LET me say this: I take absolutely no joy in the plight of Senator Ike Ekweremadu, former Deputy Senate President, and his wife, Beatrice, who were recently jailed by a British court for human-trafficking and organ-harvesting offences.
But those begging the new British monarch, King Charles III, to grant the couple royal pardon are misguided. Such pleas fuel the perception of Nigeria as a lawless country and expose the sharp contrast between Nigeria and Britain on criminal justice and the rule of law.
Consider this. The British prime minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Royal Familyhave been charged and fined for ordinary traffic offences, and some members of the UK Parliament have been jailedfor various offences.
Thus, to the British authorities, it's bizarre that Nigerians are pleading for those who committed the serious offence of conspiracy to trade in human organs, and who have not even served a part of their sentences, just because they are prominent Nigerians.
But my aim here is to make a general proposition from specific cases. In particular, I'm interested in why prominent Nigerians who were not found guilty, or would not have been found guilty, of an offence in Nigeria are convicted for the same offence in Britain. What general conclusion can one draw from those individual cases, from that trend?
The list is long. But among the most prominent is James Ibori, former Delta State governor, who was discharged and acquitted in Nigeria on a 170-count charge of money laundering but admitted to a 10-count charge of fraud in an English court. And now, we have the Ekweremadus, who would not have been convicted in Nigeria.
Last week, a newspaper quoted a retired judge as saying that if Senator Ekweremadu was tried in Nigeria, his influence would not have mattered. Really? The learned judge fibbed. While delivering his judgement in the Ekweremadu case, the trial judge, Mr. Justice Jeremy Johnson, said he received 51 pages of character statements, and reeled out the names of prominent Nigerians, who wrote to him.
They included former President Obasanjo, the current Senate President, the current Speaker of the House of Representatives and the current Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation!
Given that the British law that Senator Ekweremadu broke exists in Nigeria, one must wonder why many prominent Nigerians pleaded for him.
Clearly, if he was tried in Nigeria, the 'high and mighty'would have ensured he wasn't convicted, let alone jailed. After all, he's prominent and wealthy. The British judge said Ekweremadu "owns multiple properties around the globe, as many as forty", a point that may not have been lost on the judge.
Well, another point that may not have escaped the judge was that those intervening on behalf of Senator Ekweremadu had absolutely no concern for the victim, an indigent boy. The judge sympathised with the Ekweremadus because of their daughter, Sonia, who suffers from deteriorating kidneys. But he wondered why they did not seek a donor in the legal and proper way, instead of "exploiting" the boy. The whole story smacked of exploitation and abuse of power and privilege, all of which influenced the judge's decision.
But as I said, I'm interested in the Ekweremadu case and similar cases of prominent Nigerians convicted in Britain just to make a general point, namely: Britain has become Nigeria's nemesis on criminal justice and the rule of law. For truth is, the Nigerian regulatory and legal systems are incapable of holding the powerful to account. As the British judge said, it's always "possible to manipulate and corrupt the regulatory system" in Nigeria. But why? Why can the powerful escape justice in Nigeria but not in Britain? I propose three reasons.
First, politicisation. In Britain and other rule-of-law countries, regulatory, anti-graft and law-enforcement agencies operate at arms-length from the government. But in Nigeria, they are utterly politicised and subject to control from the government and powerful politicians. As a result, their decisions and judgements are often tainted by partisan considerations.
Take the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, NDLEA. Recently, it stoutly defended Bola Tinubu against drug allegations. But the NDLEA chairman, Brig-General Buba Marwa (retd), is a strong loyalist of Tinubu's party, APC, and Tinubu appointed Marwa's daughter to his transition committee. Few will vouch for the NDLEA's independence on the matter.
Similarly, as Premium Times pointed out last week, the front-runners in the race for the next Senate President "face daunting corruption allegations". But, over the past eight years, once any prominent opposition politician accused of corruption decamped to the ruling party, the EFCC quickly soft-pedalled on his case, suggesting political interference. That won't happen in a rule-of-law country, where no one, however politically connected, is above the law.
The second reason is technical incompetence. Even when there's no political interference, Nigeria's regulatory and law-enforcement agencies lack the technical ability to investigate and prosecute cases. Why, for instance, would the EFCC make allegations of a multibillion-naira fraud against a politician or public officer and the matter would eventually fizzle out?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Former President Obasanjo once said that those facing serious corruption allegations often used "ogbologbo lawyers" to outsmart EFCC. But why is it that someone can escape justice in Nigeria, thanks to "ogbologbo lawyers", but get convicted in Britain? When accused of corruption, prominent Nigerian politicians, often retort: "I have not been convicted by any court or tribunal." But can any of them submit to trial before a British court?
Which brings us to the third reason: the Nigerian courts. Truth be told, the Nigerian courts lack an understanding of the "harm principle", that is, harm to society of corruption and other vices. Last year, the EFFC chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa, said that high-profile corruption cases were being lost in court "on technical grounds".
If British courts abuse technicalities as Nigerian courts do, they wouldn't have convicted the likes of Ibori and Ekweremadu. Their primary concerns are substantive justice and the public interest. Yet, there's another Nigerian peculiarity we can't ignore: elements of the judiciary are corrupt!
But how terribly sad if it takes British courts to hold powerful Nigerians to account. I would rather Nigeria's regulatory and legal systems can do so themselves at home!
