I have followed the political history of Senator Abubakar Bukola Saraki since 2004 when as a young reporter I did a news story on a petition some Kwara elder statesmen, led by Elder Wole Oke, wrote against his government, alleging diversion of local government funds. Backed with ‘documentary evidence’ showing how these funds were allegedly being cornered, the story elicited prompt response from the Saraki government which sent down a team of commissioners to the headquarters of the newspaper where I then worked. We did their own side of the story. To be honest, the government’s response raised more questions than answers. Anyone who read both copies would instantly know something was fishy. Since then I have paid attention to the senator.
I have followed the developments around the many corruption allegations trailing Senator Saraki. To be sure, Saraki, like anyone else accused of crime, is innocent until proven guilty by a law court. This he has maintained at every opportunity. He pleaded not guilty to all the 13-count charge the Code of Conduct Bureau has preferred against him. Fine.
But the conduct of the senator since the trial began suggests not just a guilty conscience but an individual habitually given to actions inimical to public probity and accountability. Such conduct, if not checked, poses a serious danger to public morality. And given that he commands huge following among young generation of Nigerians, his penchant to always cry foul and shout political witchhunt each time he’s asked to account for his time in public office will send the signal to the young ones that they can always evade scrutiny with a shout of witchhunt, echoed by a well-oiled media and propaganda team.
Sometimes in 2011, Senator Saraki claimed he once waived his immunity as a governor to be probed by the anti-graft bodies. Again, he has blown the whistle on alleged corruption in a few instances. He touts this among his feats as a senator. If Saraki is clean and honest as he wants the public to accept, one would expect him to grab with jet-speed urgency any opportunity to clear his name. While it remains within his right to seek legal cover against injustice, the circumstances surrounding his political career – added to his penchant to be seen as one of the best fellows around in politics – mean he should not rely on his privileged access to the best defence attorneys around to stall his trial. He can proceed to an appeal court if he feels the outcome of the trial is skewed against him. But his present journey around all the courts in the land gives the impression that he doesn’t want the trial to hold at all. Such conduct hardly suggests innocence.
Beyond this, the senator appears to want to scandalise the CCT judge Danladi Umar. Seeing that the judge does not appear intimidated by bus-load of senators who neglected the duty of law-making to standing solidarity with Saraki at the court, the senate led by the same Saraki has now gone ahead to begin a probe of Justice Danladi for allegedly accepting bribe from a suspect, among other allegations. As shameless, dangerous and objectionable this probe is, I’m shocked to note that Nigerians haven’t shown any outrage at this gangasterism! Danladi may be guilty. He may have abused his office. But a senate led by Saraki is morally unfit to investigate him – not at this time. The conduct of the senators since Saraki was docked has stripped them of the moral stamina to probe the same judge who is trying Saraki. It is strange and illogical, and should be rejected by all men of good conscience.
And maybe the senator could well learn a few things from Justice Danladi Umar. Perhaps knowing that he cannot shout witchhunt as a defence in the allegations against him, he was at the House of Representatives on Thursday, December 3, 2015 to clear his name. I understand he was there with CCT management team and documents to show his innocence. The public is following the case and will know if any party tries anything funny. Saraki should emulate Danladi by defending himself. He should tell the court, with proof, that all those allegations against him were made up, that they were figment of his enemies’ imagination. If he is found to be innocent after a clear trial, this will help his political career.
But what happens if every accused person alleges some form of witchhunt and hides under legal technicalities to evade trial, as the senator seems to be doing? The answer is simple: we will have confusion and chaos in the society.
And the issues in Saraki’s trial are quite simple. It is like asking any other person: Did you make false assets declaration? Rather than face up to this basic question and defend himself, he retorted that ‘only three people can ask me that question and if you are less than three I will not answer.’ The pertinent question is would his answers have been different if he had been asked by 10 people? This, to my mind, is what Saraki’s objections amounted to by raising issues with whether or not three people should have sat at the CCT instead of two or that the court is not empowered to try criminal case or that it is an inferior court or that there was no substantive attorney general of the federation in place. Would his defence have been different if three people were sitting at CCT or if an AGF was in place?
The Supreme Court has appointed February 5 to rule in an appeal by Saraki seeking to stop his trial. Without prejudice to whatever the court will decide, the Saraki’s case is a challenge to all Nigerians to ask ourselves tough questions which include whether or not to accept the Saraki leadership model and its consequences.
Some persons have asked why the government is not trying other governors for asset declaration issues. It is a fair question. Corruption trial should not be selective. But allegation of selectiveness is never a defence for a man already arraigned before a court. It is either he committed the offence or he did not. If he did commit the offence, he cannot be left off the hook because others in his shoes have not been arraigned. To be sure, Senator Saraki has been shouting witchhunt since 2012 each time he is to be arraigned for alleged corruption. For how long would he do that?
