THE discharge by Justice Charles Archibong of erstwhile bank chief, Mr. Erastus Akingbola of the 26 offences preferred against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) comes as one more in a growing number of such judicial decisions on corruption-related cases. And the trend gives cause for worry.Only recently, thecharges preferred against formergovernor of Ogun State, Otunba Gbenga Danielwas thrown out by thecourt because theprosecution failed to obtain theleave of the court to amendthe charges; federal lawmaker Ndudi Elumelu has just been cleared of a corruption-relatedcharge on the grounds that the prosecution failed to link him with the offence. In the not too distant past, former governor of Delta State, James Ibori, now awaiting sentencing in a United Kingdom prison, was cleared of more than a hundred alleged offences by a Nigerian court that curiously, could not find a single crime to pin on him. And, before him, former Governor of Rivers State, Peter Odili obtained a common sense-defying court order that literally immunised him from investigation, arrest, and prosecution. That a court established to effect justice would grant such at all is laughable, was it not so saddening. These rulings based on whatever technical grounds, fuel public suspicion, rightly or wrongly,that justice in this land is assuming meanings different from those intrinsic to it. This perception must not be allowed. Justice inthe Nigeria'sjudicial system,asinevery clime, mustnot only bedone, every time, butbe seen by all reasonable persons to be done. The EFCC has had cause tosay that the courts are becoming 'too involved' in corruption-relatedcases.Buthow come the agency did notseethat the Akingbolacase wasall motion without movement, becoming 'a drain onpublic purse' becauseSenior Advocates of Nigeria do not come cheap at all' Mere whining won't do; the agency must to go beyond complaint in the press. It is legally empowered sufficiently to sniff out evidence of misdemeanour and submit to the appropriate authorities. Under its new chairman, Ibrahim Lamorde, the EFCC must do things different and better than hitherto.Justice Archibong's anger toward the manner the prosecution had handled the Akingbola case was clear from his condemnation of the 'serious and professional incompetence' of the senior lawyers involved.Perhaps he had good reason to be so with a prosecution that moved forward and backward with either a request to amend their charges or for a stay of proceedings or an adjournment, or an outright demand that the judge hands off the case. The judge concluded that these constituted a 'serious abuse of process', 'extended campaign against thepresiding judge', 'professional incompetence to the extreme', and actsthat were 'unmindful of the accused's rights'tohave the case against him clearly stated'(as well as) dismissive ofhis right to a speedy trial''. In truth, Akingbola was charged late 2010 on allegations of mismanaging and stealing from Intercontinental Bank Plc. If, more than two yearsafter, the case is still at the stage ofamendment of charges and sundry issues,just when will the substance be heard, argued anddecided ateven this first level ofthe judicial process' And, given the peculiarly Nigerian pace of this process, it is anybody's guess when ' appeals and all ' it will be laid to rest. Every act that hampers speedy trial delays justice and, ipso facto, denies it.To theaverage and reasonable mind, thatfive senior advocates with a combinedtotal ofpossibly100 years' experience inlitigation wouldso badly handle acase to attract such strong condemnationfrom the Bench is confounding.The inevitable question then:was genuine 'incompetence' at play in this case or was it contrived 'incompetence' on the part of what the judgetagged an 'abusive prosecuting team'' It iscritical that this matter beinvestigatedby the appropriateauthority. Notably, JusticeArchibong referred thematter to both the Attorney-General of the Federationand the Legal Practitioners'Privileges Committee 'for further considerationand determination of the issues raised'. Because the integrity of the judicial process and system isat stake, both authorities, and indeed any other that has a role to play,musttreat the complaint with the sense of importance and urgency it deserves.But the Attorney-General of the Federation, on whose brief and supervision the prosecution team worked, cannot absolve himself of failure of diligent supervision. Why was he not concerned that the trial made no headway for more than two years' If, as the judge observed, the prosecution's performance was a drain on public purse, is the attorney-general not an accomplice in this regard' Indeed, the public is entitled to know just how much it is costing them to maintain a team of non-performing lawyers. Additionally, the attorney-general should see it as a duty to personally appear in court to lead the prosecution of high profile cases such as that involving Akingbola, rather than contract it to lawyers in the private sector. If he cannot do this, he should at least allow the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), who has been specially trained to prosecute, to perform his job. This is an age-old tradition that unfortunately is being eroded.We concede that judges are human and the presiding judge may have good reason to be upset in court. But Justice Charles Archibong seemed to have allowed his emotions to get the better of him. How proper ' or even helpful to the cause of justice ' is it that the presiding judge railed on so much aboutprocess and then ended updischarging the accused of the substance of the case' Granted that there is only one Federal High Court, how can he possibly enforce his order that this case must not be prosecuted by this team before 'any other judge of the Federal High Court''' The prosecution had earlier requested that the judge disqualify himself from hearing the case, which he refused, a ruling that was on appeal. For the sake of transparency, why wouldn'ta judge whosuspected ill motiveagree tohands off the casebut neverthelessput on record his observations ofprofessional misdemeanour' Every participant in the temple of justice is duty bound to act only in furtherance of the cause of justice.In this case neither the judge nor the lawyers have served this purpose.The Akingbola case portrays both the Bench and members of the Bar in bad light; it makes hapless Nigerians increasingly distrusting of, and cynical toward the judicial process. It would be no exaggeration to say Nigerians are faced with threats to their liberty and right to justice from what should be the last refuge of the citizen. Even the supervisory authorities of the judicial system suffer credibility problem. It would be dangerous that men be sufficiently distrustful of the courts as to recourse to extra-legal redress.As Erastus Akingbola (as well as countlessother persons on trial for corruptdealings now and in future) gets discharged in one court, to be re-arraigned inanother, the keyquestion is, when will this accusedproperly have hisdayin court to clear his name or toreceive his just punishment' This is the central question to the anti-corruption effort. Only the EFCC and government with the will on the one hand, and judges and lawyers with the requisite courage and integrity on the other, can provide the answer. And they must do their parts now to deliver this country from the corruption demon.
Click here to read full news..
