The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Rule of law

  • Rule of law as a bogey

    Rule of law as a bogey

    Defining ‘the rule of law’, has suddenly become akin to the job of coaching our national football team. Some Nigerians, particularly, sympathisers of the bandit-elite, that has serially raped our national treasury, have turned budding experts. For this group, granting of bail on liberal terms, as a lawyer would urge the court in favour of a client, is their measure of the application of the rule of law. Probably because, many in the past had brazenly stolen from the public purse, without paying any price, the effort by President Muhammadu Buhari’s government, to get people to account for their action, is strange. And so, these Nigerians, psychologically deflated over the years, are involuntarily siding those on trial, against the state.

    Tragically, even those now scandalized by the contents of the can of worms, that we are daily assailed with, may eventually show little patience, as the marathon effort through the courts, to clean-up the can of worms, begin to drag. The Vice President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, vividly put it in grim perspective, when he compared the number of Nigerians in jail, with that of the United States. As he remarked, it is either Nigerians are not engaged in as much criminal activities as that other country, or that our system is just plain ineffective. I guess, our system is infective, and our treasury looters, know as much.

    But what is the rule of law? According to one of the earliest authority on this subject, A. V. Dicey, the rule of law, means, first, “the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power… a man may with us be punished for a breach of the law, but he can be punished for nothing else”; second, “equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary laws of the land administered by the ordinary courts”; and thirdly, “a formula for expressing the fact that the law of the constitution … are … the consequence of the rights of individuals, as defined by the courts”.

    So far, the Buhari administration has not shown any predilection for breach of the rule of law, in the fight against corruption; as it cannot be accused, fairly, of having breached any of the encompassing definition by A. V. Dicey. The error that some Nigerians have fallen into, is to equate the rule of law, with ineffectiveness and lackadaisical attitude of state officials, in the fight against corruption. Those in this category, for instance, prefer that the federal government lay all the charges against former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki and the spokesman of the Peoples Democratic Party, in a single information-sheet, so that once the accused secures a bail, which the court is constitutionally enjoined to grant; predictably, the accused, his family and well-wishers will start a procession, singing and dancing back home, to mock our ineffective legal system.

    Surely, that expectation is not one of the requirements of the rule of law. I mean a requirement that the state, should make the prosecution of an alleged felon, as easy and as comfy as possible, for the felon. The rule of law envisages that the law be absolute, that it should be clear and unequivocal, that no person should have arbitrary power, whether express or discretionary, that one can only be punished for a breach of the law, that all men are equal before the law, regardless of class or social standing, and that the constitution is autochthonous and enforced only by courts.

    While chapter IV of the 1999 Nigeria’s constitution, as amended, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the European Convention on Human Rights, Rome, 1950, the African Conference on the Rule of law, Lagos, 1961, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, Banjul, 1981, all sought to engrave in laws, the fundamental principles enunciated by A. V.Dicey; none I dare say, envisaged the level of depravity and savage ransacking of a national treasury, that has regrettably become the lot of Nigeria.

    But even while tasking the patience of the long suffering Nigerians, by waving the flag of the universal basic human rights, albeit, without the corresponding inherent universal basic human behaviour, the rule of law do not expect, the state authority, in its fight with any alleged felon, to be a light-hearted contest. The state without gain saying, is at liberty to apply all the tricks within the books, to reign in gross impunity, especially where the alleged grand larceny and malfeasance is such that if unchecked, could torpedo the state, the very custodian and protector of the universal human rights.

    In essence, when the state decides to severally arrest and charge Patrick AKpobolokemi, the former boss of NIMASA, or any of his kind, for multiple act of malfeasance, instead of a one-off arrest, and a single information sheet, that would have made it easier for him; the charge of breaching ‘the rule of law’, is borne out misrepresentation of law and facts. Indeed, to make it easy for him and his comrades-in-arm, who have allegedly looted out common treasury, is to breach the rule of law; particularly the provision that a man should be punished for a breach of the law.

    While Nigerians should be active, and on the watch, to ensure that under President Buhari’s government or any other, that no man is “punished for nothing”, that no person because of class, religion or ethnicity is treated differently before the law, and that no extraneous standard apart from the constitution or other laws, is used in the exercise of public power; nobody should misconstrue the decision by a prosecution agency, to file multiple charges for multiple offences, or the excise of the discretionary powers by a Judge, to grant stringent bail conditions, for grievous allegations of malfeasance against the state, as a breach of the rule of law.

    Listening to Mr Ibrahim Magu, the acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the penultimate Wednesday, as he boldly laid his plan of action, against the vampires and marauders that has raped our national treasury, during his visit to The Nation Newspaper, I got the hunch that Nigeria needs to expand her prisons. But of course, successfully prosecuting many of the cases won’t be easy, with the strict legal requirement that all allegations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; and with many of the stealing orchestrated through third parties, labyrinths of companies, and what have you.

    I am sure many Nigerians are looking forward to, how much can be recovered from the looters of our national treasury. While naming and shaming looters, also helps to soothe our traumatised society, there has to be a multifaceted approach to deal with this national crisis. Such approach should include a transparent resort to section 270 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which makes provision for plea bargain, albeit advisedly. With our prisons severely congested with only 56,785 inmates, out of which 38,734 persons, are awaiting trial (2014), the challenge facing PMB’s government in its effort to return Nigeria, to a sane part, is egregiously enormous.

  • In the court of public opinion: Anti-corruption versus rule of law?

    Those calling for the supremacy of rule of law, regardless of the justness of the law or of the ethicality of the interpreter of the law, may be overlooking the danger that the call for strict constructionist view of the concept may hold.

    One of the most insidious of mythological civic narratives is that our leaders are selfless public servants serving a higher call and order. In a lesser quoted part of Lord Acton’s power/corruption axiom, he offers the chilling statement: “There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” Generally, people employed in the public sector are not selfless public servants. They are simple people whose job it is to serve the public. They work for the public, but does that really ennoble them? By the evidence of corruption and venality arrayed about us, the answer must be emphatically, “No.” Yet we still fall prey to the mythology. High public office…. allows some to convince themselves and project to the world that they are all that!  No one is all that—and most everyone, including most everyone in public life, is a whole lot less than all that. And that is okay. But it is also why transparency is so very important— Joseph Ferguson in a foreword to Transparent Government: What it means and how you can make it happen by Donald Gordon.

    One word that is ubiquitous today in print, broadcast, and social media, more than ever before, is Rule of Law. Not since the death of Umaru Yar’Adua, a president who included running a government in compliance with the rule of law in his presidential mission, has the lofty phrase been so popular. When a word is repeated as frequently as rule of law has been since the new government’s efforts to fight corruption by investigating and prosecuting individuals who are suspected to have abused the country’s financial management principles and values, ordinary citizens who are not members of the bar or the bench should be wary. Like some of those who requested me to comment on ‘media-hyping’ of this phrase, I am tempted to look at George Orwell’s 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

    In Orwell’s essay, he raised many issues about the relationship between words and the meanings they are intended to convey. He said among other things: “Our civilisation is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse…. Political language — and with this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Orwell’s assertion that political speech is more often used to conceal than to inform and often used to justify the unjustifiable may apply to today’s obsession by pundits in both traditional and social media with the rule of law as if it is an ideology-free concept.

    Are these two words: anti-corruption and the rule of law mutually exclusive or should they be bandied about as if each refers to something that is oppositional to the other? Partisan politicians are enthusiastic in emphasising the importance of rule of law at the expense of fighting corruption. In some cases, some media pundits are even asking President Buhari to refrain from fighting corruption, if doing so might jeopardise the non-negotiability of the rule of law. Understandably, ordinary citizens seem to be confused by calls for privileging of rule of law principle over rejection of corruption, even though the two camps are presumably shooting for the same thing, good governance.

    Two issues that have been raised by those who see themselves as whistleblowers against acts that show lack of respect for the rule of law since the beginning of the ongoing fight against corruption is the fact that some who have been given bail by the courts are denied the benefit of bail by the federal government. Undoubtedly, it is not encouraging for any government to do anything to suggest that it does not respect the independence of the judiciary. But one area that is often ignored is that the judiciary, like other sectors of the polity and society, also has its own bad eggs as it is in all professions and occupations in the land.

    Borrowing Joseph Ferguson’s concept of mythological civic narrative and Lord Acton’s assertion: “There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it, “it is logical to say that many of the politicians and media pundits who make efforts to privilege the principle of rule of law over the imperative of identifying, investigating, and prosecuting individuals caught with corrupt acts assume that the judiciary is right all the time. If time is taken to do forthright judicial criticism, it will be demonstrated that many judges use the space of discretion at their disposal to favour those accused of criminal behaviour and the sabotage of the state. For example, if it was not for the Administration of Criminal Act 2015, cases that have been put in the cooler in the name of rule of law since 2006 would not have seen the light of day, as they are now doing at the instance of the EFCC. The rule of law must protect all citizens. This is why most commentators emphasise equality before the law as the core of the political ideology that the law is the king as opposed to the king being law.

    It is citizens at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in particular who have not enjoyed the principle of equality before the law that are now querying in letters to the editor section of newspapers and on blogs the new obsession with the rule of law on account of time between the approval of bail and the actual release of suspects by law enforcers. The masses seem to be wondering if the word rule of law is to conceal rather than to reveal, whether the repetition of the phrase is not an attempt to take attention away from efforts to fight corruption. Citizens who are enraged by the absurdity of appropriation of funds meant for improvement of the life of all or to fight Boko Haram’s war against the nation are worried that the elite are doing what they have always done best: create confusion or distraction in order to prevent any meaningful intervention by those committed to deter corruption through a crime and punishment initiative.

    President Buhari may not have provided a grand narrative of how he plans to govern the country, he has, undoubtedly, clearly stated that no change can come to the economy if and until looters of the economy and the polity in the past are made to return their loot. Many people would argue that If President Buhari had any personal interest in keeping certain persons in jail over the mismanagement of $2.1 billion approved for the purchase of arms to fight Boko Haram, he would or could have given those involved in the case a graver charge. They could have been charged for sabotaging the country at a time of war and thus endangering the population. And doing this would have kept everybody involved in jail until their innocence is proven, as such charge would fall under the category of capital offence.

    Historically, the ritualistic conceptualisation of rule of law had been challenged in the past in many societies. Thomas Paine once said in “Common Sense” that unjust laws threaten the religiosity of the rule of law, just as Henry David Thoreau said in “Civil Disobedience”: “Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness.” Those calling for the supremacy of rule of law, regardless of the justness of the law or of the ethicality of the interpreter of the law, may be overlooking the danger that the call for strict constructionist view of the concept may hold. At a time that corruption has almost brought the country to bankruptcy and international receivership, it is necessary for pundits to be guided by Lord Acton’s axiom that the office may not sanctify the holder. In all the branches of government in our country: executive, legislative, and judicial, the office does sanctify the holders. The two bills being sent by the presidency to NASS may just be a good beginning in the journey to kill corruption before corruption kills the country along with the rule of law.

  • Rule of law and arrogance of corruption

    It is no longer news that President Muhammadu Buhari abhors corruption like a plague. He, indeed, made the war against corruption one of the focal points of his electioneering campaigns. At every opportunity, he told Nigerians: “If we don’t kill corruption, corruption will kill us”. That, of course, underscores the endemic and institutionalized nature of corruption in our nation.

    In Nigeria, corruption is worse than any killer disease one can ever think of. From independence till date, corruption has been bad news for our country. It has been estimated that over $300bn have either been outrightly stolen or misappropriated by government officials and their collaborators since the advent of the current political dispensation in 1999.

    Buhari would have none of that. For him, corruption must die for our nation to live. Now, true to his promise and, perhaps, true to type, Buhari has begun to tackle corruption headlong as evident in the various on-going corruption trials and investigations in the country. Revelations from such investigations, as usual, have been mindboggling. Weird disclosures concerning the arms scandal in particular, is quite nauseating.  That a group of Nigerians could boldly divert money meant for such vital national needs as purchase of arms for soldiers fighting insurgency to other use, is a reflection of how low we have sunk as a people. It is, therefore, a welcome development that legitimate means are being used to bring perceived culprits in the arms deal saga to book. The only thing that evil needs to thrive in any given society is for evil to constantly go unpunished.

    But then, for the President to actually succeed in his war against corruption, he has a big hurdle to cross. This hurdle is called the rule of law. Universally, the rule of law operates on the legal theory that law should govern a nation and not capricious verdicts of ‘powerful’ individuals.  The rule of law underlines the power and weight of law within society, principally as a restraint upon behaviour, including that of public officials. Democracy and the rule of law are mutually interwoven. For democracy to sufficiently thrive in any country, the supremacy of the rule of law must be jealously guarded. The guiding principle behind the rule of law is the prevention of anarchy and the creation of a just society where everyone is equal before the law. The rule of law presupposes that no lawbreaker must go unpunished.

    From the foregoing, it could be affirmed, at least in theory, that the rule of law provides a legal framework for Buhari to wage his war against corruption. Since supposed looters of the treasury have actually acted in defiance of the law, the law must take its toll on them. But it is not really that simple as the rule of the law equally protects alleged looters of the nation’s economy from arbitrary persecution and prosecution. This is the beauty of the principle of the rule of law. Since offence allegedly committed by the perceived looters is yet to be substantially proven before a competent court of law, they are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

    This, however, is the dilemma of Buhari in his war against corruption. Over the years, corruption has found comfort in the provision of the rule of law to strengthen its evil hold on the nation. So, all it takes for an alleged corrupt individual to escape from or frustrate the wheel of justice is to hire a brilliant legal luminary who understands the strength and weakness of the law and uses same to the full advantage of his client. Since corruption has given the alleged looter enormous access to ill-gotten wealth, money is not likely to be a problem in the scheme to subvert justice. On the long run, rather than the law taking care of corruption, corruption takes care of the law. Ultimately, corrupt public officials and individuals become atrociously arrogant as they revel in their above the law status.

    Confronted by the enormous wealth and the smart corrupt public officials and ‘powerful’ individuals, the law simply becomes a mere paper tiger and a toothless bulldog. Of what use is a properly crafted law that cannot be enforced? This is exactly the reason why many of the high profile corruption cases that have been in court for years remain mostly inconclusive. Majority of the former governors and other prominent political figures whose corruption cases were once widely celebrated in the media are now walking free in the society and equally playing vital roles in the nation’s social-political and economic spheres. This has made many Nigerians to become dispirited about the likely outcome of the current onslaught against corruption. Many believe that, characteristically, corruption would have its way, irrespective of what the law says.

    Does it now follow that the law aids corruption? Has corruption become so deeply entrenched in our system that the law has become helpless to hack it down? Though, past experiences point to the fact that the law might no longer be sufficient in the war against corruption, the truth, however, is that corruption is not bigger than the law. There is enough in the law to annihilate corruption from the land. We only need to take decisive steps to reform the administration of justice in the country. The judiciary is, unfortunately, as corrupt as other institutions in the country. Allegations of fraudulent deals and gross misuse of office by judicial officers have continued to increase. Not a few judges have been accused of collaborating with criminals to undermine the judicial process. At every stage in the judicial system, one is confronted with unbelievable monumental acts of corruption. From the Investigating Police Officer, IPO, to other judicial officers involved, at one stage or the other, in a corruption case, one is bound to come face to face with the awesome ingenuity of corruption machinery in the country.

    For the war against corruption to be effectively fought and won, we need to do a total overhaul of the nation’s legal institution. Justice cannot be said to be served in a system that allows ‘small’ thieves to rot in prison while ‘big’ ones walk in absolute freedom. Equally important is the need for accelerated hearing of high profile corruption cases at all tiers of courts. Ordinarily, the trial of such cases ought to be conducted on a daily basis at the Federal High Court, but this is not being strictly adhered to. This is partly responsible for why corruption cases are adjourned for every flimsy and spurious reason.

    Perhaps, more importantly, government prosecuting counsels should brace up to dispel the theory that they sometimes conspire with individuals accused of corruption to go scot-free. An integral part of this theory is the constant filing of amendment of charges after the arraignment of the accused.  Non-appearance in court and unending demands for adjournments are other notable ploys purportedly used by prosecuting lawyers to frustrate high profile cases.

    The law is meant to trounce evil and evil doers. In any society where the reverse is the case, injustice would reign supreme. Sadly, this is the path we have trod for years. Obviously, it has led us to nowhere. Now, if we are to move forward, we must change our ways.

  • Ambode restates commitment to rule of law

    Ambode restates commitment to rule of law

    •Creates online platform for state laws

    Lagos State Governor Akinwunmi Ambode yesterday reiterated his administration’s commitment to the rule of law, saying the government is considering launching an online platform where people from any part of the world can access the laws enacted by the state since 1967 till date.

    The governor said this at the formal launch of Laws of Lagos State (2015), adding that the online platform would not only enable investors and would-be investors to make informed decision about investing in the state, but would also help them to appreciate the various legal protections available.

    He said the Law Reform Commission was saddled with developing the online platform, adding that the development was geared towards promoting a platform for accountability and responsibility.

    “From the online platform, people from any part of the world can easily access and download all the laws in the state since inception in 1967,” the governor said.

    The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Adeniji Kazeem, said the government embarked on aggressive and extensive law reform because of the need to avail the citizenry the opportunity of being properly guided and informed through the laws.

    He said a prominent feature of the 2015 laws is that textual amendments of archaic and colloquial words have been replaced with other words for simplicity and clarity of meaning.

    “Words such as ‘therewith’, ‘therein’, ‘herewith’, ‘hereto’, ‘hereinafter’ and words of like nature where appropriate have been simplified. Gender specific pronouns were replaced with gender-neutral language.

    “Furthermore, obsolete references to military, colonial, imperial or legal orders, offices or institutions have also been substituted with contemporary offices and institutions,” Kazeem said.

    The Managing Director of Thomson Reuters in Africa, Sneha Shah, lauded the Law Reform Commission for coming up with great content that was published by her organisation.

  • Wike vows to uphold rule of law

    Wike vows to uphold rule of law

    Governor Nyesom Wike of Rivers State has promised not to do anything that will endanger the rule of law and administration of justice in the state or the country.

    Wike, who made this declaration in Port Harcourt while declaring open the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), said that since his inauguration as governor part of his commitment has been to uphold the rule of law and justice delivery.

    While donating a brand new bus to each of the five branches of the NBA in the state and the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA), the governor declared that the courts in the state are now open for business.

    He said: “We have since re-opened the doors to the courts that were closed against the people of Rivers State by my predecessor for over a year before we came into office.

    “Today the gates of our courts are open and accessible for business. Let me renew my promise before this solemn assembly, that for as long as I remain the governor, we will not do anything to disparage, assault, infringe or damage the existential rights, autonomy and integrity of the judiciary in Rivers State or elsewhere.

    Wike revealed that funds for the judiciary are now on first-line charge and that N500,000,000 had been released to the judiciary in five months.

    He said: “We have also fulfilled our promise to grant financial autonomy to the judiciary by ensuring that appropriated funds meant for the judiciary are placed on first-line charge and promptly released when funds are available. The only challenge here is the dwindling resources accruing to the state, which has correspondingly affected the funds receivable by the Judiciary.

    “The parlous condition of the state’s finances notwithstanding, we have in the last five months released the sum of N500, 000,000.00 to the Judiciary for capital expenditure, out of which, N350, 000,000.00 and N150, 000,000.00 were respectively transmitted to the State High Court and the Customary Court of Appeal of the State.

    The governor added that apart from the regular release of overheads to the Judiciary, the state was at the final stages of processing the release of another N200,000,000.00 to the State High Court.

    “As I stated during the opening of the Legal Year in the state, the days of chronic financial neglect and helplessness are over for the judiciary in Rivers State,” Wike said.

    He continued: “Third, in furtherance of our transformation agenda for the judiciary, we are building new courts and renovating the existing ones throughout the state and thereby bringing the doors to justice closer and closer to our people.

    “It is significant to note that our intervention in this regard is not limited to the state’s judiciary. As I speak, work has reached an advanced stage on a multi-storey complex being built by our government for the Port Harcourt Division of the Federal High Court.”

    To enhance the welfare of judicial officers, the governor said he had committed funds to providing befitting official accommodation to all judicial officers.

    He added that his administration is through with the land acquisition process and hopes to deliver this scheme by the end of 2016. Plans have also been concluded to provide new official vehicles to all magistrates and heads of customary courts in the state to enhance their comfort and mobility.

    “Fifth, we have agreed with the leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association in Rivers State to relocate the Law Centre from the judiciary premises to create space for more courts and offices for judicial officers and staff.

  • Power separation: rule of law or tricks of politics?

    There was evidence last week that many members of the 8th Senate acted in a way to suggest that they need to be reminded about the need for lawmakers in particular to adhere religiously to the rule of law at all times, if, ironically, they are not to contribute to the collapse of democracy in the country. 

    A principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency. –UN Secretary-General on the Rule of Law

    Nigeria’s democracy may amount to nothing if the principle of rule of law is endangered in any form. It will not matter if threat to the rule of law emanates from any arm of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. More important, commitment to the rule of law cannot afford to be just rhetorical; it has to be religious. There was evidence last week that many members of the 8th Senate acted in a way to suggest that they need to be reminded about the need for lawmakers in particular to adhere religiously to the rule of law at all times, if, ironically, they are not to contribute to the collapse of democracy in the country.

    Shortly after the appearance of Mr. Bukola Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal, 83 senators were reported to have expressed on the floor of Senate a vote of confidence in Saraki’s presidency of the upper house. This announcement was sequel to a report that about 50 senators accompanied Mr. Saraki to the Tribunal when he made his first appearance there. During the debate preceding the expression of vote of confidence in Saraki by 83 of his colleagues, individual senators were reported to have stated that the principle of separation of powers had been endangered by the invitation of Saraki to appear before the Code of Conduct Tribunal to defend himself over allegation of misconduct. Senators’ conflation of two distinct issues: Saraki’s presidency of the senate and Saraki’s need to respond to charges of false declaration of his assets confuses issues and misses the point.

    Saraki is being charged for alleged misconduct committed long before he became senate president. Whatever anyone thinks about the politics of the charges, Saraki is being tried in an open court and therefore has a transparent platform to defend himself according to the law. A superior position that should have been taken by Saraki’s admirers is to give him more free time to defend himself at the Tribunal without having to worry about day-to-day management of the senate. Taking such decision does not derogate from Saraki’s innocence. If anything, it is capable of enriching the principle of rule of law. Mr. Saraki should have been viewed by those who rushed a vote of confidence in him as innocent until he is proven guilty by his accusers. With that mindset, it should have been clear to Saraki’s colleagues that he does not need any special show of solidarity by his fellow senators to boost his confidence. Having pleaded not guilty to all the charges, Saraki should not need any pampering by his colleagues. All he needs are good lawyers and honest support of all categories of citizens who believe in Saraki’s innocence.

    Without doubt, the Senate President’s confidence-boosting comrades acted with very little consideration for ethical standards expected of lawmakers and other citizens in public life. Knowingly or otherwise, Saraki’s 83 senators acted as if they had no faith in the rule of law and independence of the judiciary. As the nation’s lawmakers, they ought to act more ethically by allowing the different branches of government of which they are a part to do their job without any harassment or intimidation. It is, therefore, not surprising that citizens have called the vote of confidence in Saraki an attempt to intimidate the judicial system of the country. It should have occurred to the 83 senators that their rush of vote of confidence in Saraki, while he is facing charges of misconduct for actions taken long before he became senate president, is also liable to be viewed as an attempt to rig the judicial process, thus smashing the principle of separation of powers that the senators believed they could strengthen with expression of vote of confidence.

    On his own part, Senator Saraki should not have had any difficulty in showing superior moral leadership to his colleagues’ by withdrawing himself from the position of senate president while facing trial. Contrary to common belief, doing so would not have shown any weakness on his part or of fear of losing his senate presidency. If anything, it would have raised his moral stature among lawmakers and citizens who subscribe to high ethical standards in public life. It is true that the constitution does not call for temporary withdrawal from senate on his part, but he could have benefited tremendously from applying the wisdom; “discretion is the better part of valour” to the situation of divided attention caused by having to go to court on charges of misconduct while functioning as senate president. This is what most of his counterparts in other democratic countries would have done.

    The rush of vote of confidence by 83 senators from the ruling and the opposition parties has more implications than may appear to the average observer of public affairs. Some social media pundits are already saying that the vote of confidence denotes fear about the impact of the case on Saraki’s current political power and influence. There is also the possibility that such fear may not only be about Saraki. It is likely that the 83 senators may also be afraid of what can happen to them, should the executive branch, preoccupied as it is with a manifesto to fight corruption more aggressively than before, choose to open many more files of lawmakers, ministers, and civil servants.

    Furthermore, the pressure from the NASS in the last three weeks on the executive to release 64 billion naira constituency allowance to lawmakers and the legislators’ resistance of citizens’ strident calls for review of salaries and allowances of lawmakers suggest readiness on the part of the legislative branch to deploy its political arsenal to neutralise the call for higher ethical standards in government. While citizens are worrying about the sense in providing constituency allowance for lawmakers, senators are giving the executive an oppressive deadline to pay lawmakers’ constituency allowances that could not be paid last year by the Jonathan presidency on account of dwindling revenue. The pressure for payment of 2014 constituency allowances for new and returning lawmakers smacks of efforts to divert the attention of the executive from focusing on realignment of the country’s finances in view of continuous fall in national revenue.

    If citizens want change, they have to pay close attention to direct and indirect attempts by the senate to politicise what is essentially a moral issue. Rushing a vote of confidence to divert citizens’ attention from what is a moral or ethical case is absurd and diversionary. Similarly, putting pressure on the executive to pay constituency allowance to the National Assembly at a time that calls for wholesale rationalisation should be high on the priority list of the country is capable of creating avoidable crisis between the executive and the legislature. From the consistency in his public declarations – national and international- there is no doubt that President Buhari is serious about his resolve to reduce corruption, mismanagement, and waste. Nevertheless, citizens have to show unmistakable interest in sustaining the ethic of change, in view of growing enthusiasm of some lawmakers to return to the business-as-usual model of governance.

     

     

  • You don’t have respect for rule of law, Oyo APC tells Accord

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) in Oyo State has berated the Accord Party and five of its members over a fresh suit filed against the lawmaker representing Oyo Central Senatorial District in the National Assembly, Senator Monsurat Sunmonu, without any recourse to the pending petition before the tribunal.

    Ina statement issued by its Director of Publicity and Strategy, Olawale Sadare, APC described the development as another evil plot to derail democracy and make a mockery of the judiciary.

    “To start with, neither Sen. Monsurat Sunmonu nor anybody from the APC was aware of the purported suit until it was reported in some dailies on Friday and naturally, one begins to query its authenticity since no court paper had been served on the supposed defendant(s).

    “Those whose names were listed as plaintiffs are known card-carrying members and chieftains of the Accord Party who have always identified with Mr. Bisi Ilaka, the candidate of their party in the Oyo Central Senatorial District election. Ilaka, following his heavy defeat by Sen. Sunmonu in the March 28, 2015 election filed a petition at the tribunal which is set to give its final verdict on the matter any moment from now.

    The statement added: “Among the latter day challengers of the former speaker of the Oyo State House of Assembly who is now a federal lawmaker in the upper legislative chamber is the state administrative secretary of the Accord Party who was stopped from being illegally brought in as an emergency forensic analyst in the Ladoja vs Ajimobi governorship election petition case which is still on-going before the tribunal.

    “To set the record straight, the same allegation which formed the basis of the reported fresh litigation had been included in the petition before the tribunal and it was argued extensively. Therefore, it could be concluded that the Accord Party jesters are all out again not only to waste the time of the High Court of justice but also to abuse the court process as they just devised another means to remain in the news after the various tribunals might have refused all their respective prayers,” Sadare submitted.

  • Senate, Efcc and the rule of law

    Senate, Efcc and the rule of law

    The invitation extended to Mallam Ibrahim Lamorde the EFCC Chair by the Senate committee on ethics, privileges and public petitions and the drama that played out on the first day of the sitting of the Senate Committee on the matter, understandably have generated controversy.  The invitation followed a petition against Mallam Ibrahim Lamorde  the EFCC Chairman received by Senator representing Delta North Senatorial District, alleging that the EFCC chair allegedly diverted over N1 trillion of funds recovered from officials convicted of corrupt enrichment between 2003 and 2007.  The petition was submitted by Judge Uboh to Senator Peter Uwaoboshi who in turn drew the attention of the Senate President to same.

    The Senate being on recess the President of the Senate reportedly directed the Senate Committee on ethics, privileges and public petitions to investigate the matter. The committee invited the EFCC chairman for questioning on the subject matter of the petition.The EFCC chair wrote the committee asking for more time to appear and furnish documents on the matter and also sent representatives to the committee emphasizing the same point. The committee reportedly went ahead requesting the petitioner to adopt his petition and make further clarifications even in the absence of the EFCC chair who had asked for a postponement of the proceedings. The representatives of the EFCC chair led by the commission’s Director of legal services, Mr. Chile Okoroma reportedly raised a point of order wondering why the committee proceeded to entertain the petitioner without the presence of the other party in line with the fair hearing principle. The objection was overruled and the EFCC representatives requested by the committee to be excused from the proceedings.

    The above is a brief summary of the matter and the basis for the present intervention in this analysis.

    However, before proceeding further let me disclose my interest. I admit that I am one of the private prosecutors retained by the EFCC since inception even if I am not in any way connected with the subject matter of the petition since the cases forming the subject matter of the recoveries being investigated were not cases assigned to me neither was I involved in any of the recoveries under consideration. I also admit that I have had cause to handle matters for the National Assembly in the past some of which are also pending. Nonetheless, I am making the intervention under my other platform as a public affairs commentator discussing issues of national interest as a citizen of the country.

    Fundamentally, let me also admit some preliminary points. First, I agree that the EFCC being an institution created by law is certainly not above the law and therefore its activities should be open to public scrutiny particularly having been set up as an anti-graft agency to fight the economic and financial crimes and by extension corruption in Nigeria.  Secondly, I also admit that the EFCC law demands that the commission sent a comprehensive annual report to the national assembly not later than 30th September every year and this being a statutory provision, it is obligatory on the EFCC to comply. Thirdly, I also admit that the EFCC chair representing the EFCC, an agency of the federal government is under the oversight responsibilities of the National Assembly including the senate. It is also not in dispute that it is not in consonance with the rule of law for proceedings to take place in the absence of any of the parties interested. These are elementary matters that do not call for any controversy.

    I am however not unmindful of the fact that we are under a democracy with implications including respect for constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, transparency and accountability, zero-tolerance for corruption and respect for the rights and freedom of citizens amongst other obligations. These are elements of the democratic culture and the fundamentals of the democratic tradition. Again, on this score, there is no controversy. The other point that does not require any debate is that actors under a democracy must be prepared to be democrats. If there is no argument on this, I will then prefer to proceed on whether the actions of the senate and the EFCC in this matter conform to the rule of law and due process – since we operate a democracy founded on the rule of law.

    There is no disputing the fact that the senate has oversight responsibilities on agencies of governance among its core mandate, outside law making and representation.However, the responsibility for referring petitions to oversight committees belongs to the senate as a body. The procedure stipulated in the committee webpage of the senate is unambiguous on this point. Due process in this case will require a petition to be forwarded to a senator who will in turn draw the attention of the senate as a body to same at a plenary. The senate body at a plenary will now determine the issue of referral following which the petition may then be referred to the appropriate committee for investigation by the senate at plenary. The implication of this is that the decision whether or not to investigate is that of the senate at a plenary and not one vested in the senate president as one senator who is first among equals. This fundamental rule of procedure appears to have been breached in this case since the senate been on recess could not have sat at plenary to resolve the issue of referral.

    This may be a clear breach of rule of law in the handling of this particular petition. The senate may want to revisit its own rules in addressing the merits or otherwise of this petition that is of urgent national importance.

    The other issue that can be raised is the effect or likely outcome of investigation by the Senate Committee on ethics in respect of the subject matter. The committee has a responsibility of considering “the subject matter of all petitions referred to it by the Senate and shall report from time to time to the senate, its opinion of the action to be taken thereon together with such other observations on petition and the signatures attached thereof, as the committee may think fit”-  Segun Gbadegesin, a columnist in The Nation had argued thus “what can this committee accomplish with respect to the subject matter of a petition that alleges criminal action against the EFCC chair? It will only render an opinion on what action to take. So why didn’t Senate just refer the petition to the Police or ICPC both of which are also anti-corruption agencies with power to investigate and prosecute?”

    The implication of the foregoing is that the outcome of the committee’s investigation is to make recommendations which may include requesting that persons found culpable be advised to be prosecuted. This implies that the senate must act as a body in adopting the resolutions of the committee before the referral for prosecution can be effective.

    Given this scenario in the senate as a body on the same page on the procedure adopted on referral of this particular petition?

    On the part of the EFCC being an anti-graft agency, accountability and transparency in the conduct of its operations is fundamental and very key if it is to be taken seriously by the populace. The EFCC has a duty under the law to account in respect of the subject matter of the petition and this it must do conscientiously by releasing detailed information to the National Assembly and Nigerian public on how funds recovered from public officials have been managed so far. I dare say that on this particular issue EFCC is on trial and the issue of motive is of no consequence as this border on transparency and accountability and for an anti-graft agency the onus is on it to raise the bar on probity.

    Therefore, on the part of the EFCC, what is the state of the account? The public is waiting.

    Again, on the part of the EFCC, do we have regular and comprehensive annual reportof the activities of the EFCC to the National Assembly as prescribed by law?

    This is also a matter of rule of law for which the EFCC is also obliged to comply.

    Finally, I am not concerned about motives and motivations for this face-off between the Senate and the EFCC. Whether the senate is acting in good faith or in bad faith is a matter of speculation and conjecture which is not the basis of criminal responsibility and therefore not the business of this analysis. But compliance with the rule of law by the senate is a responsibility because the senate itself is a creation of the rule of law.

    The duty to also file returns on its activities to the National Assembly by the EFCC is also a rule of law and EFCC being a creation of the rule of law is also obliged to comply with the supremacy of the rule of law.

    Finally, the answer to the present controversy between the Senate and EFCC is Rule of law! Rule of law!! Rule of law!!!

  • APC to Fayose: you ‘re unfit to advocate rule of law

    •Party urges Buhari to ignore governor’s conduct

    EKITI State All Progressives Congress (APC) has described Governor Ayo Fayose as an unfit apostle of the rule of law.

    It said “a lot of impunity and constitutional breaches have been committed” under Fayose’s watch as governor.

    The party, in its reaction to Fayose’s latest outburst against President Muhammadu Buhari, added: “It is contradictory for a serial lawbreaker to suddenly become a self-appointed apostle and advocate of the rule of law.”

    Fayose had warned Buhari to “tread cautiously”, alleging that he was aware of what he called “sinister plots” to destabilise his government because of his “strong and truthful stands on national issues”.

    He vowed to continue to speak the truth no matter whose ox is gored, challenging the president to “tread cautiously”.

    But the Ekiti APC, in a statement yesterday by its spokesman, Taiwo Olatunbosun, described the “ceaseless attacks and insults” on Buhari by Fayose as a “devious bad-mouthing and reckless diversionary tactics to take public attention from his many alleged constitutional breaches”.

    The statement said “such petulant antics” cannot save the governor from facing justice over his many infractions on the constitution.

    The party, Olatunbosun said, was not surprised by the governor’s antics in his relentless media attacks on the president.

    He noted that “false accusations and sophistry would not distract the Federal Government from pursuing its anti-graft agenda and free the country of official impunity”.

    Olatunbosun said: “Impunity has wreaked havoc in the polity, resulting in some cases to crimes against humanity. Fayose as a promoter of impunity is only trying to employ his basket-mouth antics to blackmail the president in his witch-hunting accusation in the media to preempt dispensation of justice in his financial crimes, acts of impunity and crimes against humanity.

    “It is laughable and an insult on the intelligence of Nigerians for Fayose to accuse Buhari of persecuting the opposition simply because he wants to recover stolen funds from the nation’s treasury and punish looters.

    “Fayose has persecuted members of the opposition in Ekiti State to no end. He runs them out of town as promised by declaring them wanted over trumped-up murder charges.

    “He seized monetised vehicles of opposition members in the last administration and recently ejected them from their houses at a government housing estate, disregarding their subsisting mortgage agreement with the state housing corporation, even as no fewer than three opposition members are in prison over Fayose-induced trumped-up charges.”

    Olatunbosun added that it was a “gratuitous insult” to the citizenry for Fayose to accuse Buhari of persecution.

    The APC spokesman noted that Nigerians were not surprised at his tantrums against the president even when many Peoples Democratic Party’s (PDP) governors attested to Buhari’s even-handedness and fairness in the handling of his policies.

    He said: “If Fayose can insult his own mother publicly by saying she wore pampers as a result of old age, who else can he not insult? Who can he not blackmail just to get away with his illegalities?

    “This is somebody, who once led thugs to invade the office of the state’s Chief Judge, beat up his secretary and tore court records and thereafter blackmailed the judge of collecting N200 million bribe to return guilty verdict on him over his perjury case.

    “Nigerians have not forgotten how Fayose beat up and tore the suit of another high court judge because he wanted to stop his eligibility case.

    “Fayose, notorious for having the greatest number of alleged criminal cases in courts among Nigerian executives, is a governor who successfully prevented another arm of government, the legislature, from functioning for seven months till its term expired.”

    The APC spokesman also accused the governor of running illegal budget and spending government money without appropriation.

    Olatunbosun claimed that only seven members of 26 in the Assembly illegally passed Ekiti State’s 2015 budget into law.

    He added that three of Fayose’s commissioners were not known to law as they were not properly screened.

    The party’s spokesman added: “He stood trial over N1.3 billion poultry project fraud before his controversial re-election as governor that now gives him immunity from trial, which will not last forever.

    “He has again embarked on reckless spending of Ekiti State’s money since he assumed office by not accounting for many funds received from the Federation Account.

    “He still owes last year’s September salary despite collecting the allocation, including indebtedness to pensioners, traditional rulers, workers and subvention to higher institutions.”

    Describing Fayose as the greatest threat to democracy in the country, Olatunbosun said the governor could not survive in the society of human beings, where the law works.

    He urged Buhari to ignore eccentric conduct of a “promoter of impunity and staunch enemy of the rule of law”, saying the support by reasonable citizens so far was enough for the president in his vision to return the nation to the path of sanity.

  • Jonathan, Corruption and rule of law

    PDP rallies are often swelled up with rented crowd. We have as authority the Ogun State-based PDP mobiliser for the last year Ekiti governorship election who after Fayose’s unexpected landslide victory told Channels Television that PDP should not be expected to invite people to their rallies without making provision for their protection from the vagaries of the weather. He was commenting on PDP policy of ‘stomach infrastructure’, which he admitted was targeted at PVC holders all over the state. It is unlikely the crowd paid any attention to lies dished out by cynical politicians who themselves have little faith either in the electorate or the ballot box. Long before President Jonathan’s combative flagging off of his campaign in Lagos and Enugu, Nigerians were already familiar with his exaggerated achievements in the economic sector, now the largest in Africa, roads rehabilitation, railways, power generation, agriculture and foreign investment all of which have been wildly celebrated by his transformation ambassadors. But I think what Nigerians were not prepared for was the president’s claim of being the champion of the war against corruption and a crusader for the rule of law.

    Addressing a crowd of supporters at the Nnamdi Azikiwe Stadium, Enugu, Jonathan told the crowd of his success in the war against corruption in the last four years using modern technologies. According to him “There is no government that has fought corruption more than we have done.” The crowd did not bother about proof. But the president all the same went on to provide one. It turned out not to be in the number of corrupt people successfully prosecuted by his regime, but in the fact that  Buhari who the president claims cannot remember his telephone number is too old to understand the meaning of corruption. According to him, “Buhari believes that every wealthy Nigerian is corrupt”; and “If a Nigerian businessman has a private jet, then you are corrupt, if you have a good house, then you are corrupt, if you have a good car then you are corrupt”. The president didn’t need to ask Buhari for his definition of corruption. As a lucky shoeless boy fortuitously turned president and now surrounded by many wealthy friends, owners of big cars, private jets, palatial houses some of whom recently contributed a whopping N21 billion in a few hours towards his re-election bid, he knows better. The president’s only misfortune however is even if his crooked logic remains unassailable among the vulnerable 18 years old he has chosen to work with in order to move the nation forward, the group will not determine his fate on February 14 because they hardly vote.

    Both in Lagos and Enugu, the president also positioned himself as the guardian of the rule of law. Again, the president did not tell his supporters what he has done to enhance rule of law over the last six years. Instead he resorted to Buhari bashing. He reminded them how back in 1984, without adding that Buhari was the head of a military junta, he jailed their fathers and uncles without following rule of law. And in Enugu, how Buhari jailed ‘some prominent Igbo politicians including former Vice-President Alex Ekwueme and former governor of old Anambra State, Chief Jim Nwobodo’. The president concluded saying: “I am not going to run the government based on my habits; I am going to run the government according to global best practices.”

    But that has been the opportunity the president repeatedly bungled these past six years becoming in the process the greatest threat to the rule of law, first by his partisanship in the saga of Justice Ayo Salami who was eased out of office for having the courage to rule against PDP governors that stole their opponents’ victories in Edo, Ondo, Ekiti and Osun and later as an accessory in the undermining of the rule of law in Ogun in 2011, then Rivers, Edo and Ekiti in 2014.

    Nigerians know that as an impeached former governor who was also standing trial over EFCC alleged financial fraud besides murder charges, Ayo Fayose was not constitutionally fit to run for governorship office. But he was the president’s favourite among about 15-odd candidates. He went on without a manifesto to mysteriously secure a landslide victory over a performing incumbent Governor Fayemi. Haunted by the demon that saw him out of office in 2006, even as governor elect, Fayose went with thugs to beat up a judge presiding over his eligibility case, shredded his robe and judgment sheets. The protectors of rule of law kept their peace. Then Fayose drove 19 opposition lawmakers out of town and with the help of 300 policemen, ferried seven PDP members in government bus to the assembly where they hilariously impeached the speaker and appointed one of their own as speaker. A few minutes later, the governor appeared on a national television telling Nigerians he has recognized the new Ekiti speaker. The President and his Attorney General, guardians of the rule of law kept their peace.

    Before Ekiti was Ogun State. In the run up to the 2011 presidential election, President Jonathan was accompanied in his campaign tour of Ogun State by ex-Governor Gbenga Daniel who at the time was ruling his state as a sole administrator after shutting down the state assembly and driving the lawmakers out of town. The president pretended not to be aware of this in spite of strident calls to intervene in what was then a PDP intra party feud.

    In the battle of supremacy between Governor Rotimi Amaechi and the President’s wife in Rivers State, about seven law makers who publicly swore by the name of the president and his wife threw the state into chaos as they tried to illegally remove the speaker and the governor. The state police commissioner became the de facto governor. It took the president over six months and the intervention of well-meaning Nigerians before a tepid statement was issued in his name calling “on all those who were remotely or directly involved in heightening political tension in Rivers State to put an immediate end to their actions which are capable of plunging Rivers State into public disorder and strive to settle their political differences without further recourse to barbaric acts of violence”.

    In Edo State, about seven members of the House of Assembly consisting of suspended members of the ruling party and others barred by a court injunction from entering the assembly premises ignored court order and with the help of thugs took over the house after driving out the majority of members who have since relocated to the government house. The guardians of rule of law maintained their peace.

    However, in the wake of a recent Abuja Federal High Court order to swear in  Bala Ngilari as the Adamawa governor, it took the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Bello Adoke, only a few hours after the ruling, to issue a statement directing the Chief Judge of Adamawa to immediately swear in Ngilari. Akpabio, who is the chairman of the PDP Governors’ and the president’s accomplice in many acts of impunity and politics of subterfuge, was to later tell state house correspondents that ‘President Goodluck Jonathan deserved commendation for his adherence to the Rule of Law and respect for the nation’s judiciary’. But since there is no perfect crime, as they say, Akpabio followed with a Freudian slip. “Ngilari is a PDP man; he is not in the opposition… the interesting aspect is that it is a family business for the PDP,” he said triumphantly.

    As I watched the president dance with Ayo Fayose in Ekiti last week, just as I have over time observed his apparent support for the rape of the rule of law, confirmed corrupt elements and various acts of impunity, the more I am persuaded President Jonathan lacks the strength of character to sacrifice his private interest for the public good.