…
Sometimes I wonder who advises our leaders. Olisa Metuh has no business asking the court to invite President Goodluck Jonathan to be a witness in his case, but he's probably desperate, so he did. However, the truth is he should have given his evidence and left it for the court to make a decision as to what to accept or reject and take it through the appeal process to the highest level where he disagrees with the court. Indeed, there was no way the court would have legitimately rejected any evidence he is giving on oath as to the role played by anybody in his case, except if the prosecution has something to counter it by way of evidence. No court expects that every act of the president done directly or indirectly or every instruction given by him must be subjected to litigation. Presidential actions have a lot of protection under the law that Metuh needed not to have been insisting that Jonathan should appear in court to give evidence to support a claim that he instructed Sambo Dasuki to release any money to him. The truth is that a potential Jonathan testimony in this regard is not going to add anything to Metuh's case, except the circus effect.
However, Jonathan after appropriately turning down the request for appearance ought not to have made demands about money in an alternative prayer to the court, even if supposedly in line with provisions of Section 241(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015. I read newspaper accounts of the affidavit filed in support of the motion filed on Jonathan's behalf by Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) to set aside the subpoena and I am convinced that no lawyer advised him to add that monetary demand to that list. It is so out of sync with the rest of the reasons he gave (in fact, it contradicts all the rest) that it's probably some advice given by some political adviser around him who thinks this is a great idea to further put off the court from insisting he appears. Okay, I'm not stating this with certainty, but what I'm saying is that I would be surprised if such advice was actually given by Chief Ozekhome or any lawyer in his chambers acting on behalf of the former president because it basically kills the consistency of the Jonathan case, even if proposed as an alternative prayer.
Telling the court to ask Metuh to deposit N1billion to cover his travelling costs and expenses is a demand that undermines him and Metuh at the same time. Here you are, with your government being wrongfully tried in the media and with the vilest propaganda deployed against you to support multiple accusations of corruption against your government, and you are asking the court to ask an official of your party who held his post while you were the ruling party to produce that type of money. Does this not imply that your government was so corrupt that you would expect an official of your party to have that type of money to deposit pursuant to a case against him in court? Besides, Jonathan, who is reputed to be one of the best-loved former presidents asking for money for himself and security personnel to travel with him from Otuoke to Abuja raises the question as to why he would actually need such money for such an appearance. Does it mean all the time he'd left Otuoke for other parts of the country on private or official business since he left office he has had to spend N1 billion in each case? If so, where has he been getting the money or who has been footing such a bill?
Of course, it's not that Jonathan expects that Metuh has such money and it's obvious that he stated this only because he wants to put the court off the idea of insisting on inviting him, but it also undermines him in the eyes of discerning, unbiased people because it indicates that he is refusing to appear, not based on principle, but because of money considerations.
Jonathan shouldn't have added the alternative prayer for money at all. What he needed to say should have been based broadly on two principles, some aspects of which have been covered by the affidavit outside the alternative prayer. First, he should have stated that by precedent, former or serving presidents do not appear as witnesses in cases of this nature in any court of law in Nigeria. In his own case, he should have stated that he is prepared to break precedence if such a matter is serious enough for him to do so. He would state that in this case, he does not see the seriousness of the matter because this case is obviously based on mischief of the prosecuting authorities as it's one of those cases they are using as emblematic 'proof' that there was corruption within his government. But Metuh was not a government official either by election or by appointment and he as president never had any reason to deal with him on money matters and nothing he can recall now that would help in his case for that reason.
Secondly, he would say the most important reason he cannot appear is based on the principle of fairness. He would say he couldn't possibly appear in court for Metuh, as it would open up a floodgate of demands he cannot fairly meet from other officials of his administration wrongfully or rightfully being prosecuted at the moment. He would say it would be impossible for him to be fair to every one of these former officials if, due to the Metuh case, they also decide they need him to appear as a witness in their cases. He therefore cannot accept to appear for Metuh and reject others, selectively or unreservedly. So, in order to avoid such a floodgate of demands that in his opinion will not serve the ends of justice, he simply would prefer not to appear. After all, a man cannot be judged adversely for exercising his sense of fairness if his reasons cannot be faulted. In fact, I would say all the reasons given in the affidavit are valid, except that which says he believes that the evidence sought to be obtained from him will amount to an invasion of his personal right to privacy and family life. Nothing in the proceedings so far suggests that. As I implied earlier, the issues are related to public actions and not all actions undertaken by the president is expected to be the subject of litigation in a court of law.
In any case, as I've stated, the worst part of the Jonathan case is this demand for N1 billion as an alternative prayer to the court. Saying that he can appear if some money is provided (especially the amount he stated) undercuts his case. I mean, supposing the government keen to disgrace him steps in now and says they are prepared to foot the bill to ensure that justice is done and seen to have been done, would he then come to court? Forget that discerning people would immediately know that this is mischief, would Jonathan still have a leg to stand on nonetheless? He won't have any leg to stand on because it is the government prosecuting Metuh and they are free not to spare any expense to ensure they convict him, even if it means paying Jonathan's expenses, especially where this would invariably win them some political points. I mean, if they do this, they can claim it is pursuant to their policy of fighting corruption and ensuring that those charged are convicted, while Jonathan accepting to appear once they agree to foot the bill would be a political gift to them as it would undermine Jonathan in exactly the way he stated in the affidavit before the court, including opening him up to further litigation embarrassment.
…..
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
No comments:
Post a Comment