A routine invitation from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to the immediate past governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, over allegations of massive corruption while in office has turned into an unending and embarrassing drama. The drama became scandalous when the incumbent governor of the state, Usman Ododo, in an unabashed display of loyalty and support for his predecessor, joined the fray and used the instrumentality of his office to shield Bello from arrest and interrogation by the anti-graft agency twice. The awkward spectacle started sometime in April when, in what was tantamount to obstruction of justice by a sitting governor, Mr. Ododo intervened and allegedly used his security detail to scuttle the arrest of the ex-governor by the EFCC at his Abuja home. This happened weeks after Bello had failed/refused to honour the EFCC’s invitation to come forward and clear his name. And since then, the former governor has continued to treat the EFCC’s invitation with disdain in spite of a valid court order vacating an earlier ruling of a Kogi State High Court which restrained the EFCC from arresting him. The bizarre series of events reached a climax last Wednesday when the media aide of the former governor, Ohiare Michael, announced that his principal had gone to the EFCC office to honour the commission’s lingering invitation, only for the anti-graft agency to later claim that the former governor was not in its custody, adding that he remained “a wanted person.” The EFCC did not state whether or not Bello came to its office, but Michael later announced that the EFCC allowed him to leave its office without being interrogated by any of its officials.
Nonetheless, and curiously so, on the same Wednesday night, EFCC operatives reportedly attempted to arrest Bello, but as it happened a few months ago, Governor Ododo’s security team frustrated the attempt. The two security teams reportedly engaged in an altercation with the sounds of gunshots rending the air, and amid the melee, Governor Ododo allegedly whisked away his predecessor, apparently into hiding once again. And the drama continues. These episodes naturally raise a number of posers: Why did the EFCC allow Bello to leave its office without interrogating him? Did the commission fear the prospects of a shootout with the security team of the sitting governor and thus allowed Bello to go even when it should ordinarily have the upper hand at its base? Is immunity transferable? Or could it be that the EFCC preferred to arrest Bello rather than allowing him to claim the moral victory of surrendering himself to it?
Again, why would a sitting governor accompany a suspect to the EFCC office, with the two of them sitting in the same car? Is the governor under investigation, or is he the one to be interrogated? Why is Ododo using his immunity to shield a suspect from interrogation? Did the governor even bother that his action may be misconstrued as prioritising the interest of the former governor who is said to be his relation over and above that of the state against which the alleged crime was committed? It is on record that many ex-governors have been invited by the EFCC, and not one of them had a sitting governor using the instrumentality of his office to shield them from interrogation. And what is so special about Bello that he cannot be interrogated, especially when the Appeal Court has expressly ordered that he should present himself for interrogation? What has been the role/intervention of the Kogi State House of Assembly in all of this? Why is the assembly keeping quiet as if nothing is amiss while a sitting governor whose excesses it is constitutionally empowered to check is brazenly shielding a suspect who has allegedly committed a crime against the state from interrogation? Is he aware that the vantage position he occupies today is a transient one? And is he even thinking of how posterity will judge him? Shouldn’t decency and morality have caused Ododo to exercise restraint, if only because the allegations against his predecessor raise the possibility of guilt? The posers are literally limitless.
The governor was reportedly seen both in motion and still pictures holding hands with the ex-governor in a chummy manner that indicates that he does not care that Bello has been accused of committing a crime. Is Mr. Ododo not inadvertently giving the citizens of the state a snippet of what constitutes his values and principles? Yes, Governor Ododo may not care about the crime the ex-governor is accused of committing against Kogi State, but his stance on the allegations does not necessarily represent that of the people of the state. After all, the petitions to the EFCC, whose preliminary investigations culminated in the invitation extended to Bello, reportedly originated from some indigenes of the state. It speaks volumes about the character and values of Governor Ododo that he is unable to draw a line between loyalty to his predecessor and shielding him from lawful interrogation. Perhaps his handlers should let him know that such a deplorable course of action is in itself a crime that he may have to answer for in the fullness of time.
It is time the National Assembly began to consider a review of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which provides immunity from trial for the “President, Vice-President, Governor and Deputy Governor” during the subsistence of their tenure. This is because the immunity provision has been so abused by many state actors that the intendment of the drafters of the constitution has been largely vitiated. Governor Ododo’s conduct in the current EFCC/Yahaya Bello tango is a typical case in point, and the audacious manner he has been using his immunity to prevent the law from taking its course is not just embarrassing but also raises a grave question about how constitutional immunity impacts public morality and decency. While an outright removal of the provision from the constitution may not be apposite yet, the operation of the clause should not remain absolute and without some caveats. The provision should be tweaked in such a way as to forestall its abuses by beneficiaries, as Nigerians are currently witnessing.
The idea of a sitting governor abusing his immunity to shield his predecessor from interrogation over an alleged criminal conduct against the state under his watch is sickening and dangerous. One of the ominous implications of this tendency is that the quest for state capture by politicians will continue to be a high-stake objective since a state chief executive could literally do what pleases him while in office in the hope that his imposed successor will ensure that he does so with impunity. That cannot be what the immunity clause seeks to achieve. The optics are terribly bad and discomforting. Nonetheless, we urge the EFCC to stay the course and ensure that Bello is interrogated and diligently prosecuted if he is found culpable. It should not matter whether he is arrested or he surrenders himself to the EFCC; what should be paramount is that the law takes its course and the sanctity of the rule of law is upheld. It is also imperative that within the precincts of the law, the point is made, and very lucidly so, that every state governor will ultimately be held to account for his/her actions while in office, whether or not (s)he succeeds in installing his/her minion as a successor.
READ ALSO: Borno flood: Maiduguri faces growing health crisis
