Prof.
Fidelis Oditah (A Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Queen’s Counsel)
Does
he have immunity? Is he not a Nigerian? Everybody is equal before the law. He
should be questioned. Many leaders in Africa have gone to jail for corruption.
We should avail ourselves the opportunity to combat corruption by showing
people they won’t get off scot-free when they leave office having plundered the
state.
There is nothing political about it. If I
steal money, won’t I be investigated? Won’t the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission invite me? Is that political? Why should politicians be provided
with a life-long immunity from being probed? If he (Jonathan) is probed, some
people will say the past president’s can of worm is opened. That is the problem
we have in this country. We must make it clear to everyone that no one is above
the law. At some point, you must be held accountable for your stewardship. I
don’t think quizzing Jonathan has anything to do with politics. It is about
cleaning the system and enforcing our laws.
We
have outsourced our criminal prosecution to other countries to help us recover
stolen funds. America is returning looted Abacha funds, Britain is holding
Diezani (Alison-Madueke) and it has jailed ex-governor James Ibori. Who have we
jailed? Is there any law that you shouldn’t be probed if you were a political
office holder? In fact, that is even a good reason to probe you. So, if
Jonathan is suspected to have plundered the assets put in his care as a trustee
for the people of Nigeria, he should be probed. He must give an account of his
stewardship. If I sent you on an errand and I gave you some money, you should
come back and tell me how you spent the money. What is wrong in that?
Femi
Aina (A lawyer)
The
onus is on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to go where evidence
takes them as an investigating agency. However, care should be taken because it
is normal for an accused person to blame someone else for their criminal
conduct.
The
responsibility for the security vote lies with the former President (Goodluck
Jonathan) as the Commander-in-Chief; as such, there is nothing wrong if he is
invited to provide clarification on some of the issues raised by (Musiliu)
Obanikoro and other cabinet members.
It
seems the present government is shielding Jonathan from the anti-graft
agencies. In view of the series of allegations against those who surrounded him
then, such an approach is contrary to the anti-corruption posture of President
Muhammadu Buhari. The EFCC needs to move promptly to interview the former
President to tell Nigerians the exact order or instruction that he gave to a
former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, or Obanikoro, so that the
matters could move to court as soon as possible because any further delay would
erode public confidence if it is not already eroded.
Dr.
Konyinsola Ajayi (A Senior Advocate of Nigeria)
I
don’t think former President Goodluck Jonathan should be probed by the EFCC
because there is no reason for that yet. If any of his ministers have been
found culpable of corruption, then they should be probed and prosecuted by the
EFCC. But since there is nothing linking Jonathan, I will not agree that he
should be probed.
During
the tenure of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, some of his ministers were
found to be corrupt, but that did not make anyone to probe Obasanjo. The same
rule should apply here.
Fred
Agbaje (A lawyer)
It
is long overdue that former President Goodluck Jonathan should be invited and
probed by the EFCC. It is for expediency purpose, thoroughness and justice to
be done in the war against corruption. He must be invited because the buck
stops at his table. His name has repeatedly been popping up in all the
allegations.
Whether
he gave a written or verbal order on the disbursement of the funds, he should
come out to make a clarification on the issues. He should come out and tell us
his side of the story because the sums of money involved are gargantuan.
Olukoya
Ogungbeje (A lawyer)
Based
on what is going on now, I will only implore Nigerians to be patient. We should
not continue to jump the gun; we should not continue to hang people and condemn
them without giving them the presumption of innocence as allowed by the
constitution. I believe that what is going on is not enough to say the
anti-graft agencies should invite the ex-President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. For
God’s sake, what was done at the Federal Executive Council was a unanimous
action taken by FEC members, including the ministers. Jonathan didn’t take any
decision unilaterally. Look at the money disbursed to the Office of the
National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, for instance. Jonathan did that in the
interest of this nation – to combat Boko Haram. Probably, he didn’t take steps
to monitor how the funds were used. But we cannot single out Jonathan for
condemnation.
As far as I am concerned, Obanikoro remains
innocent until proved guilty. Let them (EFCC) charge him to court if they have
found any offence against him. And let them release him on bail if they know
that they cannot conclude their investigation within the time allowed by law
and then continue to invite him. I can’t rely on the statement he purportedly
made in the custody of the EFCC; it is not even a basis to single out Jonathan
for investigation or prosecution.
Olanrewaju
Suraj (Chairman, Civil Society Network against Corruption)
He
has not been directly linked with any of the allegations. Except there are
direct links, where you have vicarious liabilities, such allegations are more
political than legal. If he could be linked to the proceeds of crime or traces
of the misappropriated funds, then he could be called to answer some of those questions.
His immunity expired the day he handed over to his successor. If in the course
of investigation, he is discovered to have benefited from corruption, he has
every reason to answer for such a crime.
It is not enough for any of his (Jonathan’s)
ex-ministers to hide under his approval. If you are given a presidential
approval to buy a certain equipment, it is expected of you either as a minister
or the head of an agency to go through the procurement processes as laid down
under the law.
If
you breach any of those processes, you cannot expect the President to be held
responsible. It is not enough that the money was diverted, but if the former
President is found to have also profited from the proceeds of such a diversion
or circumvented the provisions of the law in the process of the diversion, then
he has questions to answer.
Many of those alleged to have been involved in
the diversion of the arms funds only made verbal excuses that they got approval
from the former President. It is not enough that the procurement fund was used
for bribing delegates with a verbal excuse that Jonathan asked them to do so
whereas what was on the paper was an approval for the procurement of equipment.
Then the person involved must personally answer the question.
Reference: Punchng
No comments:
Post a Comment