Falana, Sagay, others differ on immunity clause

MAY 13, 2012 BY LEKE BAIYEWU 

Constitutional lawyers and civil society groups have described efforts by some state governors to stop the removal of the immunity clause as a “joke.”

They described it as an attempt to avoid being prosecuted for offences.

The state governors had called a meeting last Thursday following a statement credited to the Deputy Speaker and Chairman, House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on Constitution Review, Mr. Emeka Ihedioha, that the committee would consider the yearning of Nigerians to review the immunity clause for the president and governors.

However, in an interview with our correspondent, activist lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana, said there was no absolute immunity anywhere in the world.

Citing the instances of the Liberian Charles Tailor and the Sudanese Omar al-Bashir, he said, “The governors are not current, they are living in the past. There is no point wasting time on the immunity. If a governor commits a crime and he cannot be tried here, he can be tried abroad. Two Nigerian governors were arrested in London recently and they had to jump bail.

“It is in the Nigerian constitution that a governor or a president can be tried for offences. You can sue them in official capacity, just that they cannot be arrested or detained. Where they are found guilty, the legislature can move a motion for their impeachment, after which they can be punished as ordinary citizens.”

Another constitutional lawyer, Prof. Itse Sagay, however argued that there was no need for the removal of the clause since the president and the governors could be tried after their tenures.

The Senior Advocate of Nigeria said, “They are only fighting for themselves because they know that if it is removed, they will be stripped naked. I am not in support of the removal because the immunity is temporary.

“What Nigerians should look out for is the quality of the individuals elected into public offices.”

In his view, Executive Director, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, Adetokunbo Mumuni, argued that the governors should have allowed the removal process to continue unhindered, if they had nothing to hide.

Mumuni said, “Immunity should be removed, especially when it relates to finance and management of resources in Nigeria. Anyone in office found culpable of mismanagement should be treated as an average criminal.”

The Executive Chairman, Coalition Against Corrupt Leaders, Mr. Debo Adeniran, however, said immunity should be removed partially to avoid distractions from people who might write fictitious petitions in order to destabilise the polity.

The CACOL boss said, “The immunity clause could be modified such that a governor can sue and be sued and investigated, while the findings from the investigation could be published. However, his trial can only commence after his tenure expires

“If the immunity is removed, it means the governors and the president can be arrested and that will be an embarrassment to our sense of responsibility. Where anyone is found culpable, impeachment procedures can be instituted by the House of Assembly.

“Anti-graft agencies will wait until after the impeachment or expiration of the tenure. As soon as he steps out of power, he should step into their nets.”

Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution states that no civil or criminal proceeding can be instituted against the president, vice-president, governor and deputy-governor while in office. The Justice Alfa Belgore committee set up by President Goodluck Jonathan had recommended the removal of the clause.

SOURCE: The Punch - Nigeria's Most Widely Read Newspaper 13 May 2012.