It should be assumed that the following short story was true. In the morning of February 1976, Nigerians woke up to the alarming news of an unsuccessful military attempt to overthrow the administration of the then Brigadier Murtala Mohammed. Following the collapse if the attempt, the daring young officers were arrested. Among those picked up was a Major Kasai, who along with his collaborators, was taken to their army boss at the rendezvous of surviving senior military officers at Bonny Camp, Victoria Island, Lagos.

In his position and status, Major Kasai would be well-connected and if there was going to be any uprising, (Kasai) would be expected to alert his boss or at least (to) observe good conduct. When therefore Major Kasai arrived Bonny Camp (of course handcuffed) he collected dirty slaps from his army boss more in affection disappointment at one of his boys sentencing himself prematurely to avoidable and unnecessary death.
This is also the best affectionate disappointment (excluding the dirty slaps) to be expressed at the set back which befell ex-military governor of Ondo State, Commander Bode George for his conduct as chairman of Nigerian Ports Authority. The facts should be clarified. Bode George was not found guilty, indeed, was discharged and acquitted on the major charge of contract inflation.

Instead, Bode George was convicted for contract splitting which according to court proceedings affirmed by the judgment, was largely the handiwork of his subordinates either as fellow political appointees or career offices at the same NPA. Bode George was therefore trapped for his failure to bring his subordinates back to line in adhering to rules and regulations, an implied condemnation for deliberately (and cleverly?) acquiescing in such breach of rules. It can therefore be argued that he is paying for the crime, even if as an accomplice, of his subordinates.

This was an unnecessary risk for Bode George to take, given his status in society. Unfortunately for him is the implication of disobedience of lawful orders which also earned his a separate conviction for (imagine) six months. The concern is not so much how long is the sentence but the very idea of conviction at all who, by career and professional training, should be seen to be obeying lawful orders from above.
The public hostility which his convictions earned him and the carnival thereby generated are therefore understandable especially as he belongs to a wrong camp even within their People’s Democratic Party.

For example, he unnecessarily got himself involved in the ‘two fighting’ last time between Olusegun Obasanjo who violated the constitution in claiming to have removed the vice president from office and Atiku Abubakar who resisted the violation of his constitutional right. While the showdown raged, Bode George went on (Channels) television claiming “… Atiku Abubakar is an idiot…” Even Obasanjo never described Atiku Abubakar as an idiot throughout the crisis.
It was noticeable that for the entire period, nobody else in the PDP throughout the country openly supported Obasanjo.
Then there was the controversial third term issue. Again, Bode George took it on himself on the same television station that “… they have to come and negotiate with us…” Presumably, the issue of negotiation was the constitutional expiration of Obasanjo’s presidency. Who were “they”? Northerners obviously. And who were the “us”? South Westerners comprising only Obasanjo and Bode George.

On both these occasions, Bode George not only antagonized the North but also further infuriated his political enemies in the South both within and outside their PDP. The fiercest opposition to Obasanjo’s third term plot came from the South-West. Bode George was therefore not speaking for the South-West.
Was Bode George interests or protecting his personal interests or enhancing Obasanjo’s hold on power? None was clear because mid-way through despite the heavy cost to Bode George in political popularity, the same Obasanjo planted the time bomb, a probe of NPA, which eventually destroyed Bode George. In so doing, Obasanjo was either acting on principle not to cover up any misconduct of an avowed supporter or Obasanjo betrayed Bode George.
Whichever was the case, the fact remains that the damage has been done and Bode George stands alone. Noticeably, nobody in the country has been bold enough to identify with the man. Instead, the picture is that of total support in the South, surprisingly his native South-West, for Bode George’s imprisonment or undisguised lack of sympathy.

First, there is the subsisting anger of majority electorate in South West over how their voting preferences were rubbished since 2003 to impose PDP throughout the zone except Lagos. The party is now regarded more as an army of occupation, bragging and threatening to capture Lagos State in 2011.
Second, even within South-West PDP, it is a picture of celebration time for Bode George’s rivals either for leadership supremacy or those dislodged from their governorship aspirations specifically in Lagos.

From the North where Bode George’s condition that they (Northerners) would have to come and negotiate did not go unnoticed, the silence is splendid as the Northerners carry on with their lives as if there is no news on Bode George.
Are all the odds therefore against Bode George? Not necessarily except that with his setback, most people are shinning at his expense. Out of mischief? Surely. Or display of ignorance? This cannot be ruled out. For example, there is the loose complaint against the sentence of what was called “… only two years.” It might be excusable if such complaints were made by innocent Nigerians but when lawyers put their mouth in it (as we say down South) it is ridiculous.
Going through the judgment three times, it emerged why Bode George’s defence counsel, Tunji Ayanlaja, acclaimed the document as a well-researched judgment. Not only was the judge very meticulous, he also did not fail to impose maximum sentence.

Among the three charges, the most serious was inflation of cost of the contracts. As Justice Oyewole pronounced, not only was the charge of inflation of contract costs not proved at all by the prosecution, or the crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
If therefore, that particular charge was not probed, must the judge still proceed to convict simply because the accused is Bode George? And if such a wrong conviction or mandatory sentence of seven years was announced and the convict rightly succeeded in reversing the injustice at an appeal court, the same critics would still accuse the judiciary of aiding alleged corruption.

The only other major charge of splitting contracts for which Bode George was convicted, according to the judge quoting the offence and the punishment stipulated in section 104 of the Criminal Code is imprisonment of two years. Should the judge have gone beyond the stipulated sentence of two years? Therefore, no special favour or sympathy was shown to Bode George. What is more, the law was written to control the conduct of all Nigerian public office holders and not specially for a particular person. The law was also already in force before Bode George was appointed to Nigeria Ports Authority.

On display now are short memory and double standard. Those dissatisfied with the maximum sentence of two years for Bode George were the same people who as late as weeks ago were claiming either that there was no war on corruption any longer. From where did Bode George conviction come if not the same battle on corruption. The only difference which must be acclaimed is that rule of law is being adhered to?
The judge in Bode George’s case simply refused to play to the gallery and therefore exercised his discretion to direct that all the sentence should run concurrently. This is normal throughout the judicial world. But that does not mean that the convict earned less than the total sentence of something like twenty-eight years in his life record.
In any case, when under the military in 1984, tribunals were jailing politicians for consecutive sentences totaling two hundred years for alleged corruption or even enriching political parties, did we not describe the whole show as a farce?

Surprisingly, Bode George’s decision to appeal his sentence has raised eyebrows in some quarters, including lawyers, some of them questioning the man’s right under the law or indeed intimidating the Appeal Court against the possibility of reversing or reducing the sentences.
Any man facing prosecution for any offence anywhere in the world will eventually be judge guilty or innocent. If found guilty, the most likely instinct is to exercise his right of appeal even to the highest court in the land or even for the most clear cut indisputable offence. That is why in other parts of the world, trails of criminal cases, owing to their peculiar nature extend to years.

Should he lose his right of appeal or should the law courts deny him his right of appeal because he is Bode George?
In this sensational episode, there is as yet an unsung heroine who suddenly is being treated as if she does not exist, as virtually nothing is being mentioned about her. Of course, Farida Waziri was appointed as Chairman of EFCC to deal with financial crimes in Nigeria. As we say in the parlance of cynicism in this country, there is therefore no big deal in securing the conviction of Bode George for financial crime.

If only this is the same Farida Waziri, who, up till the hour Bode George was being convicted at Ikeja, Lagos High Court, was being, derided, blackmailed, intimidated and maliciously criticised for allegedly weakening or abandoning the war on corruption.
Farida Waziri’s only crime was that responded to criticisms of responsible Nigerians that accused financial criminals must not be tried and pronounced guilty in the media, or subjected to violent bullying, personal insults instead of being tried in law courts as provided in the statute.
How about the shameless attempt to steal her glory? If war on corruption was abandoned under her, who arrested and prosecuted Bode George and the others? Facts of history are that EFCC initially probed Bode George but could not obtain Obasanjo’s go-ahead to prosecute him. Nuhu Ribadu should then have kept quiet in the face of his helplessness.

Instead, while Obasanjo was still in power, the same Nuhu Ribadu told a Lagos magazine (Feb 19, 2007) that Bode George had no case to answer. If that were so and somebody else (Farida Waziri) pursued the investigation, which got Bode George arrested, prosecuted and jailed, should honour be snatched or even withheld from whom it is due?

As an aside, there is this rebuke for American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. Two months ago, acting on the false information fed her in Washington by fugitive Nigerians and the American Embassy in Lagos, she, very undiplomatically at the end of her visit to Nigeria criticized the EFCC and of course, Umaru Yar’Adua for allegedly not vigorously pursuing the war on corruption. while Hilary Clinton was echoing baseless criticisms of the war on corruption, only two months ago, the trial of the Bode George group was nearing an end.

It is safe to presume that Hilary Clinton (and the American Embassy in Lagos) will again echo the untenable submission of only two years for the NPA convicts. In the United States, do judges exceed their to impose higher sentences than provided in the law? In the United States, are criminal suspects tried and convicted in advance in the media before being arraigned in law courts?
There are these two observations which, it is hoped, will offer Bode George a necessary lesson. Before his arrest, he was abroad obviously on a private trip which for anybody in his position, could be up to three months or even more depending on the resources. Meanwhile, there was that unfair speculation in the media that he had absconded.

Understandably, Bode George had to debunk such false allegation. But the process he employed partly caused his downfall. On returning to Lagos, he could still speak to the media as he did without seemingly daring the EFCC to investigate him. Again, that was on the television. Well, EFCC under Farida Waziri investigated him and the outcome is the history now recorded.

Second, when the trial commenced, there was Bode George’s version of what is now becoming a disgusting development in which a carnival atmosphere will be created round a public figure on criminal charge in a law court. These hired or misguided self-proclaiming enthusiasts of the accused are always dorned in what a former Nigerian Sunday Times columnist described as uniform of distinction.
Such events could only worsen the situation for anybody on trial, if found guilty. When Bode George’s appeal comes up, these elements must lie low.