More than six months after the Federal Government opened the first round of cases against suspected public treasury looters, no conviction has been recorded. This development has been attributed to many causes, particularly the dilatory tactics by lawyers with the connivance of some judges. Experts suggest that the government needs to review its tactics if it wishes to succeed. Senior Correspondent ERIC IKHILAE reports
•CJN, Sagay, Falana, Akintola, others speak
The Federal Government has re-activated its various investigative agencies and the investigation of former and serving officers, suspected to have been involved in acts of corruption have been on.
But, more than six months after cases were instituted against some past public office holders in the court, none has reached judgmentstatge. At best, about a few have progressed to the level where the defendants must enter their defence.
Despite the fact that many of the criminal cases are battling to survive the inherent weaknesses in the nation’s Criminal Justice System, the government is planning to institute more as investigations keep revealing new cases.
The question is: Why is the government yet to achieve meaningful progress in its prosecution of corruption cases despite the introduction the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, with its many innovations intended at addressing the causes of delay in criminal trials?
Experts argue that the reasons vary from institutional inadequacies to human activities. They blamed, particularly, players in the justice sector, especially lawyers and judges for the delay. Lawyers, in many instances, employ all dilatory tactics to prevent the trial of their clients. Some judges tag along or accommodate the lawyers’ antics.
For instance the trial of the Senate President, Bukola Saraki before the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) commenced late last year. More than six months after he was arraigned on September 22, 2015 for false asset declaration, proceedings have been held down by the activities of defence lawyers.
Shortly after his arraignment, Saraki promptly challenged the competence of the charge, the composition of the tribunal, the manner of service of the charge on him, among many sundry issues in a notice of preliminary objection filed by his legal counsel.
When the tribunal refused his application, Saraki pursued his objection to the Supreme Court, with the apex court ordering a stay of proceedings at the CCT, pending its determination of the appeal, which it eventually did on February 5 this year, dismissing it for lacking in merit.
Although in reacting to the February 5 Supreme Court judgment, in which he was asked to submit himself for trial, Saraki expressed delight that the opportunity has come for him to prove his innocence, Saraki, by the conduct of his lawyers, appears bent on stalling the process.
Immediately after the Supreme Court’s decision, Saraki engaged the services of a former Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice Kanu Agabi, (SAN). Incidentally, the lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), and tribunal Chairman, Danladi Umar, had at some time in the past served under Agabi, a development which stirred suspicious in some quarters that Saraki’s choice of Agabi was influence by other considerations other than conducting effective defence.
Shortly after his engagement, Agabi filed a fresh application challenging the tribunals’ jurisdiction. Despite an argument by Jacobs that the application was intended to clog the case, and suggested that it should be heard after trial, as directed in Sections 221 and 396(2) of the ACJA, Umar proceeded to determine the application, and refused it.
Saraki has since appealed that decision. His appeal filed in that regard has been scheduled for hearing by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Even as the Senate President was before the tribunal, challenging its jurisdiction, he also filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja, arguing that he was not going to get justice before the CCT on the ground that Umar was allegedly being investigated by the agency conducting his (Saraki’s) prosecution, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). He urged the court to stop his trial before the CCT.
On April 16, Justice Adamu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja decided Saraki’s fundamental rights suit He described it as an abuse of court process and dismissed it. Shortly after, Saraki took the issues rejected by Justice Kafarati before the CCT in an application filed by another of his lawyers, Ajibola Oluyede, asking Umar to recluse himself from further participating in the proceedings on the ground that he was allegedly being investigated by the EFCC.
On April 28, the tribunal ruled on the application and dismissed it for lacking in merit. Saraki has since appealed the decision. When many thought he was done, Saraki has again filed a fresh application asking Umar to disqualify himself, arguing that the tribunal’s chairman has exhibited elements of bias in his comments.
He referred to a reported comment by the tribunal chair, who, while resenting the delay tactics being adopted by Saraki’s legal team to stall proceedings, warned that the delay would not affect the consequences the defendant will suffer at the end of trial if convicted. The application has been slated for hearing tomorrow.
The conduct of the defence in the Saraki case has left many wondering if the trial will ever end. For about two months now, the defence has not concluded its cross-examination of the first prosecution witness having engaged him for 12 days.
The situation is not different in the cases involving former National Security Adviser (NSA) Sambo Dasuki and the Niger-Delta militant, Government Ekpemupolo (Tompolo).
In the case of Tompolo, he was served with a charge earlier this year and required to attend court for his arraignment. Rather than advise him to obey the law, his lawyer went before the court to challenge the service of the charge on his client. Even when the court later issued a bench warrant for Tompolo’s arrest, his lawyers are still filing processes and not encouraging him to come out from hiding.
His lawyers have appealed the decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos to issue bench warrant on him and have Tompolo filed through his team of lawyers including Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) and Ebun Olu Adegboruwa, an application challenging the constitutionality of Sections 221 and 306 of the ACJA.
The Section states that objections shall not be taken during proceedings or trial on the ground of imperfect or erroneous charge. Section 306 abolished the practice of stay of trial proceedings pending the hearing of appeals on a preliminary point.
Observers have argued that without urgent measures on the part of the Federal Government, those working to stall proceedings in the on-going trials of rich and prominent individuals will end up frustrating its efforts at curbing corruption.
The Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir David Lawal, stressed this fact when he observed that the role of lawyers and some ‘compromised’ judges, who offer their expertise to indicted individuals and deploy delay tactics and other underhand methods to frustrate the successful prosecution of criminal cases, was particularly injurious to the Fed Government’s anti-corruption campaign.
Lawal, who spoke through the Director, Nigerian National Volunteer Services (NNVS), Tor Tsavsar, at a workshop in Abuja last week, stressed the need for professionals to see themselves as stakeholders in government’s anti-graft efforts if the country was to grow and attain needed development.
He said: “From recent revelations, corruption is usually aided and facilitated by conniving civil servants and professionals in the public and private sectors. It is no news that most stolen funds are laundered through our banks and other offshore entities that are owned and managed by professionals.
“A recent case of the ‘Panama Papers scandals’ is an example of how politicians, criminals and rogue industries were assisted by professionals to launder stolen funds. It is equally regrettable that some of the professionals do not stop at aiding, abetting and facilitating the stealing of public funds, but more often than not, go further to offer direct and indirect support to indicted officials to beat the law.
“It is no more news that corrupt officials are able to engage some of our seasoned lawyers, who employ negative tactics ‘in or out of court’ to frustrate trials of indicted officials. The retinues of frivolous interlocutory applications, which are pursued up to the apex court, while actions on substantive matters are stayed, are common examples of how professional lawyers frustrate the fight against corruption.
“Similarly, some compromised judges always exhibit a disquieting tendency to indulge these lawyers in their unpatriotic and unscrupulous conduct. The attitude of some of our legal practitioners and judges have become so alarming that Mr. President had, on few occasions, lamented their role in the fight against corruption.
“The Nigerian government is facing enormous challenges to reflate the economy, build infrastructure, create employment, provide education and healthcare to the people, but these lofty objectives will remain a mirage if corruption remains entrenched.
“The fight against corruption can only be fought and won when every Nigerian, particularly our professional lawyers, accountants, auditors, engineers, etcetera rise above petty considerations and genuinely support the efforts of the government,” the SGF told his audience.
It has, however, been argued that a more coordinated approach to prosecution of cases will only yield the desired result. This coordination, many argued should be the major responsibility of the AGF, whose major responsibilities include advising the government on legal matters and prosecute cases on behalf of the Federal Government.
The AGF, Abubakar Malami (SAN), some say, has not exhibited his capacity in the area of providing leadership in coordinating the activities of the investigative agencies currently involved in the prosecution of corruption cases. At best, the AGF, whose employer’s major objective is the fight against corruption, seemed to be more concerned with other mundane issues.
Many have expected the AGF to lead by example, by leading some prosecution teams in the prosecution of some of these high profile cases.
Instead, Malami is involving himself in the unilateral recruitment of an ex-convict in effort to recover public funds trapped in some financial institutions, and the controversy generated by his involvement in the fine imposed on a telecommunication firm, an analyst who pleaded for anonymity alleged.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed noted this lapse on the part of the Federal Government during a recent encounter with the AGF. He challenged Malami to show that the Executive was resolute in the fight against corruption with his personal involvement in the prosecution of some notable cases.
Justice Mohammed noted: “Experience within the judiciary shows that there is abject lack of political will to prosecute some of those cases pending before our courts almost a decade in some instances. It is not because there are no special courts, but mostly for reasons of political expedience and other ancillary considerations.
“I would likewise wish to encourage you (AGF) to display a greater resolve than your predecessors in tackling outstanding cases before the courts. In times past, the Attorney-General of the Federation would often lead teams of legal counsel in high profile cases so as to demonstrate the resolve of the government to enshrine the rule of law.
“Sadly, recent Attorneys-General have become less inclined to do this. I would certainly like to see you, as the Attorney-General, appear before us, especially in cases of important national purport.
“There is the need for seasoned prosecutors to prepare and file charges before courts of competent jurisdiction so that criminal matters are timeously determined.
“The quality of prosecutions presented in courts by our prosecutorial agencies must be improved upon, as they are sometimes of a standard that will never found a conviction in any court anywhere. Yet, a well-prepared prosecution can see to the determination of criminal matter within a month.
“Of course, no competent prosecutor, who has filed valid charges would permit an accused to mount an interlocutory appeal, to the extent of going forth and back, sometimes twice or more to the Supreme Court, since such lapses could be injurious to the dispensation of justice.’’
The CJN advised the minister to recruit more lawyers, who should be adequately trained to handle more cases on behalf of the state.
The apparent lack of coordination in the prosecution of these rich individuals accused of looting public treasury is affecting the chances of success in such cases. It also contributes to the delay being experienced.
In most instances, defendants flood the court with senior lawyers where the prosecution is represented by just a junior lawyer. Sometime, because a prosecution lawyer is assigned to handle many cases when he is in one court attending to one case, other cases assigned to him are often adjourned.
For instance, EFCC counsel Rotimi Jacobs, (SAN), is prosecuting no fewer than 10 cases on behalf of the Federal Government.
On June 15, he was at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, for the appeal by Dasuki at a time the cases involving businessman Raymong Dokpesi (before Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja) and Dasuki (before Justice Husein Baba Yusuf of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory) were stalled and had to be adjourned to a later date.
•To be continued
