WHEN on October 17, 2006, the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) released an official statement, alleging that 15 outgoing governors (including the then governor of Lagos State, Ahmed Bola Tinubu now being tried) had been found to contravene the Code of Conduct Bureau Act, many Nigerians eagerly awaited the commencement of their trial. Moreso, because the Bureau had categorically stated its resolve to charge thembefore its sister body ' the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) 'in the next few weeks.'But, of course, Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, which confers immunity from prosecution on both civil and criminal matters on this class of public office holders,seems to have pulled the brakes onthe enthusiasm of the Bureau to immediately arraign these 'offending' governors.At least, many enthusiasts blamed the delayed trial on the constitutional shield around the governors, waiting anxiously for that buffer to be lifted on May 29, 2007 so that the seemingly resolute CCB could go all out to bring these men to book.However, over 52 months after these alleged offenders stepped down from their exalted offices, the CCB appears to have been bogged down by lethargy, as it went all cold and rebuffing official inquiries from journalists on why they were yet to charge the governors to court 'even after they had lost the immunity protecting them as governors.'The attitude of the Bureau lent credence to claims by the then governors, their cronies and apologists that it was being masterminded by then incumbent President Obasanjo, to witch-hunt supporters of his lieutenant at the time, Vice President Atiku Abubakar.They had claimed that Obasanjo was using the CCB to hoodwink and scare them away from drumming support for Atiku. Suffice to say that at the time, the governors and their apologists were shouting 'persecution'. This did not fly with everyone, as some more critical minded persons were quick to tell the governors to drop the sentiment game and address the real issue.As Abdul Atadoga Ibrahim, then chairman of the Abuja Branch of the Nigeria Bar Association had argued then: 'What do we care if they (governors) were mentioned by the Conduct Bureau because they are supporters of Vice President Atiku Abubakar' The real issue is have they breached the law' I think they should respond to that real question rather than sentiments as if they are clean. The indictment by the CCB cannot be sustained.'But as persuasive as Ibrahim's argument about the citizens fixing their eyes on the ball and not the player was, the Bureau's failure to charge the governors over four years after they were stripped of the constitutional shield did not dispel the hues and cries of persecution; it only went to accentuate the claim that their release was one of the many high-points of the 'All is Fair in War and Love' principle in the Obasanjo/Atiku fierce and fiery political battle, unprecedented in the annals of Nigeria's polity.Even the build-up to the indictment of these governors by the CCB and the timing left much room to doubt the nobility of the Bureau's work in that regard, given the fact that it was during the Obasanjo era, when there was a groundswell of public opinion, that the machinery and instrument of state power was used to literarily silence political foes by arrests, threats of arrests or intimidation by some of these instruments or security agencies.AGAIN, it was the Joint Task Force on fighting corruption, set-up in June 2006 by Obasanjo and composed of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), The State Security Services (SSS) and the Nigerian Police that finally found these governors in breach of the CCB Act.The JTF, under the supervision/coordinating authority of the EFCC Chairman at that time, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, commenced its activities with verification of Assets of Public Officers, a strategy aimed at identifying off-hand corrupt public officers for further investigation. In the course of these, three issues were identified:(1) Anticipatory Declaration: Some public officers had declared Assets far above what they owned, as their declaration could not be substantiated.(2) Some public officers did not declare some of the properties they acquired while in office.(3) The issue of ownership of foreign accounts and late declaration was treated with levity.Eventually, 15 state governors (as indicated below) had been found to have individually contravened some of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Part I to the Fifth Schedule, especially on the issue of false declaration of Assets and or acquisition of properties outside legitimate means.In line with the functional principle of fixing one's eyes on the ball rather than the player, one cannot but say that this tabulation of alleged offending governors and offences by the CCB and members of the JTF on anti-graft seems a very thorough job, especially given the Proof of Evidence (Substance of Charge) clearly disclosed therein.And the quality of the work accounted for why many Nigerians were enthusiastic ahead of the end of the tenure of these governors. Sadly, the CCB, which in October 2006, promised to charge the governors 'in the next few weeks' did not in spite of such a brilliant investigation and findings thereof.Nonetheless, a source within CCB, explained the delay thus: 'The seeming delay is because we were still investigating these governors over some other suspected offences. And we did not want to charge them for some offences now and later come with other offences if we establish prima facie against them. The essence is to charge each of them in one swell swoop; it makes it tidy.'The source added: 'The work of the CCB is a delicate one and the Bureau has always taken its time to investigate thoroughly before going to court on a charge.'Yet, another source noted that, 'what is significant is that time does not run against the state on criminal matters. That means at any time, the state can charge anyone to court when it is convinced that a crime has been committed.'Without doubt, the duo had some strong points, especially that notorious fact of law that time does not run against the state on criminal matters and therefore, the state can at any time charge an offender to court (as evidenced by the ongoing trial of former Governor Tinubu, which started last Wednesday at the CCT in Abuja).The point also made by the CCB source that investigation was still ongoing, hence the delay, cannot be wished away if we take cognizance that the case made against Tinubu in 2006 had only four bank accounts as against the present case filed last week, which identified 10 foreign bank accounts in the three-count charge.However, watchers of the developing events insist that it is imperative that rather than rush into a publicity stunt and subject any perceived offender to media trial and condemnation by releasing information on the alleged breaches of any Nigerian presumed to be innocent until otherwise proven, the interest of justice and fairness would be better served if the CCB waits until it goes to court.'That way, its integrity, as an independent body immune from the manipulation of the powers-that-be to witch-hunt perceived political foes, would be intact and public confidence would be sky-high,' an Abuja-based lawyer said.'It would also do the Bureau a world of good to decide on what it wants to do with the other former governors, which it found guilty of breaches. After all, there's no law forbidding it from charging them for the offences it has already investigated and found them liable for as adumbrated in its October 2006 statement.
Click here to read full news..
