Let me begin by saying that across the board; not Nigeria’s specific case, not the United States’ specific case or any nation, that I believe that there should be no statute of limitations.
Even if for arguable reasons, we agree that people in certain positions of governance should be protected from frivolous litigations and therefore we use the word immunity while they are in office, the emphasis should be while in office.
And even that should become qualified. If a president, for instance, commits murder maybe even as a cover-up for a crime of corruption, are we going to wait until he or she leaves office before we investigate and prosecute?
Even immunity needs to be trimmed down; it should be limited immunity and there should be mechanism of dealing with malfeasances. (Former US president Bill) Clinton nearly lost his office over sexual misdemeanour. He was just saved by the same political process that put him there. Now, corruption in very high places is very difficult to investigate but that does not mean that investigation should stop.
You intimidate witnesses; even as we know, witnesses disappear and so one needs to be patient and not imagine that investigating a crime in high places will be a straightforward process like investigating somebody like me.
Having sort of tried to trim down the concept of immunity, what happens when an individual leaves office having committed crimes including corruption? If you say the immunity clause applies even after leaving office, that means there is absolutely no fear, no inhibition in the ruler and the ruler feels like he or she can do whatever they want in office.
That leads us to your question. Whether it’s Jonathan, whether it’s any living ex-head of states: Babangida, Obasanjo, Shagari. If a crime is uncovered while that individual was in office, after he’s left office, then that individual must be prosecuted. He or she has left office and become an ordinary citizen.
He doesn’t have the burden of responsibility for millions of people, which is one reasons why we might say ‘listen; leave this individual alone unless we can absolutely prove a crime against him or her.’ Otherwise, we’ll have a situation where even individuals can hold the nation to ransom simply because they have secret forces which can blow up pipes and in effect granting themselves immunity even while not in office or never having held office.
We’ve got to accept the fact that sooner or later justice must catch up with every individual who has committed some crimes against the community. It is a very simple formula and I think part of our problems is that we tend to temporise it.
In other words, we say that given the circumstances of the nation and supporters of this ex-leader, therefore, justice should not take its course. We also personalise it and say that because there is now a change of government, it will be seen as an act of persecution against the person who was there before.
These are wrong attitudes towards governance. What is the responsibility of somebody who is in governance? Among other responsibilities, anybody in governance is supposed to lead by example. You must lead by example and if you fail, you must be prosecuted.
Now, you have the Senate President who is being accused of one crime after the other and people are screaming, saying this is discrimination because of some political disagreements. The issue is did that individual steal money? Did that individual forge? Did that individual commit, shall we say, sexual offence?
The issue is guilt or innocence and the structures are there to prove guilt or innocence. So, if you acted in a way which drew suspicion on yourself, you’ve got to move to clear yourself. It’s either you go to the civil court or you subject yourself to the mechanism of justice which is what makes civilised societies.
If the present head of state or any head of state has decided that this is what I want to leave behind as legacy that I clean up this rotten stinking state; if that is his or her mission as head of state, I think citizens cannot complain about it unless they say it is okay to institutionalise corruption. And we know very well where corruption has got us.
We have people who not only appear to endorse corruption, but actually to be aggressively against any effort being made to sanitise the nation. Buhari has got this obsession; it’s a legitimate one. It cannot be faulted under any circumstance unless you can prove that he’s destroying the society. So, leave him alone to use the mechanism of state to score his goal.
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment