Odd Things do happen. Whenever they do, their strangeness is not lost on the people. It is an oddity for a man not bitten by a rabid dog to start barking like a dog. Humans do not walk on their heads, but with their legs. So, when you see a person walking on his head or on all fours, that is with his hands and legs, you do not need to be told that, that is strange.
The strangeness of a thing confounds us. When 18 years ago, a Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, the Rivers State capital, granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from arresting, detaining, investigating and prosecuting former Governor Peter Odili, many Nigerians were shocked to the marrows.
They kept wondering why the court would stop an agency created by law from doing its job. It was strange. It was not only the order that was strange. It was also strange that such an application was filed. Granted that lawyers can bring any application, no matter how frivolous, but this one was in a class of its own.
There is a limit to the filing of nonsensical matters. These are cases that can rouse the public to take to the streets to call for the heads of those involved, be they lawyers or litigants. Since many lawyers are ready to take any brief because of filthy lucre, they refrain from advising their clients to file certain matters.
As long as the money is good, they promise their clients heaven and earth and in some cases, even assure them that they would see (euphemism for inducement) the judge and everything would go well (meaning that they would win). It was out of fear that Odili went to court to stop the EFCC from inviting him to give account of his eight-year tenure as governor of Rivers State (1999-2007).
Read Also: INEC delineation: Uproar as Itsekiris shutdown 28,000 bpd facility in Delta
It is standard practice elsewhere for elected office holders to give account of their stewardship at regular intervals. It is not so here. Our elected officers are above the law. It is taboo for them to render account. Who dares ask them to do that? They are easily irritated by such requests. For a reporter to ask governors, especially, certain questions can land him in trouble. The reporter may be abducted from his state of residence and taking to the governor’s state to face prosecution (or is it persecution?) for such temerity.
Why did Odili act out of fear? Does he have something to hide? What is it? If he had done well, would he entertain any fear? By his action, Odili gambled wth the law and won. For 18 years, he played on our collective intelligence and we all looked on without asking questions. Why should any man whether a former governor or not go to court and seek to stop his arrest and investigation without any lawful reason?
Odili did not state his right that will be breached if he is arrested and investigated. No man is above the law, no matter the post he once held or he is presently holding. There is equality before the law, but unfortunately, our society has made it to look as if we are not all equal before the law, with the way the rich and mighty are preferentially treated. How many ordinary Nigerians can bring that kind of Odili’s application and have their way in court?
To start with, do they even have the enormous resources to file, through a senior advocate, such a vexatious application, which does not require a second thought before being thrown out by the court? Odili had his way for 18 years. Now, the EFCC has woken up from its slumber. It is ready to challenge Odili and his odd order.
It must be put on record that Odili was aided by successive Rivers State administrations which have since 2007 frustrated every attempt to appeal the high court verdict. The last ploy by Rivers to frustrate the case failed at the Supreme Court in February. What were the appellants praying for? They wanted the apex court to quash the Appeal Court’s order granting EFCC leave to appeal the high court’s verdict out of time.
Without mincing words, presiding Justice John Okoro told the appellants: “this is not the kind of appeal that we hear here”. Following the withdrawal of the motion, he directed the appellants back to the Appeal Court for the hearing of the ‘substantive appeal’. But did EFCC not contest Odili’s case at the high court? What was its position there? Did it support or oppose Odili’s case? If it opposed the case, did the court take the agency’s position into consideration before perpetually restraining it from arresting, detaining, investigating and prosecuting Odili?
It will be interesting to see how this case pans out at the Appeal Court. Former elected officers should never be allowed to dictate their terms of engagement with the society after leaving office. They should rather be made to render account of their stewardship. By so doing, the society will be better off.
