By Olu Fasan
Let me say this: I take absolutely no joy in the plight of Senator Ike Ekweremadu, former Deputy Senate President, and his wife, Beatrice, who were recently jailed by a British court for human-trafficking and organ-harvesting offences.
But those begging the new British monarch, King Charles III, to grant the couple royal pardon are misguided. Such pleas fuel the perception of Nigeria as a lawless country and expose the sharp contrast between Nigeria and Britain on criminal justice and the rule of law.
Consider this. The British prime
minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Royal Family have
been charged and fined for ordinary traffic offences, and some members of the
UK Parliament have been jailed for various offences.
Thus, to the British authorities, it’s bizarre that Nigerians are
pleading for those who committed the serious offence of conspiracy to trade in
human organs, and who have not even served a part of their sentences, just
because they are prominent Nigerians.
But my aim here is to make a
general proposition from specific cases. In particular, I’m interested in why
prominent Nigerians who were not found guilty, or would not have been found
guilty, of an offence in Nigeria are convicted for the same offence in Britain.
What general conclusion can one draw from those individual cases, from that
trend?
The list is long. But among the
most prominent is James Ibori, former Delta State governor, who was discharged
and acquitted in Nigeria on a 170-count charge of money laundering but admitted
to a 10-count charge of fraud in an English court. And now, we have the
Ekweremadus, who would not have been convicted in Nigeria.
Last week, a newspaper quoted a
retired judge as saying that if Senator Ekweremadu was tried in Nigeria, his
influence would not have mattered. Really? The learned judge fibbed. While
delivering his judgement in the Ekweremadu case, the trial judge, Mr. Justice
Jeremy Johnson, said he received 51 pages of character statements, and reeled
out the names of prominent Nigerians, who wrote to him.
They included former President
Obasanjo, the current Senate President, the current Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the current Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the
Federation!
Given that the British law that
Senator Ekweremadu broke exists in Nigeria, one must wonder why many prominent
Nigerians pleaded for him.
Clearly, if he was tried in
Nigeria, the ‘high and mighty’ would have ensured he wasn’t convicted, let
alone jailed. After all, he’s prominent and wealthy. The British judge said
Ekweremadu “owns multiple properties around the globe, as many as forty”, a
point that may not have been lost on the judge.
Well, another point that may not
have escaped the judge was that those intervening on behalf of Senator Ekweremadu
had absolutely no concern for the victim, an indigent boy. The judge
sympathised with the Ekweremadus because of their daughter, Sonia, who suffers
from deteriorating kidneys. But he wondered why they did not seek a donor in
the legal and proper way, instead of “exploiting” the boy. The whole story
smacked of exploitation and abuse of power and privilege, all of which
influenced the judge’s decision.
But as I said, I’m interested in
the Ekweremadu case and similar cases of prominent Nigerians convicted in
Britain just to make a general point, namely: Britain has become Nigeria’s
nemesis on criminal justice and the rule of law. For truth is, the Nigerian
regulatory and legal systems are incapable of holding the powerful to account.
As the British judge said, it’s always “possible to manipulate and corrupt the
regulatory system” in Nigeria. But why? Why can the powerful escape justice in
Nigeria but not in Britain? I propose three reasons.
First, politicisation. In
Britain and other rule-of-law countries, regulatory, anti-graft and
law-enforcement agencies operate at arms-length from the government. But in
Nigeria, they are utterly politicised and subject to control from the
government and powerful politicians. As a result, their decisions and judgements
are often tainted by partisan considerations.
Take the National Drug Law
Enforcement Agency, NDLEA. Recently, it stoutly defended Bola Tinubu against
drug allegations. But the NDLEA chairman, Brig-General Buba Marwa (retd), is a
strong loyalist of Tinubu’s party, APC, and Tinubu appointed Marwa’s daughter
to his transition committee. Few will vouch for the NDLEA’s independence on the
matter.
Similarly, as Premium Times pointed out last week,
the front-runners in the race for the next Senate President “face daunting
corruption allegations”. But, over the past eight years, once any prominent
opposition politician accused of corruption decamped to the ruling party, the
EFCC quickly soft-pedalled on his case, suggesting political interference. That
won’t happen in a rule-of-law country, where no one, however politically
connected, is above the law.
The second reason is technical
incompetence. Even when there’s no political interference, Nigeria’s regulatory
and law-enforcement agencies lack the technical ability to investigate and
prosecute cases. Why, for instance, would the EFCC make allegations of a
multibillion-naira fraud against a politician or public officer and the matter
would eventually fizzle out?
Former President Obasanjo once
said that those facing serious corruption allegations often used “ogbologbo lawyers” to outsmart EFCC. But
why is it that someone can escape justice in Nigeria, thanks to “ogbologbo lawyers”, but get convicted in
Britain? When accused of corruption, prominent Nigerian politicians, often
retort: “I have not been convicted by any court or tribunal.” But can any of
them submit to trial before a British court?
Which brings us to the third
reason: the Nigerian courts. Truth be told, the Nigerian courts lack an
understanding of the “harm principle”, that is, harm to society of corruption
and other vices. Last year, the EFFC chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa, said that
high-profile corruption cases were being lost in court “on technical grounds”.
If British courts abuse
technicalities as Nigerian courts do, they wouldn’t have convicted the likes of
Ibori and Ekweremadu. Their primary concerns are substantive justice and the
public interest. Yet, there’s another Nigerian peculiarity we can’t ignore:
elements of the judiciary are corrupt!
But how terribly sad if it takes British courts to hold powerful
Nigerians to account. I would rather Nigeria’s regulatory and legal systems can
do so themselves at home!
*Fasan is a commentator on public
issues
No comments:
Post a Comment