What do you make of the revelations in the ongoing $2bn corruption case that has now come to be known as Dasukigate?
These revelations are in themselves extremely mind-blowing and embarrassing for us as a nation. However, as a trained lawyer, I know that the suspects and the allegations will still be subjected to judicial process. We will be patient to see the end of that judicial process and see what the judiciary makes of all the allegations. But on the face of it, they are extremely embarrassing.
Some have called for former President Goodluck Jonathan to be investigated and prosecuted for his alleged role in the scandal. What do you think?
The issue of investigating and prosecuting Jonathan is a complex one; it is not a straightforward issue. On the face of it, since all of these people who are indicted, one way or the other, were working directly with the then President Jonathan, and they all took instructions from Jonathan, legally speaking, or like we say, ordinarily, he should be invited, questioned and, if possible, prosecuted. But it is not as straightforward as that. The reason why I say it is not straightforward is that in Jonathan’s case, there appears to be some kind of international understanding that he should not be ridiculed. The reason being that most African leaders in the past — I say ‘most’ because not all of them; some of them have successfully handed over in the past when they lost election. But most of them have developed the habit of clinging on to power even when they lose elections. Most African leaders manipulate the electoral process to suit themselves. They do this not only because of the peculiar reasons; they do this because of the fear of life after power. Therefore, the world and Africa have always encouraged presidents who have lost elections to hand over peacefully. And in return, there is some kind of behind-the-scene international understanding that such African leaders should be given their pride of place in history, so that it encourages others to toe the same line with honour when they lose elections. In Jonathan’s case, therefore, any attempt to humiliate him publicly will discourage other African leaders who lose elections to hand over because they will easily refer to his case. And this may lead their nations to unnecessary civil strike or war.
Are you saying his acceptance of defeat has insulated him against probe?
If you see the outcome of the last elections and even the outcome of public debate that is still going on, the country is still somehow bitterly divided along tribal lines. The results of the elections will show you what happened; that a complete section of the country was pushed against another section of the country. It was by sheer number that the other part of the country overpowered the South-South and South-East part of country Jonathan came from. Therefore, somehow, by some accident of history, Jonathan has come to represent, a particular section of the country who were sympathetic to him during the elections and those sentiments are still there till now. Thus, (if there is) any attempt also to humiliate him and bring him to justice, people from that part of the country will not even look at the facts of the case; they will refuse to look at the evidence against him. They will conclude that because he was a president from the minority, that is why you had the guts to humiliate him. And it will not do well for the healing of the post-election wounds that were inflicted on some parts of this country. Jonathan’s case must be a case where you balance expediency and so many other factors against the provisions of the law and so forth. But that does not mean that I am saying they should shield him if the evidence is so clear and overwhelming. But in any case, they cannot bring him in through, for example, the mere allegations of (former National Security Adviser, Sambo) Dasuki that ‘my Oga gave me permission to pay money about.’ If there is no such written instruction and the evidence is not so straightforward, that is what I am saying. If the evidence is overwhelming, especially when corrupt enrichment is traced to certain parts of the world, where he has kept money belonging to the Nigerian people or the money is kept in his name, not in the name of some proxy, such overwhelming and clear evidence, we may have no choice but to call for his arrest and prosecution. But for now, if the evidence he is telling us is not straightforward, like his subordinates who are alleging this and that, I think we have to handle it very carefully.
If Jonathan is discovered to be complicit as alleged, how can the Federal Government then walk the fine line between seeking justice and not humiliating him?
If, for example, the evidence is so overwhelming and the corrupt enrichment can be traced to a person’s assets or accounts anywhere in the world, those accounts can be traced and those monies retrieved. Like I said, if the evidence is so clear that he corruptly enriched himself, if it is extremely overwhelming, we will have no choice but to bring him to justice, because, somehow, we cannot also keep allegations under the carpet because someone handed over peacefully. The summary of all I am saying is that anything that has to do with Jonathan and bringing him to justice must be so free from political witch-hunt, overwhelming and clear not only for Nigeria, but for the international community.
Some believe Jonathan’s so-called politically naivety and inexperience were taken advantage of by his handlers. Do you agree?
Let us be honest about Jonathan. (Former) President Jonathan — and I say this with all respect to him — was not prepared for all the challenges of the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He had powers thrust upon his shoulders by the accident of history and the cruel hand of fate. He was never ready. He did not plan for that office; he did not campaign for that office. It was the schism of (former President Olusegun) Obasanjo; the manipulation of the political process by Obasanjo for his selfish reasons that got us to that point where Jonathan became vice-president and later became president. So, in a way, we must be sympathetic to Jonathan because the only way to quickly destroy a person is to give them an assignment that is beyond their capacity. For all of these revelations, we must come to two different but unfortunate conclusions: It is either Jonathan was extremely naïve or he was deeply complicit and feigning ignorance.
The Peoples Democratic Party believes Buhari’s government should probe Jonathan and “stop going round in circles” with the probe and prosecution of Dasuki and others, just as some party members have said Buhari’s anti-corruption war is selective. What are your thoughts?
Regarding the issue of the probe being selective, the argument could go on forever. There is a simple solution to it. Even if you arrest some of the bigwigs of the (ruling) All Progressives Congress today, the PDP will not be satisfied. They will tell you that there are more or they will tell you that it is because of disagreements within the APC that you have arrested that APC member. They will keep telling you, ‘What about this person? What about that person?’ If government is not careful, the opposition will be dictating to it on what to do and that is not right. The opposition cannot dictate to the government. If government is not careful and it listens to the opposition, it will destroy itself. The opposition can be so distracting because it will drag you out of the focus of what you are doing. Whether you like it or not, (Senate President) Bukola Saraki, is facing trial for (alleged) corrupt practices, but that is the number three man in the APC hierarchy now. What better evidence does the PDP need to say Buhari is a president that does not give a hoot about who is a victim in the war against corruption? The PDP people will tell you, ‘It is because he (Buhari) didn’t want him (Saraki) to be Senate President.’ If a minister in Buhari’s cabinet is arrested now, they will say, ‘It is because he has fallen out with (APC leader, Asiwaju Bola) Tinubu.’ They will never be satisfied. Therefore, if the PDP feels very strongly that it has evidence against certain members of the APC that have not been brought to book, and that is why they say President Buhari is selective, and the APC disagrees that there is anything against them, the argument is simple: let the trial of those that have been indicted now continue. You cannot say you will stop the trial of those people because certain other members who they think there is evidence against. If that is the case, you cannot stop the trial of those who have been caught because of other people.
All they need to do is to wait, take over government in 2019 or 2023, and then prosecute the rest of those that Buhari did not touch, since government is a continuum and time does not run against the state in criminal offences. In the next 40 years, you can bring somebody to book for crimes he had committed. Hence, the PDP should work hard and keep gathering evidence against these people so that when the APC is out of power, they can prosecute the remaining people that Buhari did not touch. I am saying this not because I want these other people to be left alone, but because the argument will never hold.
Punch
0 comments:
Post a Comment