Yusuph Olaniyonu
27 November 2009
analysis
Lagos — I have been following closely the case at the Code of Conduct Bureau involving Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Ribadu is now a subject of scorn among the establishment in the country and their appendages. Anytime members of this group have opportunity to make remarks about the Obasanjo administration, they will take time to disparage Ribadu. They do this particularly when they are in the midst of journalists whose constituency they believe solidly backed the former EFCC chairman when he was on the driver's seat of the anti-corruption campaign.
Some of these commentators tell obvious lies about Ribadu and his activities.
I have always said it that Ribadu is a Nigerian hero. He is human and made his own mistakes but I have always believed that it is better for somebody to act at a time when the need for action is most expedient and make mistakes than for him to refuse to act. He came into the anti-corruption campaign when the nation's second name was graft. The country had become a pariah nation due to the activities of fraudsters and corrupt officials in high places. Nuhu came with unusual passion for the job. He was enthusiastic about making positive changes and he infected many people with his positive disposition to the difficult job. He stepped on many powerful toes and these powerful forces are now hounding him.
Well, before I allow the review of the past to becloud the present, the focus of this piece is the trial of Ribadu for charges that he did not declared his asset as required by law while in office as EFCC chairman between March 2003 and December 2008. The government in suit number CCT/ABJ/01/2009 has filed criminal charges against Ribadu at the Code of Conduct Tribunal headed by Justice Constance Momoh.
Ribadu who is out of the country following several attempts on his life has not been able to present himself in court for trial and a warrant has been issued for his arrest.
To fully understand this case, it is necessary to do a flashback to the experiences of this anti-corruption czar since he was sent on a course in Kuru as a way of easing him out of the EFCC chair. His car had been shot at and there were several attempts on his life. At one point, the police had been asked by the presidency to investigate the attempts on his life. But nothing has come out of the investigation. He had been investigated for treason and the handling of foreign donations to EFCC. On both grounds, nothing was found against him.
However, Ribadu and his lawyer, Mr Femi Falana have always contended that he duly declared his assets and submitted the document to the Code of Conduct Bureau. The first declaration was said to have been made on March 14, 2003. Also, on December 1, 2008, he made the second declaration after it became obvious that he would not return to the EFCC chair. Afterwards, he was advised by friends and family to leave the country for his safety and he left on January 3, 2009. It was after he had left the country that the attorney general of the federation, Mr. Mike Aondoakaa, with whom Ribadu had disagreements while he was in office filed the charge on January 13.
At the first sitting of the tribunal, the defence counsel, Mr. Femi Falana raised objection that the tribunal was not properly constituted since only two members out of the required three sat. A third member was quickly appointed. There are many people who believe that the trial of Ribadu on the issue of asset declaration was just a ploy to lure him back to the country and get him grounded by ensuring he could no longer travel out of the country. Those who believe in this theory argue that the issue of whether Ribadu declared his asset as required by law or not could simply be resolved by an order of the tribunal compelling the Code of Conduct Bureau to confirm or deny his claim that he submitted an asset declaration form in 2003 and 2008.
To support this claim, on September 23, Falana wrote on behalf of his client to the Code of Conduct Bureau requesting for certified true copies of his asset declaration forms which were submitted to it in 2003 and 2008. According to Ribadu, his request has been ignored. The Bureau said it was not obliged to release the forms.
In the absence of the CTC of the asset declaration forms, how will the man conduct his defence. The refusal of the Bureau to release the CTC of the declaration form and the failure of the tribunal to give an order for the release of the document is violation of the rights of the former EFCC chairman to fair hearing under Section 36 of the constitution. Section 36 (6) (b) states that "every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence".
Another curious thing about the trial is that when the defence raised the issue of improper service because the court process was served on Ribadu's wife instead of the accused person, the court said the service was proper. The defence then filed application for leave to appeal and stay of execution at the Court of Appeal. The matter first came up for hearing on September 14. The higher court had to adjourn on it till December 16 because the attorney general was not represented. Under our laws when an appeal on a matter is pending in a higher court, the lower court must stay further proceedings so as not to preempt the higher court or present it with a fait accompli, otherwise it will be tantamount to judicial impertinence. That is the decision in Mohammed V Olawumi case.
Therefore, the recent warrant by the tribunal is contemptuous of the Court of Appeal. Again, I also wonder why Justice Constance Momoh and her colleagues issued that warrant which they know cannot be executed on an accused outside their jurisdiction. Since the case of Enahoro V State in the First Republic, the rule has been established that when the accused is outside the jurisdiction of Nigeria, the first thing to do is to extradict him. Issuing warrant against Ribadu who is resident in Oxford, United Kingdom is an exercise in futility and the court should always be wary of giving an order that cannot be executed.
There is also the point raised by Falana at the tribunal on which Justice Momoh has refused to rule. That is on the independence of the tribunal. The Code of Conduct Tribunal is an agency of the Presidency. Its letterhead papers and its building carry the mark of the presidency and the cars driven by Justice Momoh and her colleagues has registration numbers 'Presidency CCT 1, CCT 2 and CCT 3'. The contention is that if the Attorney-General who is accusing Ribadu is an extension of the presidency and the court trying the matter is under the presidency, how can the accused get justice? Where is the relevance of the nemo judex in causa sua (no man should be a judge in his own case) doctrine?
Ribadu is also claiming that the asset declaration forms are part of the condition precedent before any appointee appearing for screening before the senate can be attended to and if he was duly cleared by the senate, it implies he had fulfilled the condition precedent.
If one matches all these points with the threat alleged to have been issued to Ribadu by a powerful former governor that Nuhu will be disgraced out of EFCC, demoted and dismissed from the police and later end up in prison, then you will understand why some people are not feeling comfortable with the turn the case is taking. Is this trial the last fulfillment of the prophecy of this former governor? At least, all the other threats have come to pass.
Though any violation of the law should be punishable, but if the energy being exerted on the Ribadu asset declaration case is expended on the cases of ex-governors who are accused of corrupt practices, then we would have seen the end of many of the cases. The international community is following the Ribadu case closely. The outcome of the case will go a long way in determining how serious the rule of law policy of the Yar'Adua administration should be taken. The impression should not be created that the present administration is just victimising or persecuting the man. There is so much wrong with that trial.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 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.
