The state pardons granted by President Muhammadu Buhari to Joshua Chibi Dariye and Jolly Nyame, former governors of Benue and Taraba states, and more than 150 other high and low-profile citizens two weeks ago, have astounded many people. It is difficult to understand or justify the grounds on which the pardons were granted to convicted persons, despite the woolly explanation given by the Presidency in which it argued that the forgiveness was neither politically motivated nor a demonstration of the government’s weak-kneed approach to corruption.
In defending Buhari’s decision following a recommendation by the National Council of State, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, said Buhari would have still attracted widespread criticisms had he overlooked the basis on which the Council of State made the recommendations. Essentially, Garba Shehu argued that Buhari was placed in a Catch-22 situation in which anything he did or did not do would instigate condemnation from the public. Really? This defence is mind-boggling.
Shehu made the trite point of revisiting the Constitution to tell us that Buhari’s decision did not breach constitutional clauses. In a public statement, he said Section 175 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) authorised Buhari in his capacity as President to apply his constitutional powers “to grant any person concerned with or convicted of any offense created by an Act of the National Assembly a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions; to grant respite, either for an indefinite or a specified period of the execution of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence; substitute a less severe form of punishment imposed on that person for such an offence or remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed on the person for such an offence or of penalty or forfeiture otherwise due to the state on account of such an offence.”
Unfortunately, Shehu missed the point about why the public was ill at ease over Buhari’s decision to grant the pardons. No one is questioning Buhari’s right to forgive people. What was condemned was the impulsive and absurd basis on which the pardons were given illogically. It is the way Buhari exercised his rights that triggered public anger and disappointment.
The most offensive part of the defence of Buhari, articulated by Garba Shehu, could be seen in the statement in which he said somewhat petulantly: “While it is natural that the cases of the ex-governors — two among many — would excite political analysts, coming at a time when elections are in the air, the President would at the same time have come across as insensitive and cruel to most people were he to have ignored very compelling cases recommended for pardon made to him because someone is a former Governor. Even Governors have the right to be treated fairly under the law.”
That is precisely the point. Governors might have the right to be treated fairly but the treatment should not be seen as a privilege accorded to them because of the high office they occupied previously. There are many other cases of people incarcerated in various parts of the country who would like Buhari to consider them for state pardon. It is the selective grant of pardons by the President that has sullied the objective and spirit of the presidential action.
Regardless of what Garba Shehu might say, many people now feel the presidential pardons granted to Dariye and Nyame, among other beneficiaries, failed to meet the benchmarks. In this case, the quality of forgiveness has been stained. What is being questioned are the merit of the cases, the moral message being conveyed, and respectability of that presidential decision.
The granting of pardons to Dariye and Nyame has repercussions for the government’s questionable war on corruption and the duplicitous attempt to create a society in which uprightness, personality, integrity, honour, and goodness of character should be rewarded.
When corrupt politicians or governors or indeed any person is convicted for corruption or any other crime against the state, the expectation is that they must serve their time in jail. The message ought to be that people who commit crimes of any kind must be prepared to serve jail sentences in order to send a message that crime never pays.
In various parts of the world, democratically elected Presidents are seen as symbols of moral authority. They do not pardon convicted state officials haphazardly without thoughtful consideration of the arguments for and against each case. When a president pardons former governors who were convicted of various crimes, that action could be seen as evidence that the president might be experiencing a bout of moral malaise.
The first attempt to avoid responsibility for the decision was the claim by Garba Shehu that the pardon was recommended by the National Council of State. What a bag of baloney. The Council of State might recommend state pardon, but Buhari has the obligation to carefully weigh the implications of endorsing the recommendations. The President has the power to approve or reject recommendations for state pardon.
When former President Goodluck Jonathan pardoned Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, former Governor of Bayelsa State, who was jailed for corrupt practices, a Nigerian online discussion forum published an editorial titled “Jonathan pardons corruption”. The editorial canvassed the following argument: “This presidential pardon has grave implications for the Nigerian government’s reputation at home and in the international community; it takes Nigeria back several steps in its fight against corruption and in cleaning up its image abroad. Most importantly, it further undermines the country’s already weak and battered criminal justice system and sends worrying signals to the country’s teeming youthful population that crime in high places pays.”
Unfortunately, the state pardons granted to Dariye and Nyame have resonated the issues highlighted in the editorial cited above.
At the time of the pardon granted to Alamieyeseigha, a decision that generated widespread public anger, Jonathan was described inelegantly and metaphorically as a man who cut the image of a drowning sailor determined to ignore all attempts by rescuers to save himself from sinking to the bottom of the sea. Rather than grasp the lifeguard thrown by rescuers to drag him to safety, Jonathan appeared determined to be consumed by the rough seas.
Alamieyeseigha, Dariye, and Nyame exemplify the contradictions of our society. While other countries are fighting corruption vigorously to improve the socioeconomic conditions of citizens, Nigeria seems to be encouraging corrupt practices through intermittent and groundless pardons granted to convicted former state governors.
There is now reason for some people in Ila-Orangun (Osun State), the hometown of Tafa Balogun, convicted former Inspector-General of Police, to argue that their son is also entitled to an official pardon. It is also alright for people in Delta State to argue that it is time the former governor, James Onanefe Ibori, was pardoned by the President. Afterall, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander (pardon the cliché). In other words, what is good enough for Alamieyeseigha, Dariye, and Nyame should be good also for James Ibori and Tafa Balogun.
Nigeria is a country in which political leaders subscribe openly to the quaint philosophy of the three monkeys that pretend to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and recognise/understand no evil, particularly when their interests become national priority. This view rings true of Buhari’s style of government. And it is a tragedy.