02 Nov 2009 |
|
Bode George's Shameless Supporters and Ribadu’s Big Mouth
By Terver Atsar The nation is surely limping forward in the anti-corruption fight with the recent conviction of Chief Olabode George by a Logos High Court for charges bordering on abuse of office while he was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Nigerian Ports Authority. With this conviction of an erstwhile untouchable ‘big fish ‘, who is also a ‘big man’ in the ruling party, the lassitude of many doubters of the current government’s determination to tackle the menace of corruption should begin to wan. It should also boost the confidence of Nigerians in the ability of the legal system, however slow, to dispense justice if allowed to function by the books without interference from the executive. But we have a big clog in the wheel of the anti-corruption crusade coming from the very masses the fight is expected to benefit. There are many Nigerians who have rendered themselves incapable of appreciating the worth of hard work and integrity in the bid to acquire riches. So they worship and cerebrate those who steal our collective wealth. The incongruity of the general public showing no disdain for those that plunder the national treasury is undisputable. But in Nigeria, it is quite fashionable to openly declare ‘support’ for criminal elements. These people are often portrayed as victims of political persecution or targets of jealousy by detractors. The ethnic card also comes in handy for some. Thus, such vagrant display of absurdity as was done by some members of the public last Monday in the premises of the Lagos High Court are very common. It is reported that these people had gone to the court with the hope of dancing home with their benefactor after an anticipated victory at the court. But when the verdict turned out as ‘guilty’, they turned aggressive thereby disturbing and upsetting public order. It is strange to note that despite the overwhelming weight of evidence already in the public domain as regards the charges leveled against Bode and his co-travelers, his supporters still believed he was ‘innocent’ and deserved to be set free. It turned out that whatever gave them the confidence that the court would set their hero free must have been self-deception. It is not unlikely that the gang-up of about five SANS in the defense team against Keyamo in the prosecution also contributed to their false assurance of victory. A situation where a criminal is convicted of a crime by a court after a painstaking investigation and court process yet some people pour into the street openly claiming to be supporters of the criminal and protesting the verdict of the court sends a wrong message that we the public are not yet ready to eliminate this virus from amongst us. It should be an undisputed logic that he, who felicitates, dines, wines, and dances with a convicted thief must either be a thief himself or a beneficiary of the thief’s theft. In more decent societies, law-abiding citizens would only touch a criminal with a very long pole. When the citizens abhor corruption, they would restrain themselves from acts or inactions capable of boosting the morale of a convicted public official. It is hypocritical to point accusing fingers to government officials for being corrupt then pour into the streets to protest when they are convicted for corruption. The notion that only government should be involved in the fight against corruption is faulty. The general public owes a duty to support the anti-corruption campaign through affirmative actions. When we declare open support for a convicted criminal, we lose the moral right to complain about bad readership or corruption. When we despise the justice system by ridiculing judges and their judgments, then we pass the message that we are not ready for the rule of law. This is the message the shameful ‘supporters’ of Bode George passed across the whole world when they besieged the Ikeja High Court premises in solidarity to their ‘hero’. Granted they have the right to freedom of association and expression, but this should be exercised in such a manner that public morality is promoted and not insulted. One may argue that Bode and company were innocent on arrival at the court on the morning of26th October 2009 and so was entitled to all accolades from his supporters but this cannot be said about him after the court pronounced him guilty effectively making him a convict. When the verdict turned out ‘guilty’ the right and proper thing to do was for his supporters to have withdrawn quietly in shame to wherever they came from instead of causing public disorder in the court premises. I wish there should be a law to outlaw public protest of valid court judgments and violators should be charged for contempt and jailed for as many years as the convict (they support) was jailed. There is a legal process for appeal of the verdict to a higher court and this is the only option Bode and his supporters have and not to insult our collective intelligence by way of a public demonstration. And Justice Oyewole, the judge who delivered this judgment needs some commendation for his fearlessness. These are the revolutionary forces that can change the face of Nigeria for better and not the violent revolution that is been canvassed by some analysts as antidote to corruption. I however noticed attempts by some sections of the press to divert the credit for this landmark conviction from the current EFCC chairperson to Ribadu. They posit that the investigation carried out by Ribadu provided the evidence upon which Bode George and company were jailed and so credit must go to him. I find this argument very mischievously disingenuous. Ribadu did an investigation, wrote a beautiful report and then carefully buried the report under the carpet hoping that it will rot away. Waziri takes up this report, arrests Bode and diligently prosecutes the case for over a year to achieve a conviction then you tell me to give credit to Ribadu rather than the current EFCC (under Waziri)! And the amazing thing is that Ribadu himself, as a face saving measure has cheaply fallen into this delusive trance by claiming credit for this conviction. Just how cheap and desperate can Ribadu go to remain relevant in the anti-corruption crusade in Nigeria? Instead of burying his face in shame and declining comments, Ribadu opened his usually big mouth to state that ‘it is a measure of the shamelessness of our elite and the institutions that fuel their values that Chief George could be awarded a national honour in our country, and that he could later sue some newspapers for libel on account of the damning indictment report I prepared against him’ Can someone please whisper in to Ribadu’s ears these three words: Please Shut up! At what point did Ribadu realize that Bode is such a shameless elite? Why did he not arrest him when he had such an in-depth investigative report of his criminal activities at the NPA at his disposal? Why was he the best friend of Bode and his associates while he was EFCC Chairman? Ribadu can only deceive a few fixated minds who still believe the fight against corruption is dead without Ribadu in the saddle. As for the charges for which Bode and his friends were convicted, I find it difficult to understand why the crafting of the charges was done to make them sound less serious than the offence they committed. Using terms like ‘willful disobedience to authority’ or ‘contract splitting’, takes the weight away from the gravity of the real offence they committed, which is stealing, or misappropriation of public funds, fraud, breach of public trust, or abuse of office. The role of senior lawyers who team up to defend corruption in our courts using technicalities and sometimes outright bullying of judges and junior lawyers is very worrisome. Integrity seems to have been sacrificed on the altar of Marmon. Several of the ‘big fish’ cases are hanging in the courts primarily due to the delay tactics employed by these SANS to buy time for their clients who go about enjoying their loot while the heat is turned on the EFCC, accusing it of ineffectiveness. The Appeal court should discountenance these antics of defense lawyers and expedite action on the appeal filed by Bode’s lawyers, so that he and his co-convicts could begin their well-deserved stay in prison. Other justices should take a cue from Justice Olubunmi Oyewole and liberate us from the shackles of poverty placed upon us by the likes of Bode George. We expect to see others like Ibori, Iyabo Obasanjo, Adenike Grange, Fani-Kayode, Borishade, Turaki, and Sam Edem, join Bode (in jail) soon. No Bail for Bode and Company please. I am of the view that the application for bail brought by the defense council in EFCC Vs Olabode George and five others after the later have been convicted by a Lagos High Court should be treated as an abuse of the court process. It is obvious that the convict by virtue of their high positions in the society, are yet to come to terms with the grim reality of their new status as convicts. Their desperation to get bail is a testimony to the fact of their unwillingness to experience the consequences of their crime. It is an attempt to belittle or play down on the gravity of their circumstance. It is a mockery of the judicial process. Bode and Company are stretching their luck too far. This is the game these SANS have been playing successfully with the law due to their insatiable quest for wealth. The shameful role being played by these senior lawyers in thwarting the anti-corruption crusade is becoming more glaring. If this nation is going to make real progress in the fight against corruption, the wings of these eminent lawyers will have to be clipped in some way. But I must confess I don’t know how this can be done. I wish to remind our esteemed lawyers that whatever money they make from their (convicted) clients is part of proceeds of their (convicts’) crime. They could morally (maybe not technically this time) be accused of sharing in the looted funds. While the law may not support this argument, their conscience, which The Guardian says is an open wound, will surely judge them. If their consciences ware tempered for the good of the general public, many would have declined to pick up briefs coming from corrupt politicians who believe that all it takes to make away with their loot is to buy the services of the best lawyers in the country with the same stolen wealth. These lawyers come to court with the sole aim of buying time for their clients through bail. Once the bail is granted, they commence a process of systematic delay of the court process by throwing up complex technical issues to be resolved before the substantial case is heard. Their clients then use the bail period to destroy evidence, relocate their loot to safer havens, and squander some on them (lawyers) as legal fees. It is quite annoying that after using this approach to delay the trial in the High Court for 14 months, they now want to proceed to the Appeal court with the same strategy: ask for bail, and then follow up with technicalities. Let us remember that after the Appeal Court, there is the Supreme Court. Assuming it will take another 14 months in both higher courts to rule on the case and, assuming also that the convicts would remain on bail all this while then, they would have two full years roaming the streets as free men and of course enjoying their stolen wealth. On the other hand, if the convicts remain in jail, they would encourage their lawyers to move faster with the case in the hope that if the lower judgment is upturned, they could regain their freedom; and if the process drags beyond their jail term, they could be set free as having served their jail term. While suspects under detention may demand for bail as a right, I believe convicts should only be given bail under special circumstances like when medical attention is needed by the convicts. And the judge has the liberty to use his discretion to decide if the bail request can be granted or not. In the case of Bode and company, there is absolutely nothing to warrant the call for bail. I therefore urge the Appeal court to reject the bail application and concentrate on the substantial case in question, which is whether the lower court erred in sending the convicts to jail or not.
|
|||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.