|
Anyone that has
followed the ongoing debate over how to deal with the immunity clause enshrined
in section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
would have reached that conclusion on which the scripts of many local comedians
are based: Nigerians love to argue. We never allow a chance to engage in verbal
combat to pass us by. Today, the immunity clause has become the issue over
which to exhibit our debating prowess. And most people are joining the chorus
on the winning side, namely, to delete and throw executive immunity into the
waste bin. Senate President David Mark shares this view and said so early in
the week at a book presentation to mark the silver jubilee anniversary of the
bishopric of Dr. John Onaiyekan, Archbishop of Abuja. Even President
Yar’Adua has lent his voice to the anti-immunity clause campaign: speaking in Davos,
Switzerland
recently, the president vowed to support any effort to abrogate the immunity
clause.
Since Yar’Adua’s
declaration, the debate has assumed a new cadence. Cheer leaders have been
enlisting in droves. In supporting the president, the Civil Liberties
Organisation (CLO) averred that he “spoke the minds of Nigerians”. Indeed, the
president may have spoken the minds of some Nigerians but he did not speak the
mind of all Nigerians: he certainly did not speak my mind. In this
country, every arm of government is granted some privileges or immunity by the
constitution: judicial officers have immunity over what they say while sitting
in their capacity as judicial officers; legislators not only have immunity over
what the say in the chambers of the house but are immune from arrest within the
complex; in the case of the executive, only a select few (the president and the
governors) enjoy any immunity while in office! The immunity clause is a
temporary privilege which ensures that no one is allowed to stop the wheel of
governance by holding the president or governor to ransom under any
guise. It is a temporary protection intended to shield the occupant of
the office from distractions while executing the duties inherent in that
office. And like any privilege, it is subject to abuse. For those clamouring
for the removal of the immunity clause, the plank on which their argument rests
is that it provides a cover to perpetrate fraudulent acts and to commit
atrocities.
One of the
problems of Nigerian politics is the supposition that we can short-circuit the
process of historical development. For how long has the immunity clause been in
our constitution? Given the ominous implications of it’s removal for governance
in a volatile polity such as we have, the immunity clause should be seen as a
necessary evil. When the term of the officers that enjoy it expires, they
become like sitting ducks. Under Nigerian law, there is no time limit for the
institution of criminal proceedings. There are only three statutory exceptions
to this rule: sedition which has six months time limit, treason which has two
years time limit and custom offences which have a seven year time limit. To
that extent, the logic on which the clamour for removal of the immunity clause
rests simply begs the question. We seem to forget that only 74 public officials
at the federal and state levels are covered by immunity during any four-year
term. That still leaves 774 executive chairmen at the local government level
who are not covered by immunity and thousands of commissioners, ministers,
heads of parastatals and other tin gods who also wield executive powers and
disburse fat budgets.
The voices of
those opposed to the removal of immunity clause may be drowned in the cacophony
that has attended this debate but their argument that such an ill-advised move
would expose the offices of president and governor to an avalanche of law suits
that could distract them from the business of governance cannot be
discountenanced. With the way courts in Nigeria
grant ex parte motions and injunctions, the danger that the business of
government in Nigeria
may be grounded in the absence of an immunity clause is real.
If the war
against corruption is to be won, it should start with sending corrupt officials
to jail and returning looted property to the public till. This can be achieved
not by bickering over the immunity clause but by showing demonstrable political
will to punish corruption. What stops us from setting up special courts to give
expedited trial to public officers accused of abuse of office. Crime thrives
when offenders are allowed to evade justice. So long as one public officer is
seen to escape with his loot, so long will others be encouraged to abuse their
office. We need to publicize the asset declaration forms of public officers.
The audit mechanism needs to be strengthened by ensuring that the appointment
and removal of judicial officers, the Auditor General of the Federation, State
Auditors General, and the Auditors General for Local Governments of the various
states are not left to the whims and caprices of the executive.
Since President
Yar’Adua reported to the nation that over $10bn was wasted on the power sector
by the past administration public expectation has been that some people will be
questioned over such a gargantuan squandering of public revenue. But the matter
has been left in limbo like all others before it! What about all the high
profile fraud cases involving public officers that have left the nation in
shock over the last few years? Or even the cases of some of the 774 LG council
chairmen who between 1999 and 2007 received over three trillion naira in
allocations from the federation account with little to show for it! The cases of some ex–governors who enjoyed the much talked
about immunity are progressing at snail speed in various courts. Is it
immunity that has delayed action on these cases? In any case, will an accused person whose guilt is eventually established
beyond reasonable doubt be convicted or will he be surreptitiously allowed to
escape justice? Will the public suffer the double jeopardy of loosing the
public till to an individual and seeing that individual wallowing in the luxury
of his criminal acquisitions? These are the questions that are giving the
silent majority sleepless nights and not this palaver about what to do with the
immunity clause.
uchebush@yahoo.com;
0805 1090 050
|
RSS Feeds | Podcasts
Posted by Robot| 09.02.2008 16:06