“THE State is constitutionally obliged to see that every citizen’s reputation is sufficiently protected from ‘unjust’ attack, …Equally as important as the constitutional right to freedom of expression is the constitutional right that every citizen has to his or her good name. This latter constitutional right imposes an obligation on the State to ensure that every citizen’s reputation is sufficiently protected from “unjust” attack.” writes Jim O’Callaghan in the Irish Times publication of 30th October, 2003. The above excerpt caught my attention when it became clear to me that almost all the corruption cases that have been charged in the court of public opinion with imaginary evidence sufficient enough to attract media and public affirmation, in addition to the massive support from citizens who have been shortchanged by their leaders since independence, but with very disappointing outcomes from the court of law.
The outcome from many of the so called “high-profile” corruption cases simply reveals that the State is incapacitated more by political consideration than professional ineptitude. A good number of the high profile citizens who have been charged by the State for one form of corruption or the other were only needed to make a show of the government’s pretentious resolve to fight corruption and thereby further deceive the many frustrated Nigerians who are hopeful for a corrupt free nation. But, like Jim O’Callaghan wrote in his publication quoted above, these “high profile” citizens are by all standards entitle to the protection of their good name and as specified in our own constitution, their dignity of person. The state is also required to ensure that every citizen’s dignity of person is protected at all time.
Many of us had supported this administration’s apparent determination in fighting corruption and were quick to justify the arrest and detention of judges from the highest courts, in the belief that the agencies saddled with the task of fighting corruption had indeed found some real evidence and have sufficiently analysed them in ways that made these evidence inextricably linked to the suspects. We became even bolder when snippets of seemingly incriminating materials (money in most cases) were leaked to the media by these agencies. With each image of piles of money recovered from the homes of politicians, past public/military official or judges, the more the rage of citizens was heightened as it only speaks to our common hatred for these classes of leaders whom we have been wary of since independence. So, the State agents, understanding the mood of the society, have also abandoned their core duty and delved into the murky waters of politics by appearing to be fighting corruption when they are actually being used for silencing opponents or punishing dissidents in an art of grand deception at the expense of the nation.
I’ll like to make a brief review of how a combination of these state agencies was engaged to kill the good name of a citizen – Olubukola Abubakar Saraki. When he emerged as the President of the Senate in 2015, everyone was certain that he acted outside the political calculation of some APC big wigs who had promised that office to some of their loyal followers. His act was seen as an affront to those who felt that they owned the party and worst still, he got the complete support of the PDP to emerge and surely he must pay for such an act of “betrayal”. Soon thereafter, questions began to emerge concerning his asset declaration when he was the governor of Kwara State. As usual, once the plethora of imagined infractions was gradually being leaked to the media, many of us called for his prosecution and immediate removal from office. Action was filed at the Code of Conduct Tribunal and the media was filled up with guests who gave reasons why the President of the Senate must resign or step down until the case against him was determined one way or the other. \
In all of these times, many of us had already condemned him and wanted him punished immediately, without even desiring to hear his explanations for the said non-declared assets. We linked him to the Panama leaks as the drama climaxed. We condemned the entire Senate for trusting in their leader and supporting him even with their presence in Court at each trial. He insisted that he wasn’t given a chance to explain the content of his asset declaration, but we insisted that he must be crucified. In his normal human fears, not understanding what was going on and what the plans against him was, he challenged the jurisdiction of the Code of Conduct Tribunal by insisting that the Tribunal was not properly constituted for not having its full complement (members). The argument went all through to the Supreme Court where it was held that the Tribunal was well able to try him as its jurisdiction is determined by quorum and not by the full complement of its membership.
The trial went on with the prosecution making a number of amendments in its charges which contains 18 counts. Then finally, the prosecution rested their case and the defendant pleaded that he has no case to answer. The tribunal agreed with the defendant, thereby discharged and acquitted him on all the counts contained in the charge. Interestingly, while the drama was ongoing, the defendant and the prosecution both knew so much that we the people didn’t know or understand. While the defendant insisted that he was being persecuted, the prosecution maintained their media friendly posture by staging a carefully orchestrated trial where the law was expected to be turned on its head by having the defendant to proof his innocence before the entire nation. They knew that their case will not survive in the court, but understood that his name is more likely to be killed in the Court of public opinion. So they kept us busy in different media houses engaged in all sorts of analysis and condemnation. I had the privilege of looking at the judgment of the Tribunal and all I had to say was “wow”! I exclaimed, not because the President of the Senate was discharged and acquitted, but at the complete waste of time and public resources by the prosecution. If I was briefed to prosecute the President of the Senate with the set of facts used in this case, I would not hesitate in advising the government to forget about it as the man hasn’t done anything wrong in his asset declaration form.
Reading through the judgment, it became obvious that the President of the Senate, firstly, was being tried for not declaring that properties belonging to companies in which he owned shares (which he declared) belonged to him. How can any serious lawyer who understands that companies are by law “persons” with rights to own properties in their names, charge a shareholder with a crime for owning such properties because he declared his shares in such companies? It is only when such a lawyer is hired to persecute that he get blinded by the fees and disregard his integrity. All the properties that Saraki was accused of owning, in Nigeria and abroad, belonged to companies in which he owned shares of which he declared in his CCB forms. No court will convict a person for such a charge as it will amount to a travesty. Correctly, the Code of Conduct Tribunal threw out those counts as not having any direct links with the defendant.
- Onu, a legal practitioner, lives in Abuja
and then