Dupsy

For a major anti-corruption agency regularly in the news for its acts or omissions, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s outcry over the “pardon” granted an Indian businessman, Ashok Israni, and two officials of Keystone Bank, Anayo Nwosu and Olajide Oshodi is logical. The agency needs to respond to public inquiry regarding its proficiency. In any event, the incident raises concern over the exercise of discretionary powers by elected public officials. Justice Kudirat Jose of the Lagos State High Court in Igbosere had in December 2019 jailed Israni, Nwosu, and Oshodi on an amended 15-count charge bordering on conspiracy and obtaining N855 million by false pretense, and sentenced them to five years each. But four months after their conviction, they were released from prison by officials of the Kirikiri Correctional Centre allegedly on the directive of the Lagos government, while their separate appeals were pending before the Court of Appeal. The EFCC had also alleged that in spite of repeated demands, the Nigerian Correctional Service had failed to present the Commission with the instrument of pardon. Although government is yet to explain its role in the pardon, its action has the tendency of being misconstrued, as it poses a number of questions: What special circumstance warranted the exercise of the governor’s discretion in favour of the convicted persons, particularly when they were yet to exhaust avenues to appeal their conviction? Could the exercise of the governor’s discretion be said to be for the benefit of the people or serves some public policy? And as was recently posed by the Court of Appeal, could it not be said that the action of the governor amounts to an extra-judicial interference with the judicial functions of the court? And why is the prosecuting authority not provided with the instrument, which is supposed to be a public record anyway? The EFCC is often the brunt of taunts by Nigerians particularly on social media for its perceived failure or inability to successfully prosecute corrupt persons; it is thus understandable that the commission would be most aggrieved with the action of the state government for seeming interference after a successful prosecution. The commission deserves all the support and encouragement it could get at a time that corrupt practices have practically crippled most of the nation’s institutions. While the constitutional power to grant pardon is the prerogative of the executive, same must however be wielded with caution and due consideration. Such powers are not subject to political or personal affinity, but for the welfare and overall benefit of the populace; after all, criminal offenses are deemed to be crimes against the state. Discretionary powers are judicial by nature and it behooves any authority clothed with such powers to exercise same judiciously. Instances, where the executive is perceived to have exercised the power of pardon in error, abound in our polity. Dr. Obi Okongwu was summarily convicted for contempt of Court and sentenced to 21 days imprisonment on February 11, 1983. However, on the same day, the then Governor of Anambra State, Chief Jim I. Nwobodo, issued an instrument of pardon in his favour. On September 29, 2016, Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, as executive governor of Sokoto State, granted an executive pardon to accused persons standing trial for sundry offenses, prior to their conviction. On March 12, 2013, ex-president Goodluck Jonathan pardoned Mr. Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, former governor of Bayelsa State convicted for money laundering and wanted by the UK government for money laundering charges and skipping bail. The former EFCC boss, Nuhu Ribadu had described the action as the final nail in the coffin of fighting corruption in Nigeria, while the United States embassy was reported to have said it was “deeply disappointed” by the pardon. The primary aims and functions of criminal sanctions, aside from serving as a punishment for offenders, include restitution to victims, deterrence and rehabilitation of offenders. A case where an elected official exercises an executive discretion for political and or personal gains may not augur well for the nation’s criminal justice system, as it seems to suggest that criminal sanctions are reserved for the common man, many of whom are held behind bars for years, awaiting trial for offenses for which they may not be guilty of, while their cases suffer prolong adjournments. The abuse of this executive power not only makes a mockery of our administration of criminal justice system, it equally robs the court of its dignity and authority to award sanctions to convicted persons. Such actions are responsible for the growing lack of respect for the courts and its orders, a situation that was recently lamented by the Chief Justice of the Federation, Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad. While the judiciary itself is not infallible, the executive power of pardon in the place of a democratic system of government is of essence, as it serves as a check on the judicial arm, providing reliefs in cases where the judiciary may be perceived to have been unjust or acted in error. Such powers however should not become subject of abuse by persons with whom they have been entrusted. For this reason, the Lagos State Government should let Nigerians know the rationale that informed its pardon. Government of the day should be seen to encourage the fight against criminal elements in the society and not aid or abet them. That would be against the spirit of the constitution. Government and the people must work together to foster a society where the rule of law prevails. The authorities should strive to entrench fairness in every of the country’s institutions. By TheGuardian Editorial Source;https://guardian.ng/opinion/executive-pardons-and-its-rationale/

“If the misery of the poor is caused not by the law of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin” -Charles Darwin. Security is vital to our existential peace and personal fulfillment in life. The buildup of banditry, kidnapping and armed violence has put millions of Nigerians in a state of gloom and despondency. The Nigerian state continues to grapple with many development challenges and the fallout continues to disrupt peace and devastate lives and livelihoods, just as it is taking a great toll on the well-being of the nation. Thus, we are faced with the question: what does sustainable peace and security hold for us as a nation? How did we get here and how do we chart a pathway for national reconciliation devoid of partisanship? The call for national dialogue has become imperative to secure the citizens and avoid civil unrest! This article examines the security challenges being faced by the nation by providing a critical understanding of the complex social-political milieus in which banditry and violent conflict are grounded and how social inequalities have been the bane of nation-building. It examines why economic opportunity does not always correspond uniquely with access to quality of life of an average Nigerian and it explores the changing expressions of ethnic and religious impulses as reflected in the leadership question and the calls for regional balance in the security architecture of the fragile Nigerian state. It concludes by proffering solutions to the country’s complex security challenges. Nigeria’s political and security landscapes have changed significantly since the mid-1990s when all the hubris of rapid economic growth and development came to a halt. Evidently, the prolonged military regimes justified paternalistic authoritarian government, and the emergent politics without ideology has provided refuge for incompetent leaders to be in power. Indeed, politics and leadership are not built around critical issues of governance, but around primordial sentiments of religion, ethnicity and other divisive identities. These challenges continue to emasculate democracy and security. Efforts to end banditry, kidnapping and other violent crimes, however well intended and implemented they appear to be, will continue to fail as long as the political conditions for the resolution of insecurity are not transparently handled. According to the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) report (Institute for Economics and Peace, 2020), Nigeria is classified as the third most terrorised country in the world. Given the widespread youth unemployment and proliferation of illicit small arms and weapons across the country, particularly the North-East and the South-South, the objectionable business of banditry and terrorism will be on the rise. Furthermore, the root causes and the overlapping drivers of conflict are radical Islam, multidimensional poverty; ethno- religious fautlines, out- of – school children; political corruption, economic recession, climate change; nepotism and exclusion have become the bane of insecurity and state fragility. The Presidential Committee on Small Arms and Light Weapons (PRESCOM) and other strategic stakeholders must put in place comprehensive peace-building strategies for weapons control and armed violence reduction. Weapons have become bargaining instruments for ransoms. In addition, the federal government must explore dialogue in order to prevent or deescalate conflicts by restructuring way the security gatekeepers manage its communication and behaviour change ecosystem. Further, state and local governments must create and sustain coordinated efforts by using dialogue processes at the community- to – community level to gain awareness on how to identify influences on violent crimes of banditry, terrorism and kidnapping. Undoubtedly, the path to more robust security architecture will be a challenging one, one that calls for uncommon leadership and creativity from the President, the new service chiefs and other security service providers. It will involve a tenacious implementation of various security roadmap documents, including local government (community) policing, state police, restructuring of the top hierarchy of the military to reflect national diversity and the development of legislative framework for the possession and the use of weapons by civilians and government officials. These should be considered by the 9th National Assembly. The militarisation of the state by politicians is, however, a worrisome trend. Politicians must purge themselves of political thugs and other anti-social abnormalities including godfatherism, cultism and gangsterism. Therefore, comprehensive controls must be instituted, and the campaign for the prevention and reduction of armed groups (vigilantes) at the community level should be ramped up. The Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation through its agencies, particularly the National Orientation Agency (NOA), must sustain strategic communication matrix with the Directorate of Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) to reimagine Security Sector Reforms (SSR) through a step-by-step confidence-building incentive for the Nigerian Project beyond the tokenism of 60 seconds radio jingles, press releases and reactive communication of government spokespersons. At the level of the Military High Command, the issue of disarmament and weapons control should be addressed in a transparent manner. Access to strategic information regarding weapon holding in notorious banditry states will reduce opportunities for new recruits. Further, the military engagement tactics with kidnapping and banditry should be operationalised with the police service as result of the rapidly changing dynamics of non- conventional warfare, including terrorism and violent crime. The federal government must take proactive action in walking its talk about pulling 20 million Nigerians out of the poverty net, and state governments will do well to mainstream pro-poor programmes, community-to-community intelligence networks and reform regional security outfits to have long-lasting impacts, especially on cultism, area boys menace and transport unions toll collectors, which are fertile grounds for nurturing and recruiting criminal elements. Momentously, non- state actor’s particularly civil society and community groups within the West African sub – region should mobilise and engage to ensure that the root causes and potential drivers of violent conflict are brought to the fore amongst political leaders and ethnic regional influencers to forestall the danger of escalation across the region, which have dreadful consequences for sustainable peace and development. In addition, they should build robust and inclusive peace-building, conflict resolution mechanisms and indeed capacity, solidarity, a much bigger and broader regional engagement ecosystem to champion authentic governance architecture and to act, and campaign more vigorously as strategic gatekeepers and agenda setting for policy advocacy on banditry, kidnapping and armed violence . In conclusion, political leaders need to act responsibly. They must redouble their efforts at tackling the root causes and the potential drivers of violent conflicts in Nigeria and indeed within the sub-region. The governments at the sub-regional (ECOWAS), national and sub-national levels must be proactive rather than reactive. The time to act is now! Orovwuje is founder, Humanitarian Care for Displaced Persons, Lagos. orovwuje@yahoo.com,08034745325 By BluePrint News Source;https://www.blueprint.ng/reflections-on-banditry-kidnapping-and-armed-violence-in-nigeria-2/