As the debate on zoning and
rotation of public offices
rages in the political arena,
the fate of former Peoples
Democratic Party, PDP, Deputy National Chairman, Chief Olabode George, who was jailed alongside five other former members of the Nigerian Ports Authority, NPA, Board of Directors, which he once led, continues to generate controversy over the manner in which they were prosecuted and convicted by a Lagos High Court.
Many people had expressed the opinion that Chief George, who was convicted for alleged contract splitting and disobedience to a Federal Government circular on expenditure approval limit, may have been a victim of political intrigues and conspiracy in high quarters as the alleged offences did not constitute economic crimes but administrative misdemeanors. Recent facts emerging from the Federal Court of Appeal, Lagos, where Chief George is challenging the verdict of the Lagos High Court presided over by Justice Joseph Olubunmi Oyewole, tend to lend credence to this view.
It was revealed at the Court of Appeal that the Federal Attorney_General and Minister of Justice did not grant the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC,  the necessary fiat to prosecute him at the Lagos High Court as required by law under section 174 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Usually the Federal Government issues a fiat when it becomes necessary for it to prosecute a case involving it in a state high court under laws made by that state rather than federal laws.
The fiat is a delegated authority empowering the state to prosecute on behalf of the Federal Government. This revelation has given rise to the question as to who took the decision to prosecute him at the Lagos High Court and why the case was rushed to the said state high court without perfecting the necessary due processes which included the issuance and attachment of the fiat to the charges.
Against a background of widespread insinuations that Chief George was deliberately taken to the Lagos State High Court under the jurisdiction of his avowed political enemies to ensure that he was jailed, the issue of fiat became a contentious matter at the Court of Appeal as both his counsel and counsel for the EFCC sought leave of the court to produce additional evidence in support of their respective positions on his appeal before the court. Curiously, while admitting that it did not obtain the fiat required by law from the Federal Attorney-General, the EFCC, through its counsel, Mr. Festus Keyamo submitted that it rather obtained a fiat issued by the Lagos State Attorney-General to the Federal Government to prosecute Chief George and co in the State High Court under the state’s laws.
Inspite of the absurdity of this approach, the EFCC counsel still sought leave of the court, in his application, to tender the said fiat issued by the Lagos State Government to the Federal Government as additional evidence in support of its opposition to the appeal filed by Chief George. However, in its ruling on 25th June, 2010, the Court of Appeal dismissed the EFCC’s application as lacking in merit. The Court ruled that the attempt by the commission’s counsel to tender the fiat at that stage was an abuse of court process because whatever fiat the EFCC obtained should have been attached to the charges at the commencement of the trial at the lower court as required by law.  Moreover, the Appeal court noted, with dismay, that Mr. Keyamo’s argument that the EFCC obtained a fiat from the Lagos State government rather than the usual practice of Federal government granting the State the fiat to prosecute on its behalf was an attempt to mislead the court.
This issue has raised more puzzles in the case as to how the trial was handled at the lower court. The first puzzle is that what was the interest of the Lagos State government in the case that made it go out of its way to issue a fiat, which obviously was not solicited, to the federal government to prosecute federal public officers, in a case involving a federal agency established by and operating under federal law, in the state high court, under the laws of Lagos State? The absurdity of this action becomes more evident when it is realized that the offences were allegedly committed by the affected public officers under the federal laws and directives to which the NPA, the federal government agency involved is subject.
Secondly, what sort of interaction or collaboration existed between the EFCC and the Lagos State government that made the EFCC decide to prosecute the case of Federal Government vs Chief Olabode George and co in a Lagos high court when there are federal high courts in Lagos State and yet it did not deem it fit to properly obtain the necessary fiat from the Federal Attorney-General delegating the authority to prosecute to the state? What informed the EFCC decision to act in that manner in view of the fact that the NPA is a Federal agency, its officials are federal public officers and the circular allegedly disobeyed by the Board was a federal government directive?  These are questions still begging for answers but their import are indications that there was more to the role of the Lagos State government in the trial than met the eye, most possibly a conspiracy to railroad the PDP chieftain to a court under the jurisdiction of the state where there was assurance that he would be jailed at all cost and put away from political activism for a considerable length of time. Not a few people believe this theory.
They readily point to the fact that Chief George has had a long-running battle with the Lagos State Governor, Mr. Babatunde Raji Fashola and his predecessor, Alhaji Ahmed Bola Tinubu over their handling of the affairs of the state. The most formidable opposition to the Action Congress Controlled government of the state had always come from the PDP led by Chief George.
Besides, statements credited to Governor Fashola during the trial had betrayed his interest in the case, raising the possibility that Chief George could never get a fair trial at the Lagos High Court. The first instance was when Governor Fashola criticised the presence of Chief George’s political supporters and sympathizers at the court premises during the hearings of the case, in his law column in the Businessday newspaper. The second instance was at the swearing_in of the new Lagos State Chief Judge, last year when the governor remarked that the state judiciary needed to do something to control high profile cases and he specifically mentioned the case of Chief George at that public event.
The sentiment expressed by the governor was needless if he did not have an ulterior motive. High profile cases in Nigeria and elsewhere around the world have always attracted huge crowds of a mixed grill of sympathisers, interest groups, on_lookers as well as opponents. Why should the governor feel uncomfortable by the presence of Chief George’s supporters at the court premises when there was no reported case of misconduct, unruly behavior or breakdown of law and order caused by the said supporters who were merely sympathisers? Was Governor Fashola embarrassed or intimidated by Chief George’s Supporters? As a lawyer he had always been familiar with such happenings which were not unusual. His outburst, therefore, could be interpreted to have flowed  from a deep seated hatred of Chief George as a political enemy, who, unfortunately, was now at his mercy where he had the opportunity to extract his pound of flesh.
Against this background, those who insist that Chief George’s case was premeditated and the outcome of conspiracy in high places in a bid to jail him at all costs may not be far from the truth. It would appear that the conspirators only played on public sentiments to carry out their evil plan, Nigerians had been told so much stories about corruption in public offices that they were just eager to applaud any conviction by the EFCC no matter the circumstances. Sadly, Chief George became the sacrificial lamb in this quest and in the orchestrated euphoria that greeted his conviction, no one stopped to reason and ask if he was actually convicted for corruption, how much he stole, if he stole; how much he misappropriated if he did; how much he embezzled if he corruptly enriched himself; how much the NPA lost during his tenure if there was any loss and to what extent he was involved?
The truth of the matter, which many Nigerians are yet to fully understand is that Chief George was not convicted for corruption. He was neither accused nor found guilty of stealing, embezzling, misappropriating, or corruptly enriching himself, family or associates, with NPA funds. Neither the NPA nor the nation lost any funds during his tenure as chairman of the Board. All contracts awarded by NPA under his tenure were executed and those that had not been paid for as at the time the board was dissolved were later verified and paid for under the direction of the EFCC.
Till date, no NPA contractor had been indicted of colluding with the board, led by Chief George, to defraud the parastatal. No NPA staff, up to management level, had been accused of conniving with the board or NPA contractors to defraud the parastatal. Chief George has not been asked to account for or refund any money. Infact, the principal officers in charge of origination and processing of contracts at NPA during Chief George’s tenure were not charged to court with him. Such officers included Appraisal Officers, Line Managers, the Executive Director, Engineering, Executive Director, Finance; Company Secretary/Legal Adviser, among others. The prosecution was selective for reasons best known to the prosecutors. And even the expenditure approval limit used by the George-led board was still in use as at the time Justice Oyewole delivered his judgement convicting Chief George, six years after his board was dissolved. What else did Chief George do to warrant his conviction.
As the Court of Appeal resumes from its recess in September all eyes are on it to do justice to the case. The judiciary is still the last hope of the unjustly treated even if the unfair treatment is perceived to have come partly from an arm of the judiciary itself. That is why there are several levels of adjudication such that justice denied at one level can be legitimately recovered at another.