by Mark Amaza

 

A little over a week ago, the trial of Senate President Bukola Saraki at the Code of Conduct Tribunal on a 16-count charge including false declaration of assets, illegally operating foreign bank accounts and acquiring assets beyond his legitimate assets ended after almost two years with an acquittal for Saraki.

When the trial started in September 2015, hardly anyone was in doubt of the fact that the trial was motivated by Saraki’s success at upsetting the zoning arrangement of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) for principal officers at the National Assembly and for what some power brokers within the party consider as his over-ambition, as they saw the likelihood he will use the office as a launching pad for the 2019 Presidency.

However, claiming political witch-hunt is not a valid defense in a court of law; as such, Saraki had to defend himself against the charges itself. Luckily for him, it appears that the weight of the evidence brought by the Federal Government’s team of prosecutors could not pass the test of the court and all it took was for Saraki’s lawyers to file a no-case submission for it all to crumble and secure his acquittal.

Although top officials of the Buhari administration have mostly kept mute about the trial (including Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, APC’s National Leader who was said to be opposed to Saraki’s election as the Senate President), a few government officials such as Professor Itse Sagay who heads the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption and Barrister Okoi Obono-Obla, President Buhari’s Senior Special Assistant on Prosecution have commented during and after the trial and lampooned its verdict.

Thus, it was not surprising that the Federal Government has filed an appeal against the ruling of the tribunal. It was also to this appeal that Saraki released a press statement where he called the appeal against him “an exercise in futility.” Even though not every allegation of his against the Federal Government can be substantiated (such as the sponsoring of stories alleging he bribed the Chairman of the Tribunal, Justice Danladi Umar with $2m), he did make a lot of valid points.

A very strong point Saraki made is that of Professor Sagay’s comments regarding his case, which is not proper considering the position the latter holds in government, even if it is ad-hoc. Inasmuch Sagay has built a reputation as a legal luminary and public commentator, his current position as the Chair of the PACAC should preclude him from making comments on court cases and other sensitive issues that are not within the remit of his committee.

However, he seems to not realize that and has often made comments which defy conventional legal thinking, such as opining on the refusal of the Senate to pass Ibrahim Magu as the substantive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) where he said Magu can act for as long as possible and there is nothing the Senate can do about it.

This is a far departure from the brief of the committee, which is “to advise the administration on the prosecution of the war against corruption and the implementation of required reforms in Nigeria’s criminal justice system.”

The danger is if comments like those of Professor Sagay and Barrister Obla, they provide the evidence that many need to continue to claim that the Presidency has a vested interest in the Saraki case. This is why in many countries, the Attorney-General and the departments they head are given as much independence as given so that they are not made to do the bidding of politicians especially in politically sensitive cases such as this one.

Now that the appeal has been filed, we hope that the prosecutors will do a better job at presenting a strong case unlike the first attempt.