Nigerians elected President Muhammadu Buhari on his promise to lead the charge to eliminate corruption in public life, and move to bring those who “looted” the national treasury to book. This is a herculean obligation for which the current administration must be supported and given both cooperation and the benefit of doubt by the public. I am a supporter of this particular goal of the administration, and I have no doubts at all that a majority of Nigerians want the books opened and proper sanction meted on those who may be found culpable. There is only one condition: that the process be within the bounds of the rule of law. Otherwise it will be seen as a witch hunt.
Recent chatter in fact indicate that the current administration is exploring moves to investigate or probe the last president, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. And I say, why not? Probe him! Anyone who holds public office must be prepared to submit to scrutiny, and to account for their deeds in service to the nation.
There is nothing wrong in investigating a former president, and if there is material evidence found that the former president engaged in illegal activity, and misused his powers as president, he must be made to appear before the law courts and the heavens should not fall. There are two grounds on which to probe the former president: one is, to closely examine and ascertain any possible involvement in corrupt enrichment through the authorization of contracts to interests connected directly or by proxy to him; the nature of those contracts and the level of due diligence done in authorizing the power to execute, and any possibility of backhandedness in the form of baksheesh or kickback paid either directly to him or his proxies in furtherance of his personal interests while serving as president.
What does the ex-president own, and how did he acquire these within the period he served as president; and how does his personal worth tally with his declared interests and worth submitted on the assumption of office to the Code of Conduct Bureau? The second area for which the president should be investigated is certainly in the handling of the national accounts as determined by the laws of the federation, and within the bounds of federalism. Did the ex-president break the laws? And if he did, did he hide any material evidence from the National Assembly, which made it impossible for the Assembly to provide as a result, institutional oversight that should have reined-in the president? If he did not hide evidence from the National Assembly, and the National Assembly did not act, to forestall any illegalities on behalf of the nation, what agency of government failed to prevent the execution of any possible illegality by the president? The probe and trial of Goodluck Jonathan would be good for Nigeria in a number of ways: it will test the very principle of immunity under whose coverage a lot of people have committed atrocities in the name of the nation. A central question that has often exercised the minds of Nigerians is whether anyone who has served as president can be brought, at the end of tenure, to answer to charges for conduct in office covered under the immunity clause.
For instance, President Buhari himself refused to appear before the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, when he was summoned, during the sitting of the Human Rights Violation and Investigations Commission, also known as the Truth Commission. They did not arrest Buhari for his contempt of the judge. There were questions about whether the immunity granted to his person while in office extends to that process, and whether indeed he could be questioned and countermanded for acts carried out in his official capacity as president, with very wide immunity powers. Former president Jonathan will certainly contemplate his own response, particularly within the questions of the immunity granted his person, in the disclosure of certain routine decisions covered by his immunity and the officials secrets Act.
It might require the courts to suspend those rights, and it might be a great day for ordinary Nigerians, who have argued for limited immunity for the office of the president rather than the kind of sweeping immunity which presidents currently enjoy. Probing Jonathan will certainly be a great first step, trying him for misconduct will be a great step forward, were the government’s investigation to find serious evidence linking the former president to personal corruption.
Across the pond, Brazil is going through the same question. Nigeria and Brazil have very many things in common. Aside from being the second largest nation after Nigeria, with the largest population of black people in the world, Brazil has also suffered through many military coups and democratic transitions.
The crash in global oil price has also hobbled Brazil’s economy, and there is wide discontent among the public. Current president, Ms. Dilma Rouseff, is facing impeachment for manipulating budget figures to boost accounts of public spending to aid her re-election in 2014. Sounds familiar? Well, yes, it is called “budget padding” and the Brazilians are not joking. But more relevantly, her predecessor, Brazil’s former President, the charismatic, populist, Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva is facing a federal probe over questions of money laundering and alleged kickback received following the Petrobras scandal.
Vanguard
END
Be the first to comment