Using Human Rights To Promote Corruption And Impunity By Femi Falana
Whenever I was
incarcerated by successive military regimes from 1985-1998, the Amnesty
International (AI) waged an effective campaign for my release. Through the
activities of the AI and other progressive organizations, I was able to regain
my personal liberty without any conditionality. Notwithstanding that I was
charged with many criminal offenses including treasonable felony the AI
declared me a prisoner of conscience.
Femi Falana
In thanking the AI
for its contribution to the defense of human rights and demilitarization of the
country, I am compelled to point out that while human rights defenders and
workers are no longer detained without trial, the most economically and
socially disadvantaged are still subjected to illegal arrests, detention and
other human rights violations and abuses. With the establishment of an office
in Abuja, it is undoubtedly clear that AI has decided to be more effective in
the defense and promotion of human rights in Nigeria.
Through the campaign
against the death penalty AI has saved the precious lives of many people.
Through the campaign against illegal detention, AI has secured the liberty of
many prisoners of conscience and other detainees including those who were held
in dehumanizing conditions. Through the campaign for fair trial, AI has ensured
that the right of many accused persons to fair hearing is respected. Through
the campaign for freedom of speech and assembly, AI has expanded the democratic
space for many people who were otherwise excluded from political participation.
Through the campaign for the observance of freedom of thought and conscience,
AI has protected many victims of religious and political persecution. But AI
has to do much more to promote universal respect for economic and social rights
if the organization is to contribute to the attainment of the principles of
universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights—civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights. No doubt, this approach
requires the active collaboration of AI with the victims of corruption and
exploitation and underdevelopment.
In this address, I
shall speak on the lacuna in human rights discourse given the deliberate plan
of the ruling class in the country to use the law and human rights to frustrate
the prosecution of the looters of our commonwealth. In response to the role of
lawyers who secure injunctions to prevent the arrest, investigation and
prosecution of rich criminal suspects accused of corruption we shall link the
recovery of our looted wealth to the duty of the government to provide for the
welfare and security of all citizens. Our position will be anchored on the
provisions of local and international human rights instruments.
Human rights,
corruption and poverty
Chapter 4 of the
Nigerian Constitution has made elaborate provisions for civil and political
aspects of human rights. However, the fundamental objectives and directive
principles of State Policy which provides for social, economic and cultural
rights in chapter 2 of the Constitution are not justiciable. But similar rights
are incorporated in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
(Ratification and Enforcement) Act (Cap A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,
2004 are enforceable. Anyone whose fundamental rights has been violated in any
state of the federation is entitled to seek redress in the appropriate High
Court according to Section 46 (1) of the Constitution and the Fundamental
Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009. But in actuality, human rights are
enjoyed by a tiny minority of rich and powerful individuals who have the
economic wherewithal to seek legal redress whenever such rights are violated.
I had argued
elsewhere that "human rights are not and should not be the preserve of the
rich and wealthy. It ought to be realized that without adequate food the rights
to life and human dignity are meaningless to the marginalized and vulnerable
segment of the population. Similarly, the right to housing has no relevance to
people who are displaced and expelled from cities due to urban renewal projects
carried out by governments. When the right to life of certain persons is
violated through extra-judicial killing by the police and other law enforcement
agencies those who depend on them for their education and welfare are rendered
vulnerable. Without access to education, the right to freedom of expression is
of no consequence to millions of illiterate people. In view of pervasive and
almost absolute poverty in the society, it is no longer in dispute that
socio-economic rights are not made justiciable, a majority of citizens cannot
fully and effectively enjoy the civil and political rights guaranteed by the
Constitution and international treaties." (Falana: Nigerian Law on
socio-economic rights, 2015).
Kolawole Olaniyan in
his celebrated book Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa (Oxford: Hart,
2014) has developed a framework for complementarity between promoting and
protecting human rights and combating corruption. He makes three major points
regarding the relationship between corruption and human rights law. First,
corruption per se is a human rights violation, insofar as it interferes with
the right of the people to dispose of their natural wealth and resources and
thereby increases poverty and frustrates socio-economic development. Second,
corruption leads to a multitude of human rights violations. Third, he argues
that human rights mechanisms have the capacity to provide more effective
remedies to victims of corruption than can other criminal and civil legal
mechanisms. He emphasized three major aspects of human rights in practice – the
importance of governing structures in the implementation and enjoyment of human
rights, the relationship between corruption, poverty and underdevelopment, and
the threat that systemic poverty poses to the entire human rights edifice.
President Muhammadu
Buhari talks of $150 billion stolen in the last 10 years. The criminals who
stole the huge funds and western countries which are keeping the funds have
violated the human rights of the Nigerian people to development. If a large
chunk of the stolen funds is retrieved and earmarked for socio-economic
development, the government can create jobs, guarantee security and ensure
infrastructural development. As
President Buhari puts it, “The fight against corruption is, in reality, a
struggle for the restoration of law and order. Corruption and impunity become
widespread when disrespect for the law is allowed to thrive in society.
Disrespect for law also thrives when people get away with all sorts of shady
deals and the court system is somehow unable to check them. Ability to
manipulate and frustrate the legal system is the crowning glory of the corrupt
and, as may be expected, this has left many legal practitioners and law courts
tainted in an ugly way.
The twin problems of
corruption and money laundering, and their ‘offspring’ – poverty – have more in
common than one might expect at the outset. This link is best captured by the
second and third preambular paragraphs of the United Nations Convention against
Corruption: Concerned also about the links between corruption and other forms
of crime, in particular, organized crime and economic crime, including money
laundering . . . Concerned further about cases of corruption that involve vast
quantities of assets, which may constitute a substantial proportion of the
resources of States, and that threaten the political stability and sustainable
development of those States. (See Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa,
Oxford: Hart, 2014, p 92)
Thus, ‘corruption is
a crime that relies significantly on the laundering process, which is essential
for the corrupt to be able to enjoy the proceeds of crime’. It is estimated
that Nigeria has lost over $400bn to large-scale corruption since independence
in 1960. According to Ndikumana and Boyce, more than half of the money borrowed
by African states (including Nigeria) in recent decades was misdirected within
a year, transferred in many cases to private accounts in offshore tax secrecy
jurisdictions. Given the important issues that they raise and their sensible
and important recommendations, the following passage deserves to be quoted in
extenso:
Resource-starved
African nations are subsidizing developed countries’ industries and social services
[through the] exodus of human capital [and] the illicit export of financial
capital from African countries – or capital flight. This is not a new
phenomenon, and it shows no signs of abating. Over the past four decades,
sub-Saharan Africa has lost a staggering $700 billion due to capital flight. In
addition to trade mis-invoicing, smuggling, and embezzlement of revenues from
natural resource exports, a substantial part of the capital flight was financed
by external borrowing. We estimate that every year 40 to 60 cents of each
borrowed dollar spins out of the revolving door as capital flight, often
returning to the same banks that issued the loans. On a net basis, Africa is
transferring more money to the rest of the world than it is receiving in terms of
borrowing and aid . . . Capital flight, and the burden of servicing the debts
that financed it are partly to blame for the conditions that create the other
economic problems faced by the continent ... Illicit financial flows drain
scarce public resources that could have been used to finance public services
including education and health. It partly explains why there are not enough
schools, clinics, and medical equipment; it also explains the poor working
conditions for doctors, teachers, and other professionals that force them to
seek greener pastures abroad . . . Obviously African countries have the primary
responsibility to devise and implement strategies to keep capital onshore. But
the international community also has an equally important responsibility to
root out the perverse incentives and opacity in the financial system that
enable and perpetuate the financial haemorrhage faced by the continent. (Léonce
Ndikumana and James K Boyce, Africa’s Odious Debts: How Foreign Loans and
Capital Flight Bled a Continent (London: Zed Books, 2011).
A particularly
useful ‘multi-dimensional meaning of poverty’ has been suggested by the UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. According to the Committee,
poverty is ‘a human condition characterized by sustained or chronic deprivation
of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the
enjoyment of an adequate standard of living’, and we can add, indispensable to
achieving the dignity and well-being of the human person and enjoyment of all
human rights, insofar as human rights are universal, indivisible and
interrelated. (See General Comment No 8, ‘Substantive Issues Arising in the
Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights: Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights’, statement adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights on 4 May 2001, UN Doc E/C 12/2001/10, para 12. )
Corruption,
especially large-scale, is both a cause and consequence of poverty. The basis
for this proposition may not be too far-fetched. On the one hand, corruption
enriches a select few, while invariably subjecting many to poverty, especially
the economically and socially vulnerable groups of society. Clearly, the enrichment
of the few at the expense of the many, especially in a continent of limited
resources, can hardly help the cause of those who live in poverty. And, as
noted, the theft and stashing abroad of public funds, where such funds are then
invested to improve the economies of developed countries, is unfair as it
undermines developing countries’ foreign investment, long-term growth,
development and prosperity.
Thus, from a
societal standpoint, corruption ultimately breeds poverty, weakens or destroys
critical institutions of governance, erodes the operation of democracy, the
rule of law and moral fabric of society, obstructs justice, and retards social
and economic development. From a government standpoint, it promotes impunity
and arbitrariness and encourages both money laundering and illicit money
transfers (‘dirty money’). On this account, corruption violates human and
people’s rights – civil, political, economic, social, and cultural –
disproportionately affecting the economically and socially vulnerable.
Accordingly, the idea of corruption as a human right issue is intrinsically
linked with the relationship between poverty, under-development and lack of
respect for human rights. (See Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa,
Oxford: Hart, 2014, p 122-124).
Human rights as
‘trump cards.'
Section 35 of the
Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights guarantee the right to personal liberty of every person living
in Nigeria. In a plethora of cases, the courts have upheld the fundamental
right of citizens and foreigners alike to freedom from unlawful arrest and
detention. To ensure that the right to personal liberty is respected it can
only be encroached upon by the State in a manner permitted by law. In other
words, a person may be lawfully arrested or detained if there is reasonable
suspicion that he/she has committed a criminal offence. Any person whose right
to personal liberty has been breached without recourse to law is entitled to
apply to a high court to secure release from custody and payment of
compensation accompanied by a public apology.
Where criminal
suspects in custody are not promptly charged to court, the detaining authority
is required to apply for a court order to legitimise the detention. This is to
ensure that no one is held in custody without any legal basis or due process of
law. Last week, some of the principal suspects implicated in the probe of the
$2.1 billion and N643 billion arms gate were nabbed by the Economic and
Financial Commission.
Notwithstanding the
confessional statements credited to the suspects and some of their family
members a number of shady characters have accused the Buhari Administration of
persecution of political opponents.
While some public
commentators have called on the government to respect the human rights of the
suspects they seem to have conveniently forgotten that the fund allegedly
stolen was meant to equip thousands of soldiers whose right to life has been
violated as they were killed by terrorists. Pursuant to the ex parte orders
validly issued a magistrate court the suspects have since been detained for the
purpose of investigation. But in a desperate move designed to divert the
attention of the Nigerian people and the international community from the grave
allegations of reckless and criminal diversion of the public funds earmarked
for arms procurement to prosecute the war on terror.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria was alleged to
have that "a magistrate court has no power to issue a holding charge
warrant". Since these views are at
variance with the current human rights legal regime in Nigeria, it is germane
to point out that while holding charge remains illegal and unconstitutional a
remand order issued by a magistrate for the detention of criminal suspects for
the purpose of an investigation is not illegal.
The attention of the "critics" ought to be drawn to sections
293-299 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) which
stipulate that a suspect arrested for an offense which a magistrate has no
jurisdiction to try, shall within a reasonable time, be brought before a
magistrate court for remand. The order which shall be for a period not
exceeding 14 days may be further extended provided that if the investigation is
not concluded within 28 days, the court may summon the appropriate authority to
show cause why the suspect should not be unconditionally released. Suspects who
are remanded in custody are at liberty to ask for bail or apply to the
appropriate high court to secure the enforcement of their fundamental right to
personal liberty suspects.
Incidentally, I handled the case of Ogor &
Others v. Kolawole (1983) 1 NCR 342; (1985) 6 NCLR 53, where a high court declared that the practice
of detaining criminal suspects on the basis of a holding charge was a violation
of the right to personal liberty. That was the first time in which a holding
charge was pronounced illegal in the country. The epochal judgment of the High
Court was later adopted by the Court of Appeal in the case of Enwere v
Commissioner of Police. Notwithstanding the judicial decision section 35 of the
Constitution section 236 (2) of the Lagos State Criminal Procedure Law, 2007
provided that "If any person arrested for any indictable offence is
brought before a magistrate for remand, such Magistrate shall remand, such
person in custody or where applicable grant him bail pending the arraignment of
such person before the High Court." The constitutionality of the section
was challenged in the case of Lufadeju v Johnson (2007) 8 N.W.L.R (PT 1037)
535. The apex court did not hesitate in upholding the validity of the
provision. According to Muktar J.S.C (as she then was):
I do not see that
there is a conflict between the provision of Section 236 (2) of the Criminal
Law supra and the provisions of Section 32 of the Constitution supra. The
fact is there was strong suspicion that the respondent and some others have
committed an indictable offence to wit -treason. After their arrest by the police, there was
the need to property and lawfully keep them in custody and the only way to do
tins was to take them to a Magistrate court who would, in turn, remand them in custody.
They couldn't possibly continue to remain in police custody without the order
of a court. Concluded, the legal advice of the Ministry of Justice-is sought...
On the presumption
of innocence as laid down in Section 33 (5) of the supra Constitution, I fail
to see anything in the record before us that there was a contrary presumption
in respect of .the appellant. The
appellant and his co-accused were taken before the Magistrate Court for the
purpose of lawful remand in custody, and that was exactly what the Chief
Magistrate did. She did not ask him of whether he was guilty or not, so the
issue of his innocence didn't come to play at that stage of the proceedings.
"
However, in recent
time, many persons invited by the police or anti-graft agencies to respond to
allegations of corruption, fraud, money laundering, unjust enrichment, etc.
have obtained court orders restraining the State from investigating or
prosecuting them. Some have even obtained orders of an injunction which are to
last in perpetuity. As I have argued elsewhere, no court has the power to
confer any perpetual immunity on any citizen. In Inspector-General of Police v
Fawehinmi, the Supreme Court held that a Governor, who is protected by the
immunity clause under section 308 of the Constitution are not investigated.
Once the public
officer completes his/her term of office the immunity so conferred by the
Constitution ends and cannot be extended even for a day. As the court has no
power to turn any citizen into an outlaw, it cannot prevent the police or
anti-graft agencies from arresting or prosecuting any politically exposed
person once there is reasonable presumption that he/she has committed a
criminal offense.
Therefore, the
granting of interlocutory injunctions by judges to restrain the police or
anti-graft agencies from investigating allegations of corruption and other
criminal offenses is illegal and unconstitutional as no court has the power to
turn any person into an outlaw in a country which operates under the rule of
law. In Fajemirokun v. CCB Nig. Ltd. (2009) 21 WRN 10 the Supreme Court held:
“In view of section
35(1)(c)(2)(3)(4)(5) and (6) and Section 36(1)-(12) of the 1999 Constitution
which provide adequate safeguard for the arrest of any person suspected of
having committed an offence, investigation of the allegation, and the
prosecution of the offender, no person has the constitutional right to be
shielded against criminal investigation by a judicial fiat or order.”
In the same vein in
the case of Dododo v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission & Ors.
(2013) 1 NWLR (PT 1336) 468 at 510 the Court of Appeal held:
“The EFCC and the
ICPC enjoy the status of the powers vested in the police which encompasses the
duty to examine a complaint or petition, investigate and prosecute if necessary
and that when a petition or complaint is
made the statutory body, their duty to look at the complaint cannot be
suppressed.”
Except where people
are arrested for breach of contracts and other civil wrongs courts have no
powers to restrain the police and anti-graft agencies from performing their
statutory duties. As officers in the temple of justice, lawyers should stop
promoting corruption and subverting the rule of law under the guise of
protecting the fundamental rights of their clients to personal liberty and fair
hearing. In view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court to the effect
no court can confer immunity on criminal suspects, high court judges should
desist from obstructing the course of justice by restraining anti-graft
agencies from arresting, investigating and prosecuting influential persons
accused of involvement in serious cases of corruption, fraud and other economic
crimes. No doubt,
While due process
should be observed in the fight against corruption and the impunity of
perpetrators, human rights should never be used to undermine justice in the
sense of being used to defeat investigations and prosecutions of corruption by
high-level governmental officials. No
doubt, the investigation and prosecution of corruption crimes is impugned where
human rights are violated, corrupt officials should not be allowed to use
technicalities as pretenses for human rights to defeat corruption charges and
prosecution. Using human rights as trump cards to circumvent and avoid punishment
and accountability for large-scale corruption is itself a violation of the
human right of the Nigerian people to development. Human rights law, like any branch of law,
should not be used to facilitate or perpetuate the kind of impunity with which
successive governments and senior public officials have engaged in corruption,
especially because it is the most economically and socially disadvantaged among
us that stand to suffer most in cases of large-scale corruption.
#Armsgate,
large-scale corruption and crimes against humanity
In his comment on
the earth-shaking revelations oozing out of the EFCC with respect to the
armsgate the Edo State Governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomole has asked if the money
for the procurement of military hardware was appropriated. Indeed, part of it
was appropriated. For instance, former President Jonathan had sought approval
to obtain a $1 billion loan to purchase adequate weapons for prosecuting the
war on terror in September 2014. The approval was promptly granted by the National
Assembly. Based on my involvement in the defense of scores of officers and
soldiers charged before the courts-martial for demanding for equipment to fight
the dreaded Boko Haram troops I confirmed that the loan was obtained but
diverted. All efforts to convince the members of the military courts that the
huge funds earmarked for arms procurement had been stolen fell on deaf ears.
In the circumstance,
I wrote to the then Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of the Economy,
Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala to demand an inventory of the arms bought with the $1
billion loan. In her embarrassing reaction to my request, the minister stated that
she was not in a position to account for the loan! When I persisted in
demanding for transparency and accountability the immediate past chief of
defense staff, Air Marshal Alex Barde claimed that the armed forces led by him
lacked the equipment to fight the insurgents. The irresponsible statement was
belatedly made while the officer was retiring from the military. In his
reaction to the statement the then National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki
claimed that the equipment ordered by the Jonathan administration had not
arrived the country.
To divert attention
from the satanic conduct of the public officers involved in the shady sharing
of blood money two of the courts-martial convicted and sentenced 70 soldiers to
death. 12 of the soldiers were convicted for mutiny for protesting the brutal
killing of 10 of their ill-equipped colleagues by a band of terrorists. The
remaining 58 refused to advance to the battlefront until they were supplied
with adequate arms. But for having the temerity to demand equipment to fight
the well armed and well-motivated terrorists the young men were condemned to
death. In the case of Nigerian Army v Brig-General Enitan Ransome-Kuti it was
disclosed that the defendant had repeatedly requested the Chief of Defence
Staff, Air Marshal Alex Barde to provide military equipment and demanded that
the military camp in Baga be fenced to prevent the Boko Haram sect from
invading the town. The CDS turned down the requests on the ground that there
was no money! A few weeks latter, Baga
was overrun by the insurgents.
The Special Court
Martial discountenanced the evidence of the criminal negligence of the then
military authorities and proceeded to sacrifice Gen Ransome-Kuti. Since it has
now been established that the huge fund set aside for prosecuting the war on
terror was cornered and shared, there can be no justification whatsoever for
not setting free all the convicted officers and soldiers. Since scores of
others were killed by the terrorists due to lack of equipment and other vital
supplies, the people involved in diverting the money appropriated for arms
procurement must bear full responsibility for such avoidable deaths. Thus, by
diverting the huge fund for arms procurement, the suspects deliberately caused
the death of not less than 25,000 ill-equipped soldiers and unarmed civilians
including children. For committing such grave crimes against humanity, the
suspects should be referred to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Court in The Hague for prosecution.
Abacha loot
Following the claim
of Dr. Okonjo-Iweala that only $500 million of the Abacha loot was recovered
the SERAP demanded an account from the World Band which had undertaken to
monitor the disbursement of the recovered loot.
In its 700-page reply to SERAP’s enquiry, the World Bank gave the
misleading impression that only that the money had been judiciously spent on
unidentified projects. Apart from the
package of lies which lacerated the report on the projects purportedly funded
with the loot, the World Bank deliberately set out to cover up the fact that
the bulk of the Abacha loot has been re-looted.
Contrary to the figure of $500 admitted by the World Bank, I wish to
state, without any fear of contradiction, that over $4 billion was recovered by
the Federal government from 1998-2014. In a recent interview which has not been
challenged by the World Bank or the Federal Government I stated as follows:
"...about
$1billion recovered by the Abdulsalami Abubakar junta was promulgated into a
decree. The legislation was enacted to prevent anyone from laying any claim to
the stolen funds. Based on the request
that I made under the Freedom of Information Act sometime in 2013 the immediate
past Secretary to the federal government, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim confirmed
that all the funds and properties listed in the Forfeiture of Assets Decree had
been forfeited to the federal government. In the second volume of his book
entitled "My Watch," President Obasanjo has revealed that he
recovered $2 billion, £100 million and N10 billion from the Abacha loot.
According to a former Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Adoke
SAN, the Jonathan Administration recovered $970 million. Another sum of $458
million seized by the Obama administration last year has not been repatriated
to the country.
The Buhari
administration should take steps to have the $458 million recovered. Sadly, a
large chunk of the recovered loot is alleged to have been re-looted by some
criminal elements. The Buhari regime
should ask the office of the Accountant-General of the Federation to account
for the $4billion recovered from the Abacha loot. Also, the banks which
illegally kept the funds for 10-15 years should be asked to pay interests and
damages for criminal negligence in warehousing stolen funds from the late
military dictator who was known to be a public officer at the material time.
" (The Interview Magazine, Issue 4, December 2015). On account of its
avowed commitment to eradicate corruption and impunity in the country, the
Buhari regime should not limit the recovery of our looted wealth to the
Jonathan era. All public officers who have taken part in the criminal diversion
and stealing of public funds should be brought to book without any delay.
The Transparency
International has ranked South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya as the leading corrupt
countries in Africa. While the classification is not disputed the hypocrisy of
the organization should be exposed. It is the height of fraud not to identify
the western countries which receive and keep stolen fund from Africa as the
most corrupt countries in the world. The Transparency International has never
exposed the role of the banks in some islands which are allowed by the
international financial system to warehouse billions of dollars stolen from African
countries by criminally-minded leaders. The AI should not behave like
Transparency International, which has perfected the act of blaming the victims
of large-scale corruption promoted by western countries, the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund. To promote human rights in Nigeria at this point
in time AI should pressurize western government and financial institutions to
repatriate the looted wealth of the country for the actualization of the
socio-economic rights of the Nigerian people.
In view of the
falling price of crude oil in the international market, the federal government
is likely to engage in external borrowing to finance the 2016 budget and
thereby compound the economic crisis of the nation. As Nigeria is said to be
broke, the Buhari administration is under pressure to abandon its welfare
programs to the detriment of the masses who have been at the receiving end of
the dangerous neo-liberal economic policies. With respect, Nigeria has no
business with poverty if the enormous resources of the nation are managed in
the interest of the people. In addition to the recovery of the looted wealth of
the country I have also asked the Buhari administration drawn the attention to
the following:
"Nigeria earned
$11.8 billion being remittances due to have been paid from 2004-2014 to NNPC,
which holds 49% shareholding in the NLNG on behalf of Nigeria. Out of the $11.8
billion the sum of $2.1 billion was remitted to the federation account in June
this year. Another sum of $400 million from the NLNG has just been remitted to
the federation account out of which $150 million has been shared while $250
million was transferred to the Sovereign Wealth Account. Last August, it was
reported that the NNPC had begun the process of recovering $9.6 billion in over
deducted tax benefits from Joint Venture partners on major capital projects.
NEITI has pledged to help recover the sum of $7 billion owed Nigeria by oil and
gas companies. Just a few days ago, it was revealed that over $2 billion
earmarked for arms procurement was diverted and stolen by a few ex-service
chiefs and a former NSA. Some former ministers are also alleged to have made
away with several billions of dollars. During the crisis of global capitalism,
otherwise called economic meltdown the Central Bank gave commercial banks a
loan of $7 billion. The loan should be recovered from the banks. Altogether, we
are talking of not less than $35 billion which can be recovered within the next
few months through fast track criminal procedure."
Conclusion: A few
years ago, one of the heads of the anti-graft agencies advocated the suspension
of the fundamental rights of public officers charged with serious cases of
corruption. I was vehemently opposed to the suggestion at the time. But I have
since reviewed my position. Having
regards to the deleterious effect of grand corruption on the society the courts
should desist from granting bail to suspects involved in serious economic and
financial crimes since terrorism and armed robbery are not usually admitted to
bail by our courts.
Therefore, the fight
against high-level official corruption should be seen as part of the efforts to
address and improve the conditions of the most economically and socially
disadvantaged, including through the effective recovery of stolen funds, and
judicious and transparent use of such funds for developmental programs that
would contribute to effective enjoyment of all human rights by Nigerians. In
short, my point is that corrupt officials should not be allowed to use the
judiciary to stop or perpetually delay corruption cases against them.
(Being the paper
presented by Femi Falana SAN to mark the official opening ceremony of the
Amnesty International office in Nigeria at Abuja on Tuesday, December 8, 2015)
Source : Saharareporters
No comments