Posted by By Rotimi Ajayi on
ABUJA - VICE President Atiku Abubakar has decided to go to court to challenge the reports of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Administrative Panel on the allegations of corruption levelled at him.
ABUJA - VICE President Atiku Abubakar has decided to go to court to challenge the reports of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Administrative Panel on the allegations of corruption levelled at him. The move is coming amidst speculations of a plan to bar him from further attending the weekly meeting of the Federal Executive Council.
Lagos lawyer, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, speaking on the Atiku issue says the Vice President stands disqualified from contesting the presidency next year whether he is impeached or not, as the reports of the EFCC and the Administrative panel are sufficient to stop him.
Vice President Atiku, according to his chief spokesman, Mallam Shehu Garba, met yesterday with a team of seven Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) and other lawyers on the matter.
Mallam Garba in a statement said: 'The Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, has instructed seven Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) to challenge the recommendations of an ad hoc government panel that recommended his indictment for abuse of office.
"Vice President Atiku Abubakar believes that unless he resorts to the courts, what many Nigerians have dismissed as a pack of lies, fabrications and political vendetta may deceptively pass as an indictment of his person.
'From their initial reactions, the lawyers are of the view that the so-called indictment cannot stand the scrutiny of Nigeria's judicial process. It must, therefore, be quashed by the courts.
'For instance, it is cited that for any ‘administrative panel' to have the power to indict as envisaged by the Constitution, it must follow the guidelines laid by the Tribunal Act. So far, there is nothing to indicate that the ad hoc panel led by the Attorney-General met the set criteria.
'Anybody can accuse someone of embezzlement and fraud. This charge is no more significant than one that could have been made by the Lagos Butchers Association. Said one of them: ‘It is like a husband and wife recruiting their children into a panel to try a neighbour of theirs.'It is that ridiculous and laughable, the important thing is that such charge must be proved in law,' said another. 'How can there be embezzlement when there is no money lost? If you have to prove fraud in general, you must show that the accused person gained a material benefit. No where in the report is the Vice President shown to have made a material gain.
'Besides, when the EFCC investigated the affairs of the Nigerian Ports Authority and reported to the Federal Executive Council, the President did not see reason to set up an administrative panel when billions of tax payers' money was reportedly lost. Yet, it is curious that in this particular case of the PTDF where no money was lost, the President went ahead to set up a kangaroo panel.
'Again, the President said he had set up this panel of investigation following complaints by the US Congressman Williams Jefferson, the sense that is left in many minds is that there is a certain kind of desperation on the part of the President to stop the Vice President from the 2007 Presidential elections.
'The truth of the Jefferson matter is that this is a man who collected 6.5 million USD from Otunba Fasawe, the Nigerian promoter of NDTV and failed to supply him the technology paid for, and could only refund 1.7 million USD up till this moment. Does this not leave Nigerians with questions as to whose interest is the President serving?
'Anyway, the new claim of a PTDF investigation at the instance of Jefferson conflicts tragically, with the earlier claim in the President's letter to the Senate in which he claimed the investigation of the PTDF accounts was at the instance of an FBI request. Is Mr. President deceiving the Senate and Nigerians? The question then is: Why is he so afraid of Atiku? 'It is a moot point that the people of Nigeria have a right to choose who is to be their next president and no old-fashioned overlordship can take away this fundamental right
'Again, we restate that this sacred power lies with the Nigerian people who constitute the electorate that have the right to determine who governs them. This inalienable right cannot be appropriated by any individual or group of people. Nigeria remains a country governed by law. 'The Vice President believes that what he is going through is a necessary part of his preparation for leadership.
'His spirit is high, he is not losing his sleep. ‘To get to the mountaintop, you must climb the mountain,' he says. To be a leader, the Vice President believes that he must climb the mountain. The current president too has had to mount this metaphorical mountain."
Ministers want him barred
Vanguard also gathered yesterday that some younger members of the Federal Executive Council are rooting for the prevention of the Vice President from the council meeting.
This is on account of the EFCC and Administrative panel's reports that indicted him. It was learnt that President Obasanjo has, however, advised the ministers to drop the idea. 'I can tell you we have general opinion among the younger ministers that a motion should be moved that in view of the indicting report of the EFCC, he should not be allowed to continue to sit in council. We feel he has brought ridicule to the anti-corruption and transparency policy of this government."
He stands disqualified - GANI
Meanwhile, Chief Fawehinmi says Vice President Atiku stands disqualified from contesting the presidency next year whether he is impeached or not on account of the EFCC and Administrative Panel's reports on allegations of corrupt practices against him. He argues that Section 137(1)(i) of the 1999 Constitution has already taken care of the VP's disqualification.
The section provides as follows: '137(1) A person shall not be qualified for election of the office of the president if: (1) He has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a Tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, a Tribunal of Inquiry Law or any other law by the Federal or State Government which indictment has been accepted by the federal or state government respectively."
Chief Fawehinmi in a statement in Lagos yesterday said: 'The disqualification of Atiku Abubakar to contest the 2007 presidential election can be based on Section 137(1)(i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 with regards to the findings and recommendations of the Administrative Panel of Inquiry. This is an innovation which can only be found in the 1999 Constitution.
Under Section 137(1)(i), there is no need for trial in any court of law unlike under Section 137(1)(e) as stated above.
'Do the facts, findings and the conclusions of both the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Administrative Panel of Inquiry Reports amount to gross misconduct for which the Vice President can be impeached under the 1999 Constitution?
'The Vice President can be impeached for gross misconduct under Section 143 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. That section deals with the process of the machinery for indicting the President or the Vice President as the case may be if there are acts of gross misconduct.
The phrase ‘gross misconduct' has been defined in Section 143(11) as follows: (11) In this Section: ‘Gross misconduct' means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the National Assembly to gross misconduct.
'The question is: Do the facts disclosed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission probe and the Administrative Panel of Inquiry set up by the Federal Government amount to gross misconduct?
'If the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Administrative Panel of Inquiry could come to the conclusion that the Vice President has not only abused his power but has corrupted his office, nothing more can amount to gross misconduct.
'The facts, findings and conclusions against the Vice President showed that the Vice President not only violated Section 15(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 which provides that the ‘State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power' but also violated the Code of Conduct as well as his oath of office in the Constitution.
'The facts of corruption against Atiku Abubakar are so serious that no sane Nigerian can say that these facts cannot amount to gross misconduct deserving of impeachment under Section 143 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
'If the Vice President is impeached, can he be thereafter tried in the appropriate court of law for criminal offences flowing from the facts, findings and conclusions of both Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Administrative Panel of Inquiry Reports?
'Once the Vice-President is out of office, he can be arraigned before the court for corruption, embezzlement and fraud related offences under the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004.
'The case of Spiro Theodore Agnew, a one-time powerful Vice-President in the United States of America is very instructive here. Agnew, a Greek-American won election as Vice President under President Richard Milhous Nixon in 1972 on the platform of the Republican Party.
'In 1973, Federal officials began to investigate charges that Agnew had accepted bribes from contractors in return for helping them get state government work in Maryland. The investigation covered the period Agnew had served as Baltimore Country Executive (1962), Governor of Maryland (1967) and Vice President of the USA (1972), that is, 1962-1972.
'Agnew was also accused of tax invasion during the period under investigation. Agnew repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. But on October 10, 1973, he resigned as vice president under an agreement with the Department of Justice.
'He was subsequently charged for cheating the Government of $13,551 (Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and fifty-one Dollars) on his Federal Income Tax payment for 1967. He pleaded ‘no contest' (nob contendere) which the judge declared was ‘the full equivalent of plea of guilty.' He was fined $10,000 (Ten Thousand Dollars) and sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation. He served the imprisonment term.
'In 1974, the Maryland Court of Appeal disbarred him from practising law since he was a lawyer because of his ‘no contest plea. In 1981, another Maryland Court ordered him pay the state the amount of the bribes it declared he had accepted, plus interest. In 1983, Agnew paid $268,482 (Two Hundred and Sixty-eight Thousand and Four Hundred and Eighty-two Dollars) to Maryland.
'The case of Mr. Jacob Zuma, a Zulu, the former South African Vice-President is the most recent. He was sacked last year (2005) as Vice President to Thabo Mbeki. He was accused of soliciting and receiving bribe from the local subsidiary of the French Defence Company, Thales in return for shielding it from an official investigation into £4.4 billion arms deal and accepting payments and loans totaling £280,000 from Schabir Shark, a businessman who acted as his financial adviser and whom he used his influence to give contracts as favours. The trial is still on-going.
He concluded: 'Impeached or not, the Vice President cannot contest the 2007 Presidential Election. Therefore, he will be out of office if not impeached on May 29, 2007. Thereafter, he can be tried accordingly in a court of law for offences committed whilst in office and/or before he came into office as Vice President.
It does not lie in the mouth of Atiku or any other person accused of corruption, fraud, embezzlement or any other criminal offence to say that there are other corrupt persons. You do not justify your crime by a defence that there are other criminals. So if you catch a robber, do you leave him to go scot free simply because he says there are other robbers? That will amount to the grossest and most perverted illogicality and primitive lawlessness."