‘People are charged to court when investigation is not properly done’

President Muhammadu Buhari, at his inauguration on May 29, 2015, said the fight against corruption was one of his cardinal agenda. During the campaign, he had reiterated the statement that if Nigeria did not kill corruption, corruption would certainly kill the country. He had also charged the judiciary to act with dispatch on all cases especially on corruption, serious financial crimes or abuse of office. True to his promise, the tempo of the fight against graft has increased significantly in the last one year with many high profile cases before the courts at the moment. However, some Nigerians are not comfortable with the perceived lopsidedness in the anti-graft war. They believe the war against corruption should be holistic and cut across political party lines. In a chat with BRIDGET CHIEDU ONOCHIE, an Abuja based lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Joe Agi, urged the President to take the battle more ferociously and across board.

On the alleged one-sided arrests and prosection, Agi said he shares the same sentiment with those that hold the view that the war against graft is selective. He said: “I agree with people who hold that view 100 per cent. Of recent, they were talking about the Chief of Army Staff, Buratai having bought a house for millions of naira or dollars; did he declare the house with the Code of Conduct Bureau? I heard they came out to say that he declared it, they are lying. Let them tell us how he got it. Can he justify that amount? If he calculates his salary since he joined army, without spending out of it, can it buy the said house? So, you can see why the people are saying it is one-sided. If Mr. President wants to fight corruption, it should be holistic. At times, I don’t blame him. He is just one man sitting in a corner of the country and there are many lieutenants around him. All these talks about corruption; we are all Nigerians and we are in this country. There is an adage that asks, ‘in whose anus will you put a finger and not touch an excreta?’ So, the corruption is across board, irrespective of the Party. It is not only about a particular person. It is an endemic problem in this country. So, if we want to fight it, we should do so ferociously and above board. Let nobody come out to say he is a saint, because there are no saints.”

Part of the debate about how best to engage the fight against corruption is the call on lawyers not to defend alleged corrupt persons. The learned senior advocate in expressing his view on this issue said: “It was unfortunate for such a statement to have come from a head of the body that is supposed to be fighting economic crime. I dont know if he is a lawyer. If he is, it is sad but if he is not, he needs some enlightenment on how the law works. We are operating a democratic system and our legal jurisprudence says that anybody accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. So, on what basis are you going to say they are defending corrupt people? The mistake the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other security agencies are making in this country is that contary to what the law says and what the courts have decided, they make arrests before they investigate. They ought to investigate before arresting people.

That is what the law says. Judicial authority to that effect has said so. You don’t go and pick people and say they are corrupt, then, you start asking questions for people to help you to investigate. You should do your investigation, conclude it and when you are sure of your facts, you can then go and invite the person, arrest and confront him with facts, which he will be unable to deny. But unfortunately, what they do in this country, because they have the power of coercion, is to come to one’s house, bundle him and lock him up and say they are investigating. That is infringing on people’s rights. I don’t know why people don’t want to go to court to challenge those things.”

Agi also spoke about conflicting judgments, usually from courts of coordinate jurisdictions. His words: “It is not true that Judges are giving conflicting judgments. Before the eyes of the people, they appear to be conflicting judgments, but I don’t think they are. One, before you analyse a judgment, you must know the facts. What are the facts that were put before that Judge? The facts may not be the same but the result may appear to be the same. So, unless you know the facts that were presented before that Judge, you cannot say he gave a conflicting judgment. In any case, the system itself is self- regulatory. If judgments are conflicting, you can go to a higher court – the court of appeal and they will tell you who is right and who is wrong. If it is still not clear, then, you go to the Supreme Court, which is one.”

Drawing example from the governorship conflict in Abia State and that of the chairmanship of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the senior advocate, said the issues before the federal high courts were different. According to him, the presumed conflict in the judgments was as a result of the different issues raised by parties before the courts. He said: “Let me tell you about the Abia State issue. The man in Owerri went to court even before the court in Abuja had his own facts. It is just that the judgment came after the one in Abuja. The plaintiff had his own grounds, different from what the other man had. So, the effect might look as if it is conflicting, but it depends on the facts of the case.

On the Sheriff and Markafi case, it all depends on how you look at it. For instance, a particular group went to court to say that the amendment made to the constitution of the Party did not follow due process, that they did not give notice to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) as required by law. They consequently asked the court to say that such amendment was void and the consequence of that is that Sheriff came on board, following that amendment. So, the court said that if the amendment that brought you to power is wrongful, then your appointment is wrongful. The other group went to court to say that Sheriff was appointed for three months and that the three months were over and as such, he should vacate the office. You can see that the facts are different, but the results appear to be the same. That is why they appeared to be conflicting. And he said ‘no, I cannot go, you cannot remove me like that, because I was appointed chairman’, but the truth of the matter is that he was appointed to complete somebody’s tenure for three months, yet he said no, that he remained chairman. But at the end, the law will regulate itself.”

Speaking on the activities of EFCC in the recent time and the pressure mounted on judges and lawyers to deliver on the fight against corruption, the lawyer called for appropriate investigation before suspects are arrested.

“I am one of those who stand against corruption. I support the fight against corruption in all ramifications but my own is that appropriate investigation must be carried out and when you have facts that someone has made money unduly, then you go after him. But what I have discovered very often is that people are charged to court when investigation is not properly done. You charge someone for money laundering and at the end of the day, you find that it does not amount to it. But unfortunately, some media houses report opposite of what transpires in the court.

It is a very sad trend, because the media is a very vital organ. The ordinary man in the street does not go to the court, the media is their eyes and their ears and whatever story they tell, whether it is true or not, they take it. The implication is that at the end of the day, when the innocent is freed in accordance with the law, the common man wonders why he is freed in spite of what he was told by the media. The society is being pitched against the judiciary which is a very dangerous trend. Unless the society gets the meat of the matter, they will think the judges are corrupt”, he stated.