Ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo and I are mutual antagonists. He does not like my face because I severely criticised him throughout his eight-year tenure. I criticised Obasanjo mainly because of his style of governance which even till now is well-remembered for its benchmarks - violation of constitutional provisions and contemptuous disregard for rule of law and legal procedure.

Obasanjo signed into law the 1979 constitution which despite minor amendments by his successors, Ibrahim Babangida in 1989, Sani Abacha in 1995 and Abdusalami Abubakar in 1998, remains the original document for the administration of this federation. A recurrent by Obasanjo in 1979 is that every Nigerian will be eligible to contest to any political office in the land, unless disqualified, a handicap which could be valid only if imposed in accordance with legal procedure.
The Nigerian constitution, as signed by Obasanjo in 1979 and as still operates today clearly limits the tenure of an elected president inviolably to two terms of four years each. The same constitution, as signed by Obasanjo in 1979, today does not empower any sitting president to claim to remove a sitting vice-president from office or to disqualify a vice-president from exercising his (vice president's) constitutional right to aspire to the highest political office.

When therefore Obasanjo attempted to violate the constitution by attempting an extra term of office which in fact would have been the first of a new tenure of three terms, every Nigerian had the duty to stop him by any means legitimate. Neither could it have been tolerated for Obasanjo to set a dangerous constitutional precedent of sacking a vice-president on account of their political rivalry, again in clear violation of the laid-down procedure.
The nationwide opposition to Obasanjo on the third-term issue was consequently vindicated through the elected representatives of ordinary Nigerians in the National Assembly. Obasanjo's violation of the constitution in sacking a sitting vice-president and disqualifying the same vice-president from contesting presidential elections have been declared total nullity by the Federal Supreme Court.
If yesterday we opposed Obasanjo all the way in his violation of the constitutional rights of others, we cannot turn round today to violate the same Obasanjo's constitutional rights.

Lately, there have been demands by innocent ordinary citizens that Obasanjo should be prosecuted by the EFCC on his (Obasanjo's) presumed criminal acts while in office as elected president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This is understandable, but not constitutionally or legally tenable. And that is why it is amusing and disappointing that lawyers whose profession imposes the obligation of interpreting effects of constitutional provisions, have joined in the needless demand that the EFCC should arraign Obasanjo for criminal trial.

Worse still, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to put it midly, has been unfairly and indeed unjustifiably accused of covering up Obasanjo especially as the agency (EFCC) through chairman said there was no file on Obasanjo. First, the EFCC does not need to cover up Obasanjo for two clear reasons. (i) As of today, unless Nigerian constitution is amended, Obasanjo enjoys total immunity as a former head of state.
Are Nigerian lawyers calling for Obasanjo's trial aware of this constitutional position? If unaware (and that will be a pity), where were they when the Federal Supreme Court upheld the claim of three former heads of states - Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida and Abdulsalami Abubakar - for immunity under the constitution against their appearing before the Oputa Panel? That is the law of the land today which effectively disables the EFCC (or any law enforcing agency for that matter) from prosecuting Obasanjo.

Of course, the same Obasanjo granstood before the Oputa Panel which he set up and was well aware that Oputa would never judge him negatively. His three appearances before the panel were mainly to prosecute his petition of alleged violation of his human rights by late Sani Abacha and to embarrass his (elected President Obasanjo's) three predecessors who claimed immunity against Oputa Panel and duly criticised him (Obasanjo) in an article published in Sunday Vanguard and ThisDay on Sunday, of playing to the gallery especially when he said he was waiving his constitutional immunity.
Otherwise, Obasanjo can also waive his constitutional immunity now to enable his prosecution by the EFCC.
The second reason why EFCC does not need to cover up Obasanjo is that, based on the above facts, there is nothing for the EFCC to cover up.
For purposes of clarity, this constitutional immunity is not for the persons of Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida, Abdulsalami Abubakar and Olusegun Obasanjo. Rather, the immunity is for the office of the head of state which must be perpetually dignified. Second, the immunity provision obtains in the constitution of most countries in the world.

If for a moment, we even concede that Obasanjo in particular should be prosecuted for alleged offences committed in office, is EFCC the only law enforcement agency with the power or statutory duty to prosecute him? Was a petition against Obasanjo not submitted to the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission. Has that agency initiated any trial against Obasanjo? Why is nobody calling for the sack of the head of Independent Corrupt Practices Commission for failing to prosecute Obasanjo?

Still even if the EFCC is to prosecute Obasanjo, there must be valid charges. Are there any such charges against Obasanjo yet, strictly in line with rule of law? None so far. The House of Representatives report on the power sector is a promising executive but any charges that may arise therefrom against Obasanjo have merely prospective and no more.

The Elumelu report on the power sector so far has only been submitted to the House. The report is not even debated or adopted yet. Should the EFCC pounce on a report it did not write and without any appropriate recommendations to it (EFCC), just to drag Obasanjo to a trial? Who is sure whether the House of Representatives, (fully aware of Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutional immunity of former heads of states) will recommend Obasanjo to be tried by the EFCC? Yet, without such recommendation(s), the EFCC cannot touch Obasanjo. Why then not wait for the decision of the House of Representatives on Elumelu report on the power sector?

The second document on which Obasanjo could be tried, or is being asked to be tried is the Senate report of his (Obasanjo's) alleged involvement in the Petroleum Training Development Fund (PTDF) scandal. On this issue, two lawyers in Abuja sent a petition to the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission detailing grounds for Obasanjo prosecution.
When the ICPC failed to act on that petition (Obasanjo because of Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutional immunity of a former head of state), the two protesting lawyers headed to an Abuja High Court asking the judge to compel Independent Corrupt Practices Commission to prosecute Obasanjo. That case is still to be determined.

Should the EFCC have hijacked a case being tried before a competent court or should the same EFCC have engaged a law enforcement agency of equal jurisdiction, the ICPC, in a war of supremacy on which of the two is to try Obasanjo for alleged financial crimes and corrupt practices while in office?
And without any recommendation from the House of Representatives on the Elumelu power probe report to prosecute Obasanjo or while the case of the two lawyers praying an Abuja High Court to compel Obasanjo's prosecution was still to be determined, EFCC chairman Farida Waziri should have returned to yesterday by going on television to prosecute and convict Obasanjo before appearing (if at all, he is to appear) in court?

Why then did we criticise Nuhu Ribadu for the same unlawful tactics and disregard for legal procedure?
There was also this row on alleged missing files (on Obasanjo) from the EFCC. Forget about anybody or any agency trying Obasanjo or any future former head(s) of state, in view of their constitutional right to immunity. Otherwise, a necessary ground will be for a lower court to overrule or disregard the Supreme Court ruling or the Supreme Court will have to reverse itself on the Buhari, Babangida and Abubakar versus Oputa Panel on the immunity issue.
The facts of such charges must have been in files at the EFCC. If such files were already missing, what was wrong in the EFCC chairman merely confirming such vital, no matter how embarrassing information to Nigerians?

What is the Freedom of Information Bill about? If National Assembly is stalling on the bill and the purpose of the bill is being voluntarily effected by a government agency, that is a step forward.
By the way, only a few weeks ago, the EFCC embarked on serious interrogation of some retired, dismissed, serving or re-deployed staff on suspicion of being involved in the disappearance of files which could possibly have included those on Obasanjo and some state governors. What was the reaction of critical Nigerians?

That exercise was somehow described as harassment and victimization of staff loyal to the ancient regime of EFCC. Were that true, the situation on any law enforcement agency and para-military set up anywhere in the world is that once there is a change of command, everybody falls in line. Loyalty to yesterday's man is disloyalty to the commander in the day. It is instant and total. Anything less is guardroom and eventual court martial. If therefore, there were such loyalists (of yesterdays regime at EFCC) they knew the consequences.

Agitating Nigerians want Obasanjo to be tried for largely presumed corrupt enrichment. For such a trial, there must be charges documented in a file or files. Some could have contained the charges against Obasanjo. The EFCC took the appropriate step of interrogating suspects in the missing files saga. Nigerians complained. Without recovering such files, EFCC would not be able to establish any case against Obasanjo. EFCC gave a situation report and consequences of the missing files. Nigerians went hysterical that EFCC was covering up Obasanjo. What a people we are and what really do we want in this country?
Undoubtedly, Obasanjo today attracts anger and offers cheap grandstand opportunism. Yet, that can and must not be an excuse to deny or violate Obasanjo's legal or constitutional right.

Arch enemies of Obasanjo will justifiably submit that the man cannot be conferred with the legal procedure, legal/constitutional right he denied others. But he is already impliedly ticked off by Umar Yar'Adua who operates strict rule of law which neutralizes political tension to show that national affairs can be conducted better - than under Obasanjo.
Incidentally, considering the issues of legal procedure and constitutionalism involved in this controversy, it is a surprise that the conference of Nigerian political parties continues to exhume such political naivety and cheap populism. Is this one of the political groups aiming at ruling Nigeria? With seeming total ignorance of constitutional provisions and disregard for rule of law.

On her part, it can only be hoped that EFCC boss will stand her ground and stoutly resist any attempt to stampede her to engage on illegality. On assumption of office, she assured stepping on toes but strictly on legal and constitutional procedure. For a lady of her generation to go through the ranks to get to the top could only be because of her toughness.

As a lawyer, Farida Wagon's task at EFCC is easier because she serves in a regime of rule of law. Should there be unnecessary pressure to prosecute Obasanjo, EFCC's Farida Waziri should go to supreme court for judicial interpretation of supreme court verdict on constitutional immunity and how it might affect any possible trial of Obasanjo as a former head of state.
In future, it will be argued how Obasanjo could face trial without any contradiction. This should be noted.