The ongoing trial of Professor Adedibu Ojerinde, former registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), on allegations of N5 billion fraud has exposed the underbelly of the privileged class in Nigeria. The case shows how senior officials of government compromise the high positions of trust, responsibility and accountability that are assigned to them. When the case came up for trial last week at the Abuja division of the Federal High Court, Ojerinde requested Justice Obiora Egwuatu to grant him 24 hours to reach a plea bargain with the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
All the people who viewed Ojerinde prior to his arrest as an emblem of integrity, ethical conduct and decency must be shocked. The man’s high profile and character statement tumbled down in July 2021 when the ICPC dragged Ojerinde to court on an 18-count charge of diversion of public funds. The ICPC alleged the offences were committed when Ojerinde served as registrar of the National Examination Council (NECO) and also as registrar of JAMB. Ojerinde pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
On Tuesday last week, the case took another turn when Ojerinde and the ICPC failed to reach a plea bargain for which Ojerinde had asked the Federal High Court to grant him 24 hours to resolve the matter.
Although plea bargaining is allowed in law, I am against that practice. A government that talks too much about its determination to rid the country of official and unofficial corruption should never encourage or entertain plea bargaining proposals.
It is an accepted principle of law that punishments must be tailored to suit crimes. However, when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arrested and successfully prosecuted former Police Inspector-General, Tafa Balogun, the nation expected the punishment would match the serious crimes, which the disgraced former police boss admitted he committed. In Balogun’s case, it was not just the crimes he committed that shredded his public image. He simply defecated on the high office he occupied as Nigeria’s chief police officer at that time.
Despite the gravity of the offences he committed, the nation was startled to learn that Balogun successfully entered a plea bargain with the EFCC. At the end of it all, the sentence that Balogun received as punishment was not proportional to the crimes he committed. Balogun used plea bargain as legal vaccination to avoid severe punishment for his crimes. At the conclusion of the trial, it became evident that convicted criminals in Nigeria were smarter than the law enforcement agents and the laws of the nation.
There are a range of arguments about why plea bargain is good for the country, good for accused persons, and good for the prosecution. I remain unconvinced. The first argument is that plea bargain saves money and time for the country because the trial process is shortened and resources are not wasted on a prolonged trial. In return, the argument goes, the accused person receives a shorter sentence because they cooperated during the trial.
Professor Itse Sagay, renowned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, told the Sunday Vanguard on July 29, 2007, that “plea bargain obviously serves a useful purpose because the state resources can be saved if you have a quick and fast conclusion of trial. Look at the case of Al-Mustapha, it’s been going on now for eight years, there is no resolution in sight.”
That point sounded like an impeccable argument. But wait for the next point about Sagay’s support for the plea bargain adopted by Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, the corrupt former governor of Bayelsa State.
Sagay said: “Alamieyeseigha’s case, I think it was particularly appropriate because of his health. This is the man who was dragged from the hospital bed in Dubai, taken through the rigours of a full trial, he may not even survive it, at the end of the day. Who is going to benefit from that and how would the people of Niger Delta, his area, take it? All these things would have to be taken into consideration.”
The argument presented by Sagay was, in my view, parochial and unacceptable. When was the judiciary in Nigeria mandated to take ethnic and partisan matters into consideration when accused persons are tried for serious crimes? The law is the law. And everyone is equal before the law. I am not persuaded that the ethnic origin of an accused person should be given special consideration during a criminal trial. People who commit crimes and admit to such crimes should face the consequences of their actions, regardless of their ethnicity.
Plea bargain makes nonsense of the fight against corruption and other criminal activities. Beyond the question of plea bargaining, the current trial of Ojerinde raises another important question about the conduct of high-profile citizens. Public officials or public servants who are appointed into positions of responsibility and abuse their high office must be punished severely. The penalty for corruption by public servants and ordinary citizens must be tough, punitive and exemplary.
The mindset of state officials in Nigeria differs significantly from that of their counterparts in other societies. Why are Nigerian officials who are appointed to govern in the interest of the public eager to put their own interests ahead of the national interests? Do we have morally upright people or crooked officials with a flawed view of what they are entitled to receive while in office?
There have been extraordinary corruption scandals that continue to trouble Nigeria’s sense of right and wrong behaviour. These cases have exposed the dishonourable activities of good and bad citizens, the poor and the rich, religious and irreligious men and women, decent and disreputable men and women, upright and dubious image-makers, and people whose outlook in life is driven by the desire to make money through questionable methods.
To reimagine Nigeria, we must reconsider our ideas about public service. Public service is not about selfish acquisition of public property or assets. It is not about embezzlement of funds. It is not about personal enrichment. The concept of public service must be respected, recognised, and promoted. It is always an honour to be appointed to serve one’s motherland.
Weak leadership must be the reason corruption has continued to fester in Nigeria. On inauguration, every government boasts of possessing the best strategy to end corruption. Unfortunately, no government has taken that strong and uncompromising action to punish convicted corrupt officials. No government has done anything unequivocal to hold corrupt senior officials to account. It is not only weak leadership that must be held blameworthy. A weak civil society also contributes to the persisting culture of apathy and secrecy in government.
We are in a helpless situation. When people look up to political leaders and see no role models, when people look to leaders to practise what they preach but see leaders who openly violate the basic principles of their sermon, the message that gets across is that we are caught in a messy country with weakened political leaders, no clear policies, no rule of law and an overwhelmed national security network.
To fight corruption in Nigeria, the Federal Government must commit to prosecute, unwaveringly, public officers who are suspected of corrupt practices. It is the government’s obligation to move public debate on corruption from the pulpit of speech-making to the platform of pragmatic action. Unfortunately, this government lacks the energy, drive, commitment, initiative or muscle to fight corruption.