TRAVAILS OF GODWIN OBLA
Kenneth Atavti argues that Obla’s case could damage relations between prosecutors and the EFCC
One question which has emerged on the front burner of national discourse in the aftermath of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s apparent shoddy treatment of Godwin Obla (SAN) is: what is the fate of other prosecutors for the commission? This question undoubtedly flows from the supposition that a prosecutor who sees to the diligent, professional and unrelenting prosecution of economic and financial crimes against several politically-exposed persons at great personal expense, may eventually find himself on the receiving end of the EFCC’s ruthless use of power. If the allegation made by Godwin Obla in his widely-published Press Release of November 9, 2016 is anything to go by, the EFCC under the Chairmanship of Ibrahim Magu has not only refused to pay his professional fees and settle his expenses for the over 40 cases he had successfully handled for the commission, but has also proceeded on a campaign of calumny intended to discredit and embarrass him.
Already, a few of the commission’s external prosecutors who spoke under the cover of anonymity have grumbled about the unfair treatment meted to Obla and expressed grave concerns about their own fate. According to one source, the humiliation of Obla at the hands of the EFCC is an ominous foreboding to what lies ahead for persons who fall out of favour with the commission, irrespective of the enormous sacrifices and contributions such persons may have made to the fight against corruption. One of the possible fallouts of the EFCC’s recent posturing may be increased prosecutorial apathy amongst prosecutors who, being conscious of the penchant of the commission for using and ‘dumping’ prosecutors in such an ignominious fashion, may think twice about making personal sacrifices on behalf of the commission.
Another potentially dangerous outcome of the EFCC’s treatment of Obla case is the leeway it establishes for any person who was convicted of sundry crimes after a tortuous legal process to allege prosecutorial misconduct. This prospect is likely to usher in an unprecedented wave of allegations that prosecutors now routinely invest themselves in the purchase of convictions for the EFCC, as ridiculous as that may seem; or that prosecutors are motivated by a personal desire to secure conviction against accused persons in exchange for the payment of bribes, even if grievous bodily harm would be caused to the accused persons. This will undoubtedly cast a pall of doubt over all the convictions the EFCC has recorded since its formation (all of which have come at a substantial cost to the Nigerian taxpayer), no matter how well-founded in law all such convictions might be.
One can only hope that the unfolding scenario will not damage the erstwhile fruitful relationship between prosecutors and the EFCC; and will not irredeemably affect the effectiveness of the anticorruption campaign of the current administration.
After detaining him for two weeks, a former prosecutor with the EFCC, Godwin Obla was last week arraigned before a Lagos High Court. His offence? He was alleged to have bribed a Federal High Court judge, Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia with N5 million to secure conviction in Charge No.: FHC/L/C/482C/10 between the Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Raymond Temisan Omatseye. Curiously, the charge filed against Obla was silent in mentioning the names of the parties in Charge No. FHC/L/C/482C/10. Obviously, this may be because it would interest the public to note that it was an EFCC matter.
Obla was said to have committed the offence on May 21, 2015, by conspiring to pervert the course of justice with the sum of N5 million. The said sum of money was alleged to have been transferred to the bank account of one Nigel & Colive Limited which Ajumogobia is alleged to be sole signatory. The offence was said to have contravened the provisions of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State, 2011.
In counts one to four on the charge sheet, Obla was said to have offered gratification in the said sum, by transferring the money from his company’s account Obla & Co., domiciled with the United Bank for Africa, to Nigel & Colive. The said transfer was alleged to have been made in order to restrain a public officer from acting in exercise of her official duties.
But Obla has since denied the allegation, saying that the payment of N5 million under reference was a payment he made on May 21, 2015 to a company named Nigel & Colive Nigeria Ltd, for the purchase of building materials for his construction site in Abuja. This position was conveyed in a widelycirculated press release issued by Obla and published in several national dailies on November 9, 2016. Obla further clarified that at that material time of the said commercial transaction and till date, he had no privy knowledge that Justice Ajumogobia had any interest whatsoever in the company.
He said when he honoured the invitation of the EFCC for an interview, the acting head of the STF team read incoherent portions of Justice Ajumogobia’s statement, alleging that the N5 million was part of purchase price of N40 million for a bungalow at Karshi, Abuja.
“For the avoidance of doubt, I have never purchased or made any payment for any bungalow in Karshi, Abuja or landed property, whatsoever from Justice Ajumogobia. On account of the foregoing, I was informed that the EFCC Chairman had directed that I be detained,” he explained. Obla said he was shocked to be confronted with the allegation of possible bribery payments to Justice Ajumogobia ostensibly in return for judicial favours. He insisted that there is no foundation or basis whatsoever for making any such payments. He acknowledged that Justice Rita Ajumogobia was his classmate 33 years ago and has always been his friend but added that he had only minimal professional contact with the Judge.
According to him, the records will indicate that in all her years at the Bench, from 2004 when she was appointed till date, the only matter he had before her was the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Raymond Temisan Omatseye, which commenced in 2010 and terminated in 2016, wherein he acted as a prosecutor for EFCC and which resulted in a landmark conviction of a former Director-General of NIMASA on allegations of approving contracts in excess of lawful thresholds and other infractions under the Public Procurement Act.
On May 27, 2016, the Acting Chairman of the EFCC, whilst speaking at the launch of the “Clean Hands Against Corruption Campaign” at the Eagle Square in Abuja alluded to the conviction of Raymond Omatseye as one of the “140 convictions the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has secured in six months.”
It is indeed curious that the same EFCC which lauded the conviction of Raymond Omatseye has now made a complete volte face to allege that the conviction was secured as a result of “perversion of justice”, moreso as no indication has been given as to whatever motivation Obla might have had to pay a bribe to secure a conviction on a supposedly watertight case presented by the EFCC.
Yet another question which any sane mind would be inclined to ask is: are bribes no longer paid contemporaneously with the acts for which they were paid? In other words, even if it were true that the sum of N5 million was paid by Obla into Justice Ajumogobia’s account (which is not the case here, payment having been made to Nigel & Colive Ltd), how can the payment of the said amount more than one year before the date of delivery of judgment in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Raymond Temisan Omatseye constitute or be interpreted as a bribe? The payment in question was allegedly made on May 21, 2015 while judgment was delivered on May 20, 2016 - exactly one year after.
Obla in the same press release of November 9, 2016, alleged that notwithstanding the diligent and successful prosecution and conviction, the EFCC for whom he acted and which has deemed it a matter of public interest to make this bribery allegation has neither settled expenses he incurred over a six-year period in prosecuting this matter nor paid any professional fee whatsoever in respect of the said matter.