Bola A. Akinterinwa
13 August 2001
opinion
Lagos — When the Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission headed by Justice Chukwudifu Oputa (Oputa Panel), was set up, it was designed to be an instrument of national reconciliation and nation-building. Probably as a result, the Oputa Panel was not given the necessary legal teeth with which to bite Nigerians who would also violate the rights and directives of the panel. The panel is investigating the violation of the human rights of Nigerians as a whole but a situation in which the Nigerians that are being protected also opt to disrespect the panel was ill defined. This situation now raises the problem of sacred cows and sacred immunity.
Sacred cows are human beings. As an expression, it refers to people who believe that they are above the law of the community in which they live. In terms of classification, it is political. On the contrary, sacred immunity is more or less a legal concept but it has the same intended meaning and effect of sacred cows. In other words, sacred cows are 'untouchables'. In diplomatic parlance, diplomatists are untouchables in the performance of their of ficial duties. They have immunity from prosecution and are inviolable. Unlike the immunity of the sacred cows, that of diplomatic agents is legal and universally recognised. In Nigeria, there is no legal foundation for sacred cows. Sacred cows are able to resist the enforcement of law and order because of the high level of sycophancy of the Nigerian people, the monetisation of politics, very corrupt politicians who are bent on permanently preventing the unlocking of the skeletons in their cupboards, and the general poverty that has come to characterise life in Nigeria. Few Nigerians are interested in how people make their money. In fact, many offenders are assisted to escape justice in Nigeria and when offenders dishes out money, especially in a reckless manner, the beneficiaries will be the first to make the offender another 'god' and not simply a sacred cow. Consequently, the alleged non-preparedness of some elder statesmen to appear before the Oputa panel should not be simply understood at the level of sacredness of cows but, more significantly, at the level of immunity which underlies its factor of sacredness.
Are the Nigerians, who have reportedly refused to appear before the Oputa Panel, entitled to the right of immunity? There is no disputing the fact that General IBB, General Muhammadu and General Abdulsalami Abubakar are entitled to certain immunities, being former Heads of State. In general practice, immunity from prosecution applies in cases of actions embarked upon in the interest of the nation. In the context of the Oputa Panel, the issue is not at all prosecution. Justice Oputa has said that "nobody is on trial at this Commission. The Commission is simply a factfinding panel set up to help Nigerians face their past, heal the wounds of the past and thereby help in nurturing the emergence of a humane, just and democratic society." Even if admittedly they are entitled to immunity from appearance before the Oputa Panel, what about the implications of their non-appearance for national integration, Nigeria's foreign relations, and relationship between Nigerians who have appeared before the panel and have suffered under the administration of the former leaders, on the one hand, and the former leaders and their supporters, on the other?
Without any gainsaying, the implications of any refusal by any Nigerian, irrespective of his or her status, to appear before the Oputa Panel are multidimensional and are particularly critical at three different levels of scenarios: sacred cow scenario, scenario of indifference, and aftermath of evidence scenario. As regards the scenario of sacred cows, the hypothesis is that the former leaders see themselves as sacred cows. By implication, the Obasanjo administration cannot do anything and Nigerians have to acquiesce to the situation. In this regard, the purpose of the Oputa Panel can never be attained as two types of Nigerians will be created: the law makers to whom the laws made do not apply and other Nigerians to whom the laws are likely to apply with stick and carrot policy. Animosity vis-a- vis the leaders and their communities is likely to exist. The Panel cannot but turn out to be good for nothing. Integrity, respect and credibility, the panel will not have. Ethnic dimensions will be introduced especially that the former leaders, as well as other military officers against whom serious allegations have been brought, are from the North. Military-civil animosity cannot but also be an issue: the affected former leaders are all military people. The nature of the misunderstanding will change from being human rights violations to opening a pandora box of general complaints by civilians against other innocent military off'cers. This particular scenario gives the impression that, in any political dispensation, be it military or civilian, the military are untouchables. The question can therefore be asked whether or not Nigeria is really democratising. If the former leaders are hiding under any recognised immunity from appearance, let Nigerians know because any perception by Nigerians of the leaders as sacred cows cannot help democracy or national unity and progress.
As for the scenario of indifference ascribable to fear of molestation and in which case the problem is not that the leaders are deliberating refusing to appear, Nigerians are likely to be left in doubt as to the veracity of the role of the accused leaders. Already, the belief of many, if not of most Nigerians, is that the allegations as levied in various sessions of the Oputa panel are genuine. Hamza Mustapha has become a popular household name. Nigerians are more interested in his evidences than the atrocities he was initially accused of. He had not denied many of the allegations brought against him but have explained the circumstances surrounding his actions. From many indications, he seems to be enjoying increasing sympathy of Nigerians. But in terms of indifference, all his accusations against General Abdulsalami, those of the DMI et al cannot but be taken as alleged and people are likely to continue to react from this position of undefended allegation. Thus, this situation will not in any significant manner be different from that of a sacred cow in its effects. Indifference is another form of disrespect for the Oputa panel, in particular, and the Nigerian people in general.
Concerning the aftermath of evidence scenario, it is assumed here that the accused leaders will have given evidence before the panel. Two possibilities can exist at this level: the accused will be able to defend themselves beyond reasonable doubts and to the satisfaction of Nigerians or the contrary will be the case. Reconciliation can exist where the leaders can convince Nigerians about their roles while the implications may not be different from the two earlier scenarios. But in all the scenarios, all the accused leaders are sources of the precarious situation that is likely to exist in Nigeria after the Oputa panel would have completed its assignment. If Justice Oputa is near the truth by saying that "there is no sacred cow and that (he) cannot recognise any," then all the Nigerians to whom letters of invitation have been sent should promptly appear because it is the future of Nigeria, defined by political stability, the integrity of the Oputa panel, survival of the democratisation process etc. that is at stake.
The international community is particularly interested in how this problem will be solved. Nigeria's international image was seriously damaged last week with the armed attacked of two Americans and some officials of the Oyo State Government. Dr David Hartman and Mr. Stephen Leverele were guests of the Oyo State Ministry of Health but were attacked in Ajao Estate, Lagos, when they were coming from the airport. The Nigerian driver of their car was shot in the head and died on the spot. Very startled, the two Americans had to return home from there. An Israeli was not only killed last week but many Nigerians were also reported to have been wounded in various armed attacks. How can we tell the international community that life and property is guaranteed in the current democratic dispensation? Under the military, contempt of court was common. In the new dispensation, in which way is refusal to appear before the Oputa panel different from contempt?
Whatever is the case, the accused leaders ought to know their onions better. It is illogical for IBB to be dreaming of coming to rule Nigeria, on the one hand, without seeking national forgiveness for the June 12,1993 saga as well as accepting to respect Nigerians by appearing before the Oputa panel. The serious allegations of impropriety levied against General Abubakar cannot help the future of the descendants of the General in the near future because Nigerians are good historians and will always refer to it even if they purport to have forgotten. So are the allegations levied against General Buhari likely to affect his people if they all choose to take the panel for granted. The interest of Nigerians is to establish the truth, determine where things went wrong and determine how to prevent its future occurrence. Any encouragement therefore, by any Nigerian, of other Nigerians to undermine the Oputa panel in one way or the other is a disservice to Nigeria. Without doubt, the likely dynamic of the refusal to appear before the panel is the uncertainty over what would happen if the truth is eventually established. Nigerians do not even know what will be done with the truth if it is established. Even when adequate compensation is paid will the anger be removed because of such a compensation? National wounds are likely to heal quickly if the offenders and the offended voluntarily accept to reconcile. Oputa panel is visibly the only framework that can guarantee this reconciliation. Consequently, the arguments of sacred cows and immunity are irrelevant. What is important is the security, unity and survival of the Nigerian state. So, the former leaders should not do anything to undermine Nigeria as a people, and as the most powerful black state in the world. Government must also not defeat the purpose of the panel by not enabling the panel to achieve its objectives.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2001 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
