From the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mahmud Mohammed, comes a useful insight into why many corruption cases crumble like a pack of cards in the courts. He identified shoddy investigations and countless charges slammed on suspects as being responsible. A poorly investigated case begets hollow evidence, which invariably turns any prosecution based on them into a wild goose chase.
To change this tide, he advised that the prosecution of suspects should follow what he described as “investigation-led arrest,” as opposed to “arrest-led investigation.” Indeed, the CJN is spot on.
Courts do not provide evidence for the prosecutors to prove their cases against an accused. The CJN, therefore, stressed that the “judiciary is like a builder, and works with materials that are brought to it. As such, the materials necessary for construction must measure up to standard in order to be applied by the courts,” emphasising that it amounts to “a waste of court’s time and mockery of the Constitution and the law” to slam a suspect with as many as 200 charges. This is a path the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission often treads.
In one celebrated corruption trial with such colouration, the Supreme Court, in its judgement, stated, “They (charges) rest on nothing in the face of the provisions of Section 36 (8) and (12) of the 1999 Constitution. They cannot stand as they fall flat. And to cap it, the prosecution laced the extant charges with intention to defraud, an extra element of the charge, which was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Mohammed’s criticism, coming from someone in the best position to know, should be taken seriously by the EFCC, Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission and allied law enforcement agencies. The CJN spoke in Abuja early this month when he received in his office, the Deputy-Governor, Operations, Central Bank of Nigeria, Suleiman Barau. Barau had visited the CJN under the auspices of the Nigeria Electronic Fraud Forum. He said the financial sector anticipated more electronic fraud attempts in the wake of the upsurge in e-payment transactions or cashless policy introduced about a year ago by the CBN.
Specifically, the EFCC’s new acting chairman, Ibrahim Magu, who assumed office last week, should reflect deeply on the CJN’s indirect appraisal of prosecutorial performance of the agency. Under Ibrahim Lamorde, the immediate past chairman, the commission lost its gravitas to prosecute corruption cases. Although it flaunts many convictions made during this period, it is obvious that lack of progress in the cases involving over 10 former governors, who have been standing trial since they vacated office in 2007, ex-ministers, commissioners, senior public officials, pension thieves, and fuel subsidy looters implicated in the N2.5 trillion scandals in 2011, remains a veritable barometer for calibrating its success.
Now, a new set of former governors has joined the caravan, some of whom were grilled only on the basis of petitions from individuals, which might be shallow or influenced by considerations other than public interest. Making significant progress in fraud litigation involves efficient sleuthing by security personnel that could lead to indelible trail, which will ultimately help the court. This aspect of the job has since deserted the EFCC.
The pioneer EFCC chairman, Nuhu Ribadu, set the tone in operational efficiency when he established a welter of evidence the court relied on to convict a former Inspector-General of Police for corrupt enrichment to the tune of N13 billion, while in office. Magu, who promised in his first public statement not to falter, should rediscover the commission’s groove. This will require a critical assessment of its legal team and improved funding. In President Muhammadu Buhari, who abhors corruption with a passion, and at every turn insists the malady must be uprooted, or else it kills Nigeria, he has an unequalled supporter.
However, it is not just badly handled investigations and countless charges that imperil corruption trials. The CJN only told half of the story by not mentioning the role of corrupt members of the bench and the bar in killing such cases. Compromise has become inexorable with interlocutory applications in corruption cases. And more often than not, suspects receive favourable rulings, surprisingly even from the Supreme Court, just as reckless adjournments and defendants’ submission of medical certificates mar such trials. Lawyers, including Folake Solanke, Itse Sagay, Olisa Agbakoba – all Senior Advocates of Nigeria – have faulted the Supreme Court ruling granting a stay of proceedings in Bukola Saraki’s Code of Conduct Tribunal case. It is viewed as an affront to the Administration of Criminal Justice Act of 2015. This is a ghastly mistake.
The most bizarre incident was the refusal of a judge to allow James Ibori, a former governor of Delta State, take a plea in his money-laundering and corrupt enrichment trial, and then dismissed all the 170 charges slammed against him. Yet, some of the same set of charges were used by a court in London to convict him for money laundering and corrupt enrichment.
Sadly, deliberate steps have yet to be taken by the National Judicial Commission to deal with corrupt judges. In other jurisdictions, especially in the West, where it is not condoned, bad eggs on the bench go to jail. This is an irreducible benchmark the NJC has to adopt if it is to be taken seriously on the punishment of errant jurists. It is not enough to fish them out and fire them; only for them to go and enjoy their loot.
Corruption in the country, as the Human Rights Watch observed, will continue to turn “public service for many into a kind of criminal enterprise,” until the judiciary is cleansed.
