Rule of law

There have been renewed concerns in recent times about the rule of law in Nigeria. Most Nigerians – this columnist inclusive – are strongly supportive of President Muhammadu Buhari’s war against corruption. Even where there are suspicions of partisan selectivity in the targets of the campaign, my inclination has been that anyone who is proven to have stolen from the public purse should go to prison. My hope is that this government’s anti-corruption war will lay some precedents, and perhaps another regime will come in future that will ensure that those overlooked today may account for their own thefts in future. In my view, honest Nigerians have nothing to lose from supporting even a selective or partisan war against corruption as long as the judicial process ensures that ONLY the guilty are brought to book.

In my assessment, the judiciary has done all anyone can reasonably expect in supporting the current fight against corruption. Anti-corruption cases have moved very fast to trial and judges have imposed especially severe and onerous terms on accused persons brought before them for corrupt acts, with bail terms typically including deposit of their international passports, sureties and bail bonds with assets equivalent to the amount allegedly embezzled; and very high qualifications for standing as surety. Which is why I found it confounding that President Buhari has publicly claimed that the judiciary is his main “headache” in the war against corruption? Which raises the question: what else could the judiciary have done to support the anti-corruption fight? From available circumstantial evidence, it would appear the president objects to the concept of bail for persons accused of corruption! He claimed on public television that he will not release two individuals, Nnamdi Kanu, the Biafran activist whose charges are (now) related to treason rather than corruption; and former National Security Adviser, Colonel Sambo Dasuki.

There were many things wrong with the president’s statements not least of all a suggestion of a presidential veto over the judiciary which is contrary to and indeed antithetical to separation of powers which underpins our constitutional order; and a severe misunderstanding and/or disregard for the presumption of innocence which is the basis of our criminal justice system.

The actions of the regime’s security and anti-corruption agencies have mirrored the president’s disposition! Nnamdi Kanu was granted bail on a lesser charge but was rearrested on two occasions until the government filed higher charges relating to terrorism and treason and found courts which rightly on the basis of the more severe charges refused bail. Dasuki’s case is more complicated. To date there are valid orders of bail made by several courts in his favour, but he has consistently been re-arrested and a charge of leaving the army improperly over two decades ago is now being added to his alleged crimes (!);

Patrick Akpolobolokemi, the former NIMASA Director-General was rough-handled and bundled into a van right in front of the court premises where a judge had just granted him bail. Several persons are known to have been detained for periods far in excess of the constitutionally mandated 48 hours initially under spurious detention orders signed by magistrate courts in the Federal Capital Territory! That practice of magistrates issuing dud detention orders presumably has stopped now after the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court instructed magistrates to stop the illegal orders. But the detentions appear to continue, without any legal cover whatsoever, as the reported detention of former Naval Chief Amosu, reportedly for more than seven days, suggests.

In a case that was more or less an administrative or employment-related dispute between former Director of the State Security Services, Colonel Kayode Are and the current holder of the office, Lawan Daura, the incumbent reportedly ordered DSS agents to throw Are and his family out of an Ikoyi property in spite of a court order restraining such eviction! There have been several other incidents that have worried me, as they should bother anyone who understands that the alternatives to the rule of law are limited and all bad – anarchy, dictatorship or fascism – the unresolved issue of what appears to have been a massacre of hundreds of Shiites in Zaria; the unwarranted and precipitate killing of “Biafrans” celebrating one of Nnamdi Kanu’s bail orders; reported invasion of the Akwa Ibom State House by agents of the Department of State Security; and very recently the shocking commentary emanating from ruling party politicians, especially the APC Chairman, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun on the judgments of the Supreme Court on the elections in Rivers, Akwa Ibom and other South-South/South-East states.

I was shocked that Chief Oyegun, a very senior former bureaucrat who occupied the position of federal permanent secretary and who now chairs the ruling political party, could seek to impugn the judgments of the nation’s highest court simply because their judgments did not align with his political interests and expectations. The Supreme Court is the country’s last guarantee of constitutionality, rule of law, democracy and fundamental freedoms, and evidently the eminent judges on that bench recognize their duty and obligations to the law and posterity. I commend the Court for their objectivity, principle and courage and believe all right-thinking Nigerians should do the same.

 

Opeyemi Agbaje