JUSTICE Marcel Idowu Awokulehin,then of Federal High Court, Asaba,apparently, reacting to the deluge of criticisms that came his way in the aftermath of James Ibori’s sentencing in the UK, recently said his conscience was clear over the clean bill he granted the common felon in his court.
Whether or not his conscience is clear, and whether or not he is willing to admit it, in the inner recess of his mind he knows that something was fundamentally wrong with his landmark but patently curious judgement now that his supposed angel has become a demon in a clime where judicial officers are used to calling a spade, a spade.
THE less than enviable image of Nigeria in the international arena had taken a further bashing when Ibori, a former governor of Delta Sate, was sentenced to a 13-year jail term in the United Kingdom (U.K).
For laundering a fraction of the proceeds of the plundered loot in the UK, the former governor has been imprisoned. Ibori who had earlier been given a clean bill of health in Nigeria was made to pay for his crimes in a jurisdiction where the criminal justice system would appear to brook no nonsense, irrespective of the colour, position and class of the criminal.
THE ex-governor’s incarceration is a clear testimony to the fact that the law is no respecter of anyone in a sane clime. Ironically, the preponderance of evidence used by the British Court to nail Ibori was allegedly obtained from Nigeria.
It is also a paradox that the charges to which Ibori owned up in the London court, and for which he was subsequently jailed were just a subset of the litany of concrete charges which the ex-governor denied in Nigeria and for which the Federal High Court, Asaba, cleared him. Ibori’s case is not just a terrible dent on Nigeria’s image but it is one case too many that has stained the judiciary and dragged it through the mud.
JUSTICE Awokulehin’s alibi for allegedly turning justice on its head is reportedly predicated on the difference between the criminal justice system in Nigeria and Britain.
The judicial officer reportedly posited that while Nigerian law requires that a criminal charge be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that of British allows decisions to be taken based on inference. This may be a weakness in the country’s criminal law that may have to be looked into in the future, but the point should be made that this supposed weakness should not be the reason for miscarriage of justice as happens in this clime quite often. Indeed, the most daunting challenge is the tendency of judicial officers to pander to dictates other than those of their conscience.
THERE are apparent issues of weakness of the moral fibre and debasement of the value system when officers in the hallow chamber of justice give room for the public to suspect that they have yielded to political pressure, primordial sentiments and, or monetary and other inappropriate inducements in reaching verdicts. These vices more than weaknesses in the extant laws, contribute immensely to the perversion of the course of justice in the country. Common criminals, usually guilty of lesser crimes, are found guilty in Nigerian courts regularly using the country’s criminal laws.
The distinction between the British and Nigerian criminal laws could not have been the reason Awokulehin absolved Ibori of the avalanche of corruption charges preferred against the ex-governor. Ibori’s escape from justice in Nigeria is believed in many quarters to be a conspiracy of a lot of people who had vested interest in the matter. From the transfer of the case from Federal High Court, Kaduna, to a hurriedly established Federal High Court in Asaba instead of the existing one in Benin, there were circumstantial evidences that a plan was afoot to distort the course of justice.
Curiously, Michael Aondoakaa; then Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, seemed to leave no one in doubt that he wanted Ibori to escape justice, given his brazen but ignoble refusal to cooperate with the anti-corruption agencies handling the convict’s matter in Nigeria and in the U.K.
THE Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) too can hardly be exonerated from blame for Ibori’s transient escape from justice. When Justice Awokulehin gave what would appear to be a wrong verdict on Ibori’s case, the EFCC did little or nothing to exercise its right of appeal, which it could do up to the Supreme Court.
If the judgement was appealed at all, it is evident that the matter was not diligently prosecuted in the appellate court as nothing was heard about any appeal for about two years.
WHILE we advocate and support a review of the country’s criminal laws with a view to removing technicalities that could impede successful trial of corruption and financial crimes, we believe very strongly that the real job is in the area of reorientation of individuals concerned and the society at large.
Persons charged with the responsibility of fighting corruption whether in the judiciary, executive or legislative branch of government need to be above board in the discharge of their duties. A society that appears to be permissive of corruption and financial crimes because it celebrates the criminals is also in dire need of re-orientation. Though Ibori’s sentencing in the U.K may have put the country’s judiciary on the spot, it is a deserved collective shame of all.