Without prejudice to the outcome of the various cases now active in many courts on the matter of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, and former Kogi state governor, Alhaji Yahaya Bello, there is this creeping curiosity in the public space that demands inquisition.
Some Nigerians are wondering why the EFCC is so passionate in the case of Bello. They are wondering why the anti-corruption agency did not, and is not showing the same passion and devotion in the case of former Kano state governor, Abdullahi Ganduje who is currently the Chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress and other cases whose files are in the custody of EFCC.
Some lawyers have questioned and challenged this partisan and selective tactic in the fight against corruption; a crude concept which EFCC copied from the police. They query the media lynching of Bello orchestrated by the EFCC. Mr. Ola Olukoyede , a lawyer and Chairman of EFCC, has deployed this media mob in the case of Bello. The EFCC chairman, driven by only what he knows, has in the full glare of the media passed a judgment of “guilty” on Bello when he invited the media to his office, caused the coverage of the event and ensured its widest broadcast, transmission across multiple new media platforms and publishing of same for the global audience.
All this happened when the case was already before several courts in the country. But even if we make a case for Olukoyede for holding an elaborate media briefing on a matter before the courts (which prima facie, is subjudice), how do we defend what Olukoyede mounted the podium to tell the world about Bello. He boldly pronounced Bello guilty when he gesticulated and voiced how Bello moved money from Kogi government coffers to pay his children’s school fees in advance. In basic criminal law procedure, for a suspect to be adjudged guilty of a crime, such crime must be effectively linked to the person (suspect) and proven before a court of competent jurisdiction. Until then, it remains an allegation. I have watched Olukoyede’s video on his ill-advised media briefing and his elaborate attempt to ‘convict’ Bello without due process of the law. The EFCC chairman breached the walls of the rule of law and decency. He publicly convicted Bello and armed Bello’s legal team with enough arsenal to plead victimization, unfair hearing, trampling of fundamental rights and obvious bias by EFCC against their client. It is for such muddled processes and drama that the likes of Peter Odili, Abdullahi Adamu, Godswill Akpabio, Bello Matawalle, Abdullahi Ganduje and other former governors are all free men today. Their cases were dramatised in the media by EFCC, and that was all. No conviction; in some cases, no arraignment.
Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended confers innocence on a suspect until he/she is proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, not by any prosecuting or investigating agency. The implication is that no person should be pronounced guilty or shamed for any allegation of crime until proven guilty before a court. What Olukoyede did in that media rendezvous was akin to a public parade of Bello before his trial and conviction. This matter has been settled in several court judgments including in Ndukwem Chiziri Nice v. AG, Federation & Anor. (2007) CHR 218 at 232 in which Justice Adebukola Banjoko held that ‘The act of parading him (the suspect) before the press as evidenced by the Exhibits annexed to the affidavit was uncalled for and a callous disregard for his person.’ In simple terms, it means an affront on the fundamental rights of the suspect.
By virtue of Olukoyede’s trial by the media, Bello is already guilty in the eyes of the public. But beyond that, Olukoyede’s strange tactic amounts to bullying of the judiciary to do his bidding. He has shown emotion, passed judgment in his own media court. But neither emotion nor judgment matters. What matters in law is justice hence the saying, “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall” (in Latin: Fiat justitia ruat caelum). In the case of Bello, Nigerians want justice, not judgment, drama or emotions of the EFCC Chairman. If the EFCC has as much as a prima facie case against Bello, it should pursue the case in court diligently and stop bullying the judiciary with tendentious statements in the media.
But wait a minute, why is the EFCC not showing as much interest in the cases of Matawalle, Akpabio and others as it’s doing in Bello’s case? Is it a case of one law for Dick and another law for Harry? Many believe that Bello is a victim of toxic politics. The charges against Bello, both in letter and spirit, do not measure up to the charges against some top politicians holding senior positions in this government yet they are allowed to move around freely.
When Olukoyede was appointed, many thought the EFCC would change its old acrid habit of selective enforcement of the anti-corruption law. Unfortunately, he has turned out worse than his predecessors; only hyper-active in harassing perceived enemies of the President and reverting to dormant mode when the case is about friends of the president. This is not how to fight corruption. The war against corruption should never be reduced to an instrument of vendetta, a whip to reign in presumed political renegades and foes.
Olukoyede should reflect on his style of fighting corruption. He promised to be different. Unfortunately, he is not, may be, even worse than his predecessors. Why is it that under his watch, politicians with heavy charges of corruption who have not been acquitted by any court are actively serving in the public space including those allegedly caught in the very act. The manner he has chased after Aliko Dangote and Yahaya Bello, two persons said not to be in the good books of the Tinubu government leaves much to the imagination. It makes the anti-corruption fight take the hue of vendetta especially when he has completely turned his eyes away from the cases of Matawalle, Akpabio and others who are now demi-gods in the current administration. Need we remind the EFCC chairman that these men are no longer covered by immunity. No minister or former governor, for instance, enjoys immunity from prosecution. So, why is he not prosecuting them?
*Gaya, teacher and public policy analyst, writes from Kano.
