Obanikoro’s revelations: Should EFCC quiz Jonathan?
Does he have immunity? Is he not a 
Nigerian? Everybody is equal before the law. He should be questioned. 
Many leaders in Africa have gone to jail for corruption. We should avail
 ourselves the opportunity to combat corruption by showing people they 
won’t get off scot-free when they leave office having plundered the 
state.
 There is nothing political about it. If
 I steal money, won’t I be investigated? Won’t the Economic and 
Financial Crimes Commission invite me? Is that political? Why should 
politicians be provided with a life-long immunity from being probed? If 
he (Jonathan) is probed, some people will say the past president’s can 
of worm is opened. That is the problem we have in this country. We must 
make it clear to everyone that no one is above the law. At some point, 
you must be held accountable for your stewardship. I don’t think 
quizzing Jonathan has anything to do with politics. It is about cleaning
 the system and enforcing our laws.
We have outsourced our criminal 
prosecution to other countries to help us recover stolen funds. America 
is returning looted Abacha funds, Britain is holding Diezani 
(Alison-Madueke) and it has jailed ex-governor James Ibori. Who have we 
jailed? Is there any law that you shouldn’t be probed if you were a 
political office holder? In fact, that is even a good reason to probe 
you. So, if Jonathan is suspected to have plundered the assets put in 
his care as a trustee for the people of Nigeria, he should be probed. He
 must give an account of his stewardship. If I sent you on an errand and
 I gave you some money, you should come back and tell me how you spent 
the money. What is wrong in that?
- Femi Aina (A lawyer)
The onus is on the Economic and 
Financial Crimes Commission to go where evidence takes them as an 
investigating agency. However, care should be taken because it is normal
 for an accused person to blame someone else for their criminal conduct.
The responsibility for the security vote
 lies with the former President (Goodluck Jonathan) as the 
Commander-in-Chief; as such, there is nothing wrong if he is invited to 
provide clarification on some of the issues raised by (Musiliu) 
Obanikoro and other cabinet members.
It seems the present government is 
shielding Jonathan from the anti-graft agencies. In view of the series 
of allegations against those who surrounded him then, such an approach 
is contrary to the anti-corruption posture of President Muhammadu 
Buhari. The EFCC needs to move promptly to interview the former 
President to tell Nigerians the exact order or instruction that he gave 
to a former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, or Obanikoro, so 
that the matters could move to court as soon as possible because any 
further delay would erode public confidence if it is not already eroded.
- Dr. Konyinsola Ajayi (A Senior Advocate of Nigeria)
I don’t think former President Goodluck 
Jonathan should be probed by the EFCC because there is no reason for 
that yet. If any of his ministers have been found culpable of 
corruption, then they should be probed and prosecuted by the EFCC. But 
since there is nothing linking Jonathan, I will not agree that he should
 be probed.
During the tenure of former President 
Olusegun Obasanjo, some of his ministers were found to be corrupt, but 
that did not make anyone to probe Obasanjo. The same rule should apply 
here.
- Fred Agbaje (A lawyer)
It is long overdue that former President
 Goodluck Jonathan should be invited and probed by the EFCC. It is for 
expediency purpose, thoroughness and justice to be done in the war 
against corruption. He must be invited because the buck stops at his 
table. His name has repeatedly been popping up in all the allegations.
Whether he gave a written or verbal 
order on the disbursement of the funds, he should come out to make a 
clarification on the issues. He should come out and tell us his side of 
the story because the sums of money involved are gargantuan.
- Olukoya Ogungbeje (A lawyer)
Based on what is going on now, I will 
only implore Nigerians to be patient. We should not continue to jump the
 gun; we should not continue to hang people and condemn them without 
giving them the presumption of innocence as allowed by the constitution.
 I believe that what is going on is not enough to say the anti-graft 
agencies should invite the ex-President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. For 
God’s sake, what was done at the Federal Executive Council was a 
unanimous action taken by FEC members, including the ministers. Jonathan
 didn’t take any decision unilaterally. Look at the money disbursed to 
the Office of the National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, for instance.
 Jonathan did that in the interest of this nation – to combat Boko 
Haram. Probably, he didn’t take steps to monitor how the funds were 
used. But we cannot single out Jonathan for condemnation.
 As far as I am concerned, Obanikoro 
remains innocent until proved guilty. Let them (EFCC) charge him to 
court if they have found any offence against him. And let them release 
him on bail if they know that they cannot conclude their investigation 
within the time allowed by law and then continue to invite him. I can’t 
rely on the statement he purportedly made in the custody of the EFCC; it
 is not even a basis to single out Jonathan for investigation or 
prosecution.
- Olanrewaju Suraj (Chairman, Civil Society Network against Corruption)
He has not been directly linked with any
 of the allegations. Except there are direct links, where you have 
vicarious liabilities, such allegations are more political than legal. 
If he could be linked to the proceeds of crime or traces of the 
misappropriated funds, then he could be called to answer some of those 
questions. His immunity expired the day he handed over to his successor.
 If in the course of investigation, he is discovered to have benefited 
from corruption, he has every reason to answer for such a crime.
 It is not enough for any of his 
(Jonathan’s) ex-ministers to hide under his approval. If you are given a
 presidential approval to buy a certain equipment, it is expected of you
 either as a minister or the head of an agency to go through the 
procurement processes as laid down under the law.
If you breach any of those processes, 
you cannot expect the President to be held responsible. It is not enough
 that the money was diverted, but if the former President is found to 
have also profited from the proceeds of such a diversion or circumvented
 the provisions of the law in the process of the diversion, then he has 
questions to answer.
 Many of those alleged to have been 
involved in the diversion of the arms funds only made verbal excuses 
that they got approval from the former President. It is not enough that 
the procurement fund was used for bribing delegates with a verbal excuse
 that Jonathan asked them to do so whereas what was on the paper was an 
approval for the procurement of equipment. Then the person involved must
 personally answer the question.

 
 
 
Comments