By Jabiru Hassan, Kano
The Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership (CACOL) has expressed concern regarding a statement attributed to the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Olanipekun Olukoyede. He mentioned that the Commission is unable to carry out investigations in ten states in Nigeria due to court orders restraining its activities.
Olukoyede made this disclosure at the ongoing sixth EFCC-NJI capacity-building workshop for justices and judges, held at the Conference Hall of the National Judicial Institute in Abuja.
According to him, among the various challenges facing the EFCC are “the frequent adjournment of high-profile cases by courts, contempt orders, and undue reliance on technical grounds.” He further emphasized that the situation where suspects rush to court to obtain restraining orders against the EFCC from arresting them must be discouraged by the judiciary.
CACOL is particularly worried about this development, as it believes that the fight against corruption cannot succeed if the courts, which should serve as unbiased arbiters and dispensers of justice, become safe havens for corrupt public officials.
The role of the judiciary in any nation cannot be overemphasized, regardless of whether the government is democratic, autocratic, military, or monarchical. If the judiciary is so fundamental, central, and critical to the development of a nation, then those who occupy the seats of judgment, holding the power of life and death, must act with integrity.
In this part of the world, before judicial decisions are rendered, the media—newspapers, the internet, television, and radio—often provide analysis, and many times, the speculations turn out to be true. Whether this is mere coincidence or not remains debatable.
The pressing question is, how did we arrive at this level? CACOL has observed that a significant issue is the conduct of judicial officers and staff.
What should we make of judicial officers socializing with politicians? What does it signify when judicial officers attend social gatherings, such as “owambe” parties? What are we to conclude about a judicial officer who is constantly in the company of politicians?
One of the easiest ways for the judiciary to combat corruption is for judges to decide cases based solely on the law. Given the prevalence of corruption in our society, the courts should impose the maximum allowable sentences in all proven cases upon conviction. Anyone found guilty of corruption should not merely receive a slap on the wrist.
Specifically, the judiciary’s role in the fight against corruption includes applying the provisions of various laws, such as the ICPC Act and the EFCC Act, as well as the Penal and Criminal Code Laws of the various states of the Federation, to the cases presented before them.
The courts must demonstrate their aversion to corruption. Some judges intentionally allow their courts to be used against the anti-corruption fight.
CACOL suggests that the National Judicial Council (NJC) establish a monitoring team to discreetly observe adjudication in various courts. This team would ensure that judges and other legal officers are not engaging in unethical practices that could undermine the course of justice.
The team should report its findings back to the NJC, which would lead to the punishment of judicial officers engaging in unethical behavior.
While we expect law enforcement agencies to adhere to legal standards in their roles to combat corruption, other forms of criminality, and indiscipline, courts should not obstruct adherence to the law.
Instead, courts should be partners in progress, not obstacles to achieving justice. They must find ways to ensure that all offenders are adequately punished, deterring others from committing similar crimes rather than providing them with a means to escape justice.
