviewing and fixing a new minimum wage without input from the federating units.
    They said the federal authority erred in 2011 by imposing a minimum wage on the states and local government areas without recourse to their capacities to pay. But, the unions have dismissed the governors’ argument as puerile, claiming that none of the governors who could not afford the minimum wage, offered to slash his salaries, or discontinue with the humongous security votes that are never accounted for.

    FRESH demands by organised labour for a new minimum wage for workers beginning from May 1 may have set the stage for a clash between the three tiers of government and labour unions.
    The workers’ unions – the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) and United Labour Congress (ULC) – have requested for a new minimum wage for every worker on government payroll.

    What is a minimum wage?

    It is the lowest remuneration that an employer will legally pay to those on the payroll. Equivalently, it is the price floor below which no employee will sell his labour to employers.
    Despite the parlous state of the economy, the unions have set …….as deadline for upward review of the minimum wage, which according to them was overdue.
    The downturn in the economy has put workers on their knees to sell their labour for pittance.
    But the unions’ New Year demand came at a time no fewer than 26 state governors cannot meet their monthly obligations to the workers. They have been unable to pay salaries as at when due, with some owing between two and six months.
    The Federal Government, which gave bailout to the states in 2015, was forced to reimburse the states with their shares of the Paris Club’s refund before the close of last year. It urged the governors to give priority to workers’ salaries in the application of the funds.
    Workers in the country have been at the receiving end of the global economic downturn and Nigeria’s economic challenges triggered by falling oil prices at the international market.
    The declining value of the naira against the dollar and rising prices of goods have compounded the workers’ woes as the N18,000 minimum wage can no longer take them home.
    The National Minimum Wage Act, signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan, prescribed a N18, 000 as the minimum monthly wage for workers on Grade Level 1, Step 1.
    When converted to dollars at the prevailing official and black market rates, N18, 000 is far below $100.
    In the United States (U.S.), the minimum wage per hour is about $8. Impliedly, working eight hours daily and five days weekly, an average worker goes home with $320, an amount higher than three months’ salary for the a worker in Nigeria.

    Minimum wage history

    The history of minimum wage in Nigeria is inseparable from that of its public service negotiations and increments, beginning from the colonial era and the setting up of Hunts Commission in 1934.
    It is, however, noteworthy that the first National Minimum Wage Act was enacted in 1981, prescribing a minimum wage of N125 per month. It was contained in Federal Government of Nigeria Official Gazette 1981, A53-57.
    From N125 per month, the minimum wage was reviewed to N250 in 1991 and there was yet another revision in 2000, taking the mini­mum wage to N5, 500 per month. , The last review was done in 2011 when it was increased to N18, 000 per month.
    The Justice Alfa Belgore Committee had on July 1, 2010, submitted a Bill on the National Minimum Wage Amendment to the National Assembly and recommended N18, 000 as the national minimum wage for all establishments in the public and private sectors employing 50 workers and above.
    Other recommendations in the Belgore report include: an upward review of the sanctions that would serve as a deterrent for not paying the new national minimum wage including a fine not exceeding N100, 000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both, and in the case of continuing the offence, a fine of N10,000 for each day during which the offence continues and a more frequent review period not exceeding five years to be carried out by a statutory tripartite committee that would be appointed from time to time by the President.
    The Bill was passed into Law on March 15, 2011 by both chambers of the National Assembly with minor adjustments that included:
    •That as from the commencement of the National Minimum Wage Act 2011, it shall be the duty of every employer to pay a wage not less than the national minimum wage of N18, 000 per month to every worker under his employment and the penalty for failing to pay minimum wage is N20, 000 while the penalty for every additional day the default continues is N1000.
    However, six years after it was adopted, the minimum wage has become inadequate in the face of rising inflation and the sustainable budgets for all the family income levels as well as the international benchmarks of the United Nations (UN).
    Notwithstanding the inadequacy, there has been no uniform compliance with in the application of the minimum wage by the three tiers of government. Each of the tiers has a unique salary structure for its workers. In Enugu State, workers at the state and local government levels get 18,500 as minimum wage, whereas, their colleagues of Federal Government’s payroll get N18, 900. In Osun State, the minimum wage is N19, 000.

    NLC, minister respond

    Reacting to the NGF position, the NLC urged any governor who could not afford to pay the minimum wage to resign without delay. Speaking through its President, Ayuba Wabba, the NLC warned that any attempt to renege on the payment of the national minimum wage will be tantamount to breaking the law of the land.
    Wabba said: “They have been misinforming the people about the N18, 000 minimum wage. Minimum wage is not fixed. It was negotiated through a tripar­tite system; ten state governors represented the governors, the Federal Government and organised private sector were also represented. It was a tripartite process of collective bargaining.
    “We had looked at all the indices of ability to pay. It is a law and anybody that refuses to pay is breaking the law of Nigeria and we advise any such governor to resign.
    “Why is it that the salaries of councillors to the highest political office all over the country remain the same? If there is economic challenge, why should it be the workers that will bear the burden? So, who are they fooling?
    “Can they continue to fool us? When the resources were there, workers were not enjoying. Now that there is a challenge in the system, why should the burden be shifted only to the workers? That is not acceptable to us. This is like a battle for us as we must continue to insist that workers should work in dignity and there must be dignity in labour.”
    To Labour & Employment Minister Chris Ngige, the governors were only playing politics by saying that they could not cope with the N18, 000 as minimum wage. He advised them to be creative in revenue generation.
    Ngige, who spoke at a meeting with the NLC leadership in Abuja, added that both labour and the governors should be blamed for the state of the workers.
    He said: “When the NLC joined the governors in talking about minimum wage with the governors saying ‘we cannot pay N18, 000 minimum wage and NLC saying it is time for us to ask for increase’, we know that these talks are talks that are heating up the system.
    “The NLC knows better that the governors are playing politics. This is one matter that you cannot play politics with because it is a matter of rule of law.

    The NLC May 1 ultimatum

    The NLC has given Federal Government a May 1 deadline to begin the implementation of the N56, 000 as a new national minimum wage, failing which it threatened nationwide strike.
    Speaking with The Nation, Wabba, decried the non-inclusion of the new wage increase in the N7.298 trillion Budget proposal for this year.
    The estimate, presented by President Muhammadu Buhari to the joint session of the National Assembly, is being scrutinised by the lawmakers for approval.
    The NLC chief, who decried the poor remuneration of the average worker amidst economic recession, argued that the Congress could not guarantee industrial peace if the government failed to raise a tripartite committee for the implementation of the new minimum wage on or before May 1, 2017.
    “The issue of minimum wage remains sacrosanct because by law and practice, the review is due and overdue. I have said clearly that we cannot guarantee any industrial peace any longer if necessary steps are not taken by government to try to resolve this issue before the next May Day. This is very clear because as we said, we have sent formal notice of demand as required by law to government to try to constitute the committee.
    “Essentially, the committee to dialogue and negotiate the minimum wage which is supposed to be tripartite has not been set up. If it is set up, all of you will be aware of the membership and also their terms of reference and the timeline given to them to actually dispose with this very vital issue.
    “The issue is so sensitive because of the fact that a lot of our members have actually been subjected to a lot of difficulties because the purchasing power of ordinary Nigerian workers has been reduced to virtually nothing because of the inflation in the system, the free fall of the naira and to compound it, the high cost of goods and services. More so, most workers now cannot meet up with their daily needs, they can’t pay their rents; they can’t send their children to school.
    “It is even more compounded because the cost of goods and services had gone up. So, side by side with the issue of fighting corruption, is also for workers to be paid a decent wage that they can be able to have a meaningful living, so, this is the challenge.” the NLC President lamented.
    Reacting to the allocation of funds for the new minimum wage in the 2017 Budget, the NLC chieftain expressed optimism that the Federal Government and National Assembly will see reason to accommodate the fund when the tripartite agree on the new national minimum wage.
    “They must see reason to try to accommodate it because the fact is very obvious that it is legitimately due both in law and practice and therefore this is our approach. Once it is mutually agreed and from the statements I have listened to, I have not heard government say that they are not willing to consider the issue of minimum wage. I think the minister of Labour has said it very clearly that they are committed to reviewing the minimum wage, but when is the issue now.
    “Therefore, let us not mix the two things. Is there a resistant to say that there will be no review of minimum wage? I am not sure I have heard that because by our constant interaction, the government has through the minister of Labour said they are also willing to review the minimum wage.
    “As I said earlier, we have made a formal demand, written and therefore if there is the need to review the template, we will do that at the table but that will have to be jointly. What we have submitted is N56, 000 and therefore that N56, 000 is still valid,” Wabba said.
    The NLC General Secretary, Peter Ozo-Eson, backed the call for the establishment of a tripartite committee so as to review and agreed on a new minimum wage.
    According to him, the N56, 000 minimum wage proposal was no more tenable because it was arrived at when the economy situation was not as bad as this.
    Ozo-Eson told The Nation: “The issue of minimum wage remains sacrosanct because of the fact that by law and practice, the review is due and overdue. We have said it clearly that we cannot guarantee any industrial peace any longer if necessary steps are not taken by government to try to resolve this issue this year.
    “This is very clear because as we said, we have sent a formal notice of demand as required by law to government to constitute the committee.
    “The tripartite committee that should dialogue and negotiate the minimum wage has not been set up. If it is set up, all of you will be aware of its composition and terms of reference.”
    Ozo-Eson expressed doubt if labour would still stick to the N56, 000 minimum wage demand because of the prevailing economy situation.
    He said the proposal was made some years back when the economy was in good health, adding that the meeting between the stakeholders would address the matter.
    His words: “We made the N56, 000 proposal as at the time the situation was not as worst as this. A lot of things have changed; prices of things have gone up. So, what we propose then was based on the situation on ground. “These are the things the tripartite meeting will address.
    Ozo-Eson said the current N18, 000 minimum wage was approved seven years ago after the tripartite meeting.
    “Seven years ago, the current minimum wage of N18, 000 was reviewed from N5, 500 after the tripartite meeting, which also included both the private and the public.
    “After the N18, 000 agreement, the new proposal was sent to the National Assembly for approval. So, we expect that it will go this way also,” Ozo-Eson said.

    ULC seeks N96,000
    minimum wage

    The newly-formed United Labour Congress (ULC) is strongly forging ahead with its request for the implementation of N96, 000 minimum wage for workers.
    Speaking with The Nation, President of the ULC, Joe Ajaero, insisted that N96, 000 will be the acceptable minimum wage for the Nigerian workers in the present economic circumstances.
    According to him, the ULC has presented the proposal to the Federal Government for consideration.
    Ajaero explained that the economic reality has made it imperative for the federal and state governments to dialogue with organised labour for the immediate implementation of the new minimum wage.
    He said that ULC has mobilised workers to begin a national protest beginning from January 31 if the government failed to discuss and dialogue with the organised labour.
    The unionist said that workers have been at the receiving end of the economic policies rolled out by the government last year. Workers, he claimed, have lost their purchasing power, with millions sacked by their employers.
    He urged the federal and state governments to intiate policies that would improve workers’ living standard, protect their jobs and create employment opportunities.

    Fed Govt responds
    to labour proposal

    “Will the Federal Government agree to labour’s demand?” This is the questions agitating the minds of many workers.
    Though Federal Government had at its last parley with labour leaders, proposed N45, 000 new minimum wage as against NLC’s N56, 000 proposal.
    But the increase came with some provisions, including the reduction in the number of civil servants and merging ministries and agencies.
    Rather than take the news with enthusiasm, it was received with skepticism. Some Nigerians expressed doubt if the government could cope with an increment in minimum wage.
    The Presidency has not responded to the labour proposal.
    In his address, the President, who was represented by Senator Ngige, also lamented the economic challenges facing the country.
    Investigation reveals the average Nigerian worker today is 400 per cent poorer than he was when N18, 000 was introduced as minimum wage.
    Today, the economy is troubled and the naira has lost its value. The workers purchasing power has been eroded with rising inflation.
    But is this the best time for the leadership of labour to demand for pay rise for workers?

  • Much ado about spokesmen

    Simeon Ateba, the irrepressible journalist, blogger and advocate, sure knows how to stir the Facebook community with his provocative postings. When he wrote that he was hearing speculations that I may be named as the media spokesperson for President Muhammed Buhari, I had a good laugh.

    I didn’t have to worry why he took the speculations seriously to write about it. I took the posting as his own way of stirring up a discussion on the kind of person that should be appointed to replace the former spokesperson, Dr Reuben Abati.

    I remember thanking Ateba for thinking highly of me being qualified to be named for the media aide job but noted that I am in no way close to President Buhari and his associates to be considered for the job. More so, I added that I do not desire the position for any reason.

    By then, I was myself aware of speculations that the president would either retain Malam Garba Shehu the spokesperson of his campaign organisation or name the Managing Director of Sun Newspapers and President of the Guild of Editors, Mr Femi Adesina.

    For reasons best known to the president, he decided to name the two experienced journalists and triggered off a controversy over his decision. Although they both have different designations and one is senior to the other, not many were persuaded of the need for two spokespersons. There were those who felt there was bound to be a clash between the two appointees except there is a clear delineation of duties.

    I wasn’t initially convinced myself that Adesina should quit his Sun Newspapers’ position for the Special Adviser’s post until I read his valedictory column in which he noted that he was ready to make a sacrifice to serve the nation.

    The appointment of Pastor Laolu Akande as spokesperson for Vice President Yemi Osinbajo also attracted reactions over his choice, considering that he has been based in the United States for years. Why not appoint one of the many capable media hands in the country? Some have wondered.

    I am sure anyone who takes time to read Akande’s profile will have no doubt about his suitability given his local and international media experience.

    Much as the choice of who is named spokesperson is important, their ability to perform their tasks will depend on how well the presidency lives up to the expectations of the public.

    It is not enough that President Buhari has chosen one of the best journalists in the country to be the head of his media team as he stated during his meeting with State House Correspondents, it is up to him to make it easy for Adesina and others to defend the government’s policies.

    The media team should be involved in policy decision-making as much as possible and carried along at every stage of implementation instead of making them to defend policies they don’t know much about.

    I have no doubt that the spokespersons will do their best to justify their appointments, but the president and vice president should not expect that they will be able to ward off every negative publicity.

    What is important is that the spokespersons have necessary information to provide government’s reaction on any subject of interest to the media instead of having to decline to comment when they are contacted.

  • Much ado about a pardon

    SIR: There has been such a hue and cry about the pardon of Chief Diepriye Alamieyeseigha, a lot of it unnecessary. Even the US was a bit hypocritical in its condemnation of the pardon considering that the country has a history of controversial pardons.

    For one, the popular President Clinton was roundly criticised for his pardon of Marc Rich whose ex – wife had contributed significant sums of money to Clinton’s campaign and his presidential library. Earlier in his career, Clinton had criticized President Gerald Ford for granting President Nixon a pardon in relation to the Watergate scandal. Clinton later tendered something of an apology to President Ford admitting that Ford was right. Clinton himself was to stumble later in his career.

    There is something to be learnt from the Clinton story. Who is to say that those crying the loudest now are not themselves in need of the pardon. Although nothing has been proved against him, the Farouk Lawan story should teach us a lesson how tables turn so easily in life. More than anything else, Alamieyeseigha is the beneficiary of some good luck, why sit in judgment over him?

    In a country where amnesty is granted to those who commit serious crimes, where revered leaders call for amnesty to be granted to religious extremists who daily blow up unarmed citizens, what moral authority do we have as a nation to condemn a pardon? Maybe we should pardon everyone and begin afresh as a nation.

    I wish that the amount of energy citizens put into condemning a pardon could be put into initiatives for reforming the justice system, particularly the criminal justice and penal systems. We have people who spend their whole lives awaiting trial, young men and women locked up for years on end for bogus charges preferred by prosecutors who have no intention whatsoever of prosecuting the matter. We have a prison system that is not designed to reform anyone but that ensures that the convict for drug offences becomes a murderer tomorrow; a system that hardens those who pass through it.

    Can we, by legislation, fashion a system that makes it difficult for a governor to steal even if he wants to? A system that makes all of the the state’s financial information and records as accessible to the janitor as they are to the governor? A system that plugs loopholes in public procurement laws, that reduces profligacy in government? Let more citizens come together to sponsor more bills like the Freedom of Information Act. Let’s propose ideas to make our court system more efficient, let’s demand that more judges who are worth their salt are appointed, that the Police Force be totally reformed. Let those who have finances sponsor those who have the knowledge and motivation and let’s work towards these goals. Let’s please stop wasting so much energy on just one case of pardon. Let’s quit being a reactionary citizenry.

    We talk about corruption and abuse of power but even in the private sector I see so much of these. From the clerk who demands or expects a tip to do his job to the bank teller who encourages friends and acquaintances to beat the queue, one experiences little doses of corruption and abuse of power almost on a daily basis. So before we shout ourselves hoarse condemning a pardon, let’s ask ourselves: are we really free of guilt? Does anyone really believe that Alamieyeseigha’s conviction was part of a war against corruption? That it was a deterrent to greedy governors? I believe it was more of a warning to governors not to get on the wrong side of the ‘oga at the top’.

    Let no one begrudge Diepriye Alamieyeseigha. Pardon is a beautiful thing. Should I stand in need of it, I hope to get one one day. I wonder if you don’t.

    • Soala Jumbo

    Port Harcourt