by Duro Onabule

Addressing members of Nigerian Bar Association, Speaker Tambuwal was loudly cheered because he was at home among hypocrites. Tambuwal himself emerged a reward for failing to hit home.  How far is it true that corruption is unabated only because committees are set up to probe allegations? Are the probe committees responsible for slowing down the war on corruption?

In fact, the party’ s federal administration has openly split with House of Representatives Speaker, Aminu Tambuwal, impliedly accusing his colleagues on corruption charges of being shielded by President Goodluck Jonathan.

Tambuwal’s allegation is the latest in the series of accusations, ravaging the party from different factions and came amidst the shock  of the allegation of Central Bank Governor, Lamido Sanusi, that so far, there is no trace of a whopping sum of fifty billion dollars of oil revenue, which the bottomless Nigerian National Oil Corporation (NNPC) should have remitted to the Federation Account. The Central Bank Governor’s allegation itself came while Nigerians were still waiting for the final submissions into the accusations and counter-accusations between Rivers State Governor, Chibuike Amaechi, and Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, over the whereabout of separate billions of dollars due for the Federation Account.

According to Tambuwal in what is clearly another savage blow on Goodluck Jonathan’s chance of survival to run in 2015 for a second term, the Aso Rock landlord is not serious on the anti-corruption war, a major concern for Nigerians and foreigners. As the allegation went, instead of allowing statutory agencies like the police and EFCC perform their duties, Jonathan would prefer a committee to investigate allegations of corruption.

The truth is that Tambuwal was merely pandering to a convenient audience, indeed, at the risk of hypocrisy. Speaker Tambuwal? How many members of National Assembly (specifically House of Representatives) did he instantly hand over to the police or EFCC on mere allegations of corruption? Making allowance for occasional opportunistic radicalism of National Assembly, that arm of government along with the judiciary, is not expected to be echo-chamber.

Executory powers also lie with the Presidency (in this case, Aso Rock). But then, both National Assembly and the judiciary also have substantial responsibility in the fight against corruption.  How valid then or completely exclusive to Jonathan is the charge of not being serious in the war against corruption or appointing committees to first of all probe seemingly easily prosecutable charges?

Appointing committees to probe criminal charges may not be disputed but the idea is not entirely undesirable. Given the penchant of publicity seekers for attention, every spurious allegation may not necessarily be referred to police or EFCC, in the firs instance. Where such   probe committees (can) establish criminal acts, such findings can then be referred to police for the necessary investigations and eventual prosecution in a court of law.

The widespread fuel subsidy fraud of two years ago was a good example. The probe committee Jonathan set up proved very useful, as very many criminal aspects  warranting punitive measures were discovered. But then, probe committees are not limited to Aso Rock. Speaker Tambuwal and his National Assembly colleagues are not exempt. This National Assembly in particular has the record of employing committees to probe allegations of corruption against its members.

For example, despite Jonathan’s initial probe of the fuel fraud through a committee, the House of Reprresentatives under speaker Tambuwal instigated a probe of the same fuel subsidy through a committee headed by Farouk Lawan only for the man himself to be accused of criminal misdemeanor. The House of Representatives then took it on itself to set up a committee to probe the allegations against Lawan. Did the House of Representatives instantly hand over Farouk Lawan immediately to Police, based on its investigations, declared him (Farouk) wanted?

There was also the House of Representatives self-styled probe into Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) only for the head of the committee, Herman Hembe, to be faulted for criminal misdemeanor in events leading to commencement of the probe he headed. The House of Representatives did not instantly hand him (Herman Hembe) to the police or EFCC immediately criminal allegations were made against him. Instead, the House initially set up a committee to probe the allegations and handed him to the police only after the facts.

Similarly, when some members of a House probe committee, investigating power contracts headed by representative Elumelu were accused of demanding or even taking bribes, the lower chamber initially set up a committee to probe the allegations, following which they were arraigned in a court of law.

As it is in the House of Representatives, so it is in the Senate. What then is the difference between probe panels set up by the Executive (Aso Rock) and those of the National Assembly? A major difference. National Assembly breaches Nigerian constitution by constituting itself (after every probe) into the police (for investigation and prosecution) and thereafter into the law courts. Outrightly convicting the accused, the National Assembly then demands the dismissal or resignation, all against laid down procedure. The law is that only courts can try and convict any accused or suspect.

It is noteworthy that the National Assembly rarely convicts any of its own. In the worst cases, such aspects (among National Assembly members) are arraigned in law courts while they continue drawing their millions in salaries and allowances. What, therefore,  makes accused members of National Assembly so special over  or even superior to ordinary fellow Nigerians to warrant separate treatment in matters before the law or moral issues?

Addressing members of Nigerian Bar Association, Speaker Tambuwal was loudly cheered because he was at home among hypocrites. Tambuwal himself emerged a reward for failing to hit home.  How far is it true that corruption is unabated only because committees are set up to probe allegations? Are the probe committees responsible for slowing down the war on corruption?

Everybody is aware of the unbridled duplicity of Nigerian lawyers through their obstructionist tactics during trials and these enable them to be concerned solely about the legal fees paid in scores or even hundreds of millions of naira or even foreign currencies, depending on the criminal loot of their clients, standing trial.

War-weariness is another tactic of Nigerian lawyers to frustrate measures against corruption and they should have been so told to their faces by Speaker Tambuwal. After the initial revulsion of the public against the accused, lawyers engage in delay tactics to obtain long  adjournments for their clients  mainly former governors, ex-ministers and bank executives on financial crimes trial for the past five years. The rial of some of the accused is still to commence. In the process, public lost interest or even focus.

Neither did Tambuwal fare better in failing to rebuke the judiciary for its role in frustrating the battle against corruption. As complicit as lawyers are in making corruption attractive, the judiciary is also duplicitous on these matters. What type of judiciary is unable to conclude the trial of corrupt public office  holders arraigned since five years ago? What type  of judiciary, which deliberately slows down corruption trials by transferring a trial judge to another division only to assign such cases to new judges to commence trials afresh? Tambuwal never considered worthy of mention or criticism in the fight against corruption?

Why did the leadership of the judiciary not allow such judges to conclude the trials before moving them? Which is better? To delay the transfer of a trial judge (whatever the pressure) and allow him to conclude his task or to bring in a new judge (no matter his competence)? At the present pace, current trials of corrupt public office holders may last more than ten years. These suspects left office six years ago and their trials may not end for another four years.

On the other hand, still on the complicity of lawyers, appeals on the most insignificant legal technicality are filed at higher courts to further prolong trials.

By the way, Tambuwal faulted Jonathan wrongly. The House Speaker could and should have made a valid point if he criticised Jonathan for appointing to public positions, discredited ex-governors, having corruption charges, standing against them while they absconded from Nigeria and returned only after Jonathan took office. Instead of being tried, Jonathan has appointed them to head major financial institutions. If, as governors, they looted the treasury without being tried, the guarantee is that they repeat same in their new posts.

The Director of Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Epiphany Azinge, was half-hearted when he criticised lawyers for failing to discourage frivolous litigations like hopeless election petitions. Truly such petitions might not be necessary if only the Independent National Election Commission can be seen by Nigerians to be reasonably impartial.

However, Azinge should have gone the whole length by condemning lawyers for taking up the cases of known rogue public and private office holders.

Nigerian politicians are a laughable lot. Opposition All Progressives Congress (APC) lauded Speaker Tambuwal for openly accusing his party leader of encouraging corruption.   Can the APC condone such boldness among its members, holding public offices on the party’s platform?

 

——————————————-

Read this article in the Sun Newspapers

 

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.