Ali: FG Sabotaging Rule of Law with Looters’ List
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Yusuf Ali says government is trivialising the war against corruption by releasing the names of individuals going through corruption trials. He spoke with Hammed Shittu in Ilorin, Kwara State
What is your reaction to former President Olusegun Obasanjo speaking out against President Muhammadu Buhari? I’m not an Obasanjo’s fan but I think all patriots must commend him. He could have just sat in his comfort zone as former president, enjoying all the things of being a former president and he would be in the good book of everybody. Don’t compare our own with America. People would say we have not seen former American presidents making comments. That is not even true. Obama and Clinton have been speaking about Trump. When you have an abnormal situation, there must be some reactions. For me, I’m not saying Obasanjo is right or wrong, but for having the conviction. Because we need people who can call attention to things that are not going right. Wole Soyinka says “The Man died who keeps silent in the face of tyranny”.
So, for me, you may agree with him (Obasanjo), you may disagree with him. We need at least people who have been there before to call attention to.. I don’t care about his motive, and like I said before, the things he said, are they true at all or no true. And I can bet you, if it had not been Obasanjo who said those things, it would take one million of Yusuf Ali to say those things and to be noticed at all.
We need such interventions, and of course the other side would also say their own. The man said certain things that were of common knowledge to the people, there were others he said that were from his vantage position as a former president.
It is like when people talk to me about economy. They say Nigeria is out of recession. Nigeria is out of recession in the books of Central Bank of Nigeria. But to an average Nigerian like me and you, the recession is still living with us. Every Nigerian who lives by his sweat knows there are hard times up till now economically and financially.
You may disagree with Obasanjo’s style but all the things he said, are there truths in any of it, and then is it not good for somebody, who is so highly placed to draw our attention to things and dismiss it. We should also remember that he was one of the people who supported this administration to come into place against all odds. And like I said, to dismiss what he had said with a wave of the hand, Nigeria will be undoing itself.
Recently, General Theophilus Danjuma asked Nigerian to defend themselves against killer herdsmen terrorising parts of the country. What is your take on this? My first reaction is that we would be unserious as a people if we dismiss what he said. And it would be more worrisome if government dismisses it with a wave of the hand. You have to know Danjuma’s antecedents, right from the day when he was a lieutenant in the Nigerian Army. Anybody who has followed the history of Nigeria; the first coup, the counter coup, will know that Danjuma is a veteran, and then he rose to become the Chief of Army Staff in our country; he didn’t stop at that, he became the Minister of Defence in 1999.
So, it would be very unserious for anybody to dismiss.. because what he said essentially is an indictment against the Nigerian Army, of which at a time he was their Chief and Minister of Defence, superintending all the arms of the Armed Forces. We cannot take him not to know what he is talking about. And the level of information he has, ordinary people don’t have that kind of information.
Then the propriety. The issue is that why could you have said such a thing and so on. There are for and against. For me, truth is sacred. It doesn’t matter, who says what. Substance of what has been said should be the issue. He is saying Nigerian Army has become partisan in the way they are handling these issues. So, we should address the issues, and that is the problem of our country. Usually, we leave the substance and chase the shadow. I think we should not take his words as “ranting of Mr nobody”. Danjuma is something in this country; rightly or wrongly. We must take his words seriously. Let’s employ self introspection.This attitude of dismissing everything, Transparency International has said that we have gone lower in corruption index, we dismissed it. Amnesty International made allegation against Armed Forces, we dismissed it. Anything that does not cheer with our perception, we feel there is no substance. I think that is not the correct way of moving forward in a country.
The federal government has released the names of alleged looters of public treasury. Many of them are individuals facing trial. What is your reaction? Our country is an interesting country; we trivialise serious issues, and it is quite unfortunate that in spite of all the constitutional safeguards and the principles of rule of law, we are still behaving this way in 21st Century. The law is settled and sacrosanct above board that once parties submit a case to a court of law, parties hold themselves; you don’t resort to self help. What I have just seen from all these unfortunate scenarios is that we have allowed politics and grandstanding to override a very solemn issue. Those individuals who are undergoing trials, it is only the court that can pronounce them guilty; it is beyond any of the parties. When I said this thing is being trivialised, the other side too came up with names of others, who belong to the ruling party, who are also in court, being tried for various offences.
So, it shouldn’t be encouraged. Government should not do such a thing no matter what propelled you. You can only call anybody a criminal or a looter or an economic saboteur if he has undergone normal trial in a court of law; he has been so pronounced by a court of law.
The people in government named people in opposition who are undergoing trials as looters; the people in opposition came out with people who are also part of the ruling party who are also undergoing trial as looters. We are trivialising very serious matter unfortunately. That is my view.
With the release of the list now, don’t you think those listed therein may not have confidence in the judiciary if they are eventually found guilty? It may not but I don’t want to speculate. They all know what they are doing, unfortunately in one way or the other, they are sabotaging the rule of law. I don’t think it is right. There is nothing that could justify that. You don’t try to sabotage the rule of law, especially when these matters are court. I believe quite honestly that issue of corruption should not be trivialised.
Don’t you think Nigerian judiciary is being put under pressure? That was what I said at the beginning, that people are not respecting the rule of law. These matters are in courts, people must respect the courts. It is the same set of people, who will turn round to attack the judiciary. The judiciary has become the whipping boy of people in power and their collaborators at one point or the other.
Now, the danger in what we are doing is courts of law don’t decide cases based on rumours or allegations. Those cases must be proved and judgements are given in accordance with the law and the facts. But when highly placed people do the kind of things that they are doing, then you jeopardise the rule of law; you also jeopardise the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. You will still come back to blame the judiciary for your own actions.
To a large extent, you are very correct. But I can assure you with the training of judges, they will not be moved by these rantings. A judge has been trained in a way to maintain his impartiality and his focus. But my worry is the average Nigerian. That is why some of us are opposed to media trial, because the average Nigeria only hear one side of an issue. They don’t have the patience nor the gift to listen to the other side. If those who make allegation cannot sustain it in court, the general belief in the society is that judiciary is doing something to free somebody whereas, the person ab initio ought not to have been labelled or branded as a criminal.
In view of this, what is the way forward? The way forward is for all of us to demonstrate seriousness in all issues. What is going about naming of alleged looters has shown that we are not serious.
Look at what is happening in US about alleged Russian Interference in the election that produced (Donald) Trump. In spite of the fact that Trump is the President for more than a year, they would use their system, because they have strong institutions. They appointed independent counsel , who has been doing his own work, indicting people, in fact, some people have been convicted.
If it were to be in this country, most of us would start to query that the man is now the president, what are they still looking for. But in their (US) own system, it is very important because of the integrity of the system. Our system here has no integrity. So, there is nothing to defend. It is, everything goes. For me, I believe quite honestly that we should show seriousness and those who are in positions of authority have greater responsibilities to show seriousness.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria recently set up a committee to monitor corruption cases. What is your assessment of the committee? The committee has no role to play, politicians are doing their own thing. Luckily, the committee is made up of judges and seasoned lawyers. My own understanding of their work is to ensure that there is adherence to the rule of law in everything that happens to all these trials. And I’m sure at the end of the day, the positions some of us took earlier will be vindicated that most corruption cases are lost due to two major reasons. Lack of proper investigation and weak prosecution.
The judiciary is the last leg in the administration of justice. Once you don’t get your investigation right, and I give the example, people say in Nigeria (James) Ibori was discharged by the court whereas in the UK, immediately he was convicted. Yes, it is simple. In the UK or America, nobody would take you to court except you have a raw solid case. Nobody acts on sentiment in those places. Here, most cases are rushed to court based on sentiment and because people who are supposed to be investigators in the agencies want to make a point to show that we are working whereas it is more than that. In those places, they would confront you.
Over there forensic investigation is conducted and by the time they confront you with facts, you will breakdown. But here, people are first of all arrested, hounded and then you start to look for evidence.
You just talked about strong system over there. Here, the Presidency and the National Assembly are at loggerheads over the retention of acting EFCC Chairman, Ibrahim Magu. Where do you think we are missing the point? Everything boils down to our attitude. I have spoken about the continued stay in office of Magu. I have no problem with him as a person. But if we are talking of building an institution and I have made this analogy several times before. The constitution says these categories of officers must be screened by the Senate and confirmed. If you appoint somebody in acting capacity, and his name has not gone to the Senate, there is no problem about that. That can be accommodated within the spirit of the constitution.
But immediately you submit the name of the person to the Senate, for whatever reason, either tenable or untenable, the Senate says no. In defence of the constitution, I don’t believe it would be right to say the person must continue. And I give simple example, if the President submits the name of somebody for ministerial appointment and the Senate rejects the name, can you appoint him as an acting minister? That is the simple logic.
So, in order for us to defend the institution, if only for that, I think the matter should have been handled in a different way. For me, it is as if we are saying there is only one individual in Nigeria, who has the credentials to help us battle the hydra-headed monster of corruption. I don’t think so. I think there are a lot of good men in this country, many of them very silent individuals.