Uzokwe's Searchlight


One question that begs for answer, as the president parades himself as the judge and jury, is this: who would judge him in an event where allegation of wrong doing is leveled against him or....
Thursday, May 6, 2004


Alfred Obiora Uzokwe

ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS
OBASANJO THE JUDGE, JURY AND...



advertisement
have written about this issue before but because it is still a source of immense concern to me and the nation at large, it became necessary to revisit it again.

One of the great things about democracy is the inherent ability of the system to provide an enabling environment for power equilibrium anywhere it is truly practiced. Power equilibrium acts as a deterrent against the dictatorial tendencies of leaders. In a true democracy therefore, the president is not above the law neither is the office sacrosanct.

The checks and balances in a democracy derive from the principle of separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary. These three arms of government are supposed to work independently. None must be subservient to the other and none must subordinate itself to the unlawful wishes of the other. Hence, when the president of a country commits an offense that rises to high crimes, the legislative branch can commence impeachment proceedings without intimidation from the executive arm. Also, the judiciary has the powers to bring judgment upon an errant member of the legislative or executive branch.

One is deeply troubled however, that even though Nigeria is said to be a democracy, she has not imbibed the ethos of the system that is defined as the government of the people, for the people, by the people. There are no real checks and balances in the nation. The judicial and legislative branches have all but abandoned their responsibilities and ceded all their authority, advertently or otherwise, to a president that makes no bones about being completely in control. A president that bludgeons and bulldozes any one that stands on his path or dares to challenge him in any way. A president who now seems to hold the yam and the anvil and doles out the yam only to those in his good books.

Recently, General Obasanjo visited South Africa to witness the inaugural ceremony of the president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki. During a question and answer session, one of the Nigerians in attendance called the attention of the president to the despicable practice by some Nigerian government officials, who troop into South Africa to buy choice property. The questioner was alleging that these were corrupt officials siphoning Nigeria's money into South Africa for the purpose of acquiring real estate. The least the president could have done in response, was to thank the caller for bringing the matter to his attention and then promise to alert the panel responsible for investigating corruption in Nigeria. He did not do that, instead, in his characteristic saucy manner, he shot back at the questioner. "If you have your facts in chapters and verses, give them to me". This type of reaction makes a mockery of the presidency. Looking at it from one perspective, he seemed to be making fun of the questioner, yet what the questioner was saying happens to be the very cankerworm that has eaten into every fabric of Nigeria. Corruption, by government officials, account for the stunted growth that Nigeria has experienced since independence. It is therefore important that anytime that issue is brought to the attention of the president, especially a president that rooted his campaign on eradication of corruption in high places, he must not treat it with somnolence or levity.

Analyzing his response from another angle, it is fair to assume that the president may have shot back at the questioner the way he did, so as to discourage that type of "whistle blowing" in the future. Other potential whistle blowers, who witnessed his terse response, would conclude that he discourages it and refrain from it. Suffice it for one to say at this juncture, that it is whistle blowers of this nature that provoke investigations that often lead to indictments and convictions. In countries where things work, the presence of whistle-blowers deters public officials from engaging in corruption. The thing that bothers this writer most, in the way that the president responded to the questioner, is that by asking the caller to give HIM the facts, the president is playing the role of the judge and the jury. He should simply have told the questioner that he would forward his concern to the independent panel that investigates wrong doings or that he should forward his allegations to them himself. In that way, it would be clear that he is not asking for the facts so that he would pass judgment on the officials. The president should not be the one that determines if and when a crime has been committed or who should be investigated or not. It should be the role of an independent police force, an independent judiciary or an independent panel established for that purpose. If the president had handed the case of corrupt former military rulers to an independent judiciary, police and an investigative panel, there is no doubt in this writer's mind that many would be in jail now. He refused to do that; instead, he chose to be the final arbiter of who gets investigated and who does not. In the process, he allowed many of the people that drove Nigeria into the pits to go scot free. This calls for outrage from Nigerians. The idea that one man controls all arms of government in a nation is not only anathema, it is a travesty and if not checked, the nation called Nigeria will continue to drift aimlessly.

One question that begs for answer, as the president parades himself as the judge and jury, is this: who would judge him in an event where allegation of wrong doing is leveled against him or members of his executive staff or those close to them? Would he have the gumption to investigate himself? Clearly, there will be conflict of interest in a case like that. This scenario is not far-fetched. Readers may remember what happened when a group of people in Anambra state decided to stage a civilian coup. Although they did not succeed, they should nonetheless have been tried and sent to jail. This did not happen, why? Simply because the dramatis personae happen to have some Aso Rock connections. They went scot-free even in the face of uproar from Nigerians. If Nigeria had a real democracy where there is clear separation of powers, the matter would not even have been entertained by the president. The police would investigate the case and then send the case to court for adjudication. Clearly, Baba was in charge. He effectively became the judge and jury. That is bad for a fledgling democracy.

An extension of this is the current Wabara saga in the senate. While I do not personally care about the senate president because of the way he got into office, it troubles me that once again, the onus of determining his fate seems again to lie with the Nigerian president. This writer already envisions what the outcome would be. If the senate president is still in the good books of the man from Otta, he would go free, even if he is guilty. But if by any chance he has fallen out of favor with him, then he better start packing his bags because what happened to Evans Enwerem, Dr. Okadigbo and Anyim Pius Anyim would befall him soon. The judgment over what should be done to Wabara and how it should be done, should be in the hands of an independent investigative panel and the judiciary not Obasanjo. I was appalled to read about the meeting between certain members of the upper legislative house and the General. The meeting was allegedly convened by the president. This shows that the wheel of injustice is already in motion - that of impeaching an innocent man or allowing a guilty man to go free. What this writer is saying is that Nigeria is allowing power and authority to be concentrated in the hands of one person to use as he sees fit. This is not democracy; it is a one-man show. It is dictatorship.

HERE I STAND