President Goodluck Jonathan sent a wrong signal to Nigerians and the
international community last week with the state pardon granted to
former Bayelsa State Governor, Mr. Diepreye Alamieyeseigha. And in the
aftermath of what is now globally described as a classic blunder, the
federal government is seen as advertising its inability to set the right
tone for leadership while compromising its own avowed commitment to the
fight against corruption. Worse still, the fact that it also did not
check its own records (which led to an embarrassing second ‘pardon’ in a
few instances) has only confirmed the general suspicion that
Alamieyeseigha’s pardon was the sole objective of the entire exercise.
At a time most Nigerians seem enraged that those who steal public funds
to the tune of billions of Naira find it easy to escape justice; when
the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is in court against
several politically exposed persons, the pardon granted the central
character in one of the few successful cases on which a conviction was
secured cannot but be demoralising.
While the president reserves the power to pardon repentant convicts,
such powers must at all times be judiciously exercised in the national
interest and on the side of natural justice, equity and good conscience.
The pardon of Alamieyeseigha does not in any way meet the above
criteria and has therefore diminished the president in the eyes of
Nigerians and the international community. It has also squashed the
image and credibility of the federal government.
It is more unfortunate still that the whole untidy issue was handled in
such an underhand manner. The last Council of State meeting had an
agenda showing that the matter of granting State Pardon to
Alamieyeseigha and others was scheduled for discussion. Yet at the end
of the meeting, Adamawa State Governor, Mr. Murtala Nyako, who addressed
the press on the proceedings and outcome, told Nigerians that it was
not discussed. He also conveyed the impression that no one was granted
State Pardon at the Council of State meeting he attended. Every
reference to State Pardon was strenuously denied until contrary claims
began to emerge – at first hazily.
The pertinent questions here are: Does the Council of State have other
means of arriving at decisions outside of its duly scheduled, and fully
constituted, meetings? Why did Governor Nyako lie that the matter of
State Pardon was neither discussed nor treated? What circumstance, or
combination of circumstances, led to the new information after Nyako’s
post-Council meeting address to the press and the nation? Whether or not
Nigerians get clear answers to these questions, it is still a shame
that almost every action of the Jonathan government is being
progressively marred by a culture of subterfuge, bungling and bad
judgement.
We concede to President Jonathan the emotional attachment he may have
for his former boss. But he ought to have been mindful of his
responsibility as president of Nigeria at a time the issue of corruption
is on the front burner. What he therefore failed to appreciate is that
decisions like this put to question the commitment of the current
administration to the fight against corruption.
In other countries being cited by presidential handlers, a pardon of
this nature is usually granted at the end of an administration. What we
would have expected was for the president to wait for his last days in
office before granting a pardon that has not only brought ridicule upon
himself but on his government.
While we do not see how this unfortunate pardon can be reversed without
doing further damage to the credibility of government, the presidency
should, as a matter of utmost urgency, review its entire approach to
issues. The growing public perception that this administration is not
committed to good governance and the fight against corruption should be
of serious concerns to President Jonathan.
No comments:
Post a Comment