Fresh Debate Sparked Over Renewed Calls To Scrap Immunity For Governors

The ongoing effort to further amend the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has sparked further debates on the immunity clause for the president and his vice, as well as the governors and their deputies.

Labour Party’s factional national chairman, Alhaji Lamidi Apapa, in a recent remark, had urged the National Assembly to scrap the controversial immunity clause that protects state governors while in office.

At various points, some other Nigerians have made similar suggestions.

Their argument has been that the state governors are hiding under the immunity clause to commit all kinds of atrocities, ranging from financial misappropriation to misuse of official powers, flagrant abuse of human rights, and even assassination of political opponents among others.

Sometime in 2008, the late President Umar Musa Yar’Adua made a public statement in support of the removal of the immunity clause from the constitution.

He argued that the immunity clause was encouraging corruption in the system and that those who enjoy the immunity clause were behaving like emperors.

Yar’Adua was reported to have made the statement in far away Dabur, Switzerland, at a dinner hosted by the Partnership against Corruption Initiative, as part of the activities at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in 2008.

He went further to say that his administration would introduce a corruption monitoring device to help fight the war against corruption.

Recently, at the commemoration of Yar’Adua’s death, the 2008 video announcing his support for the removal of immunity clause which shields the president, vice president, governors and their deputies from prosecution as stipulated in the 1999 constitution, trended on social media space.

However, there are others who have argued to the contrary. According to them, the immunity clause was put in the constitution to protect that class of public officer from undue distractions by those who may want them to fail through bringing up unnecessary litigations against them for one reason or another.

But, Apapa again stirred the hornet’s nest when he urged the National Assembly to repeal the law which gives immunity to governors and their deputies against prosecution while in office.

He insisted that the removal of the clause would reduce corruption and promote developments in all the states in Nigeria

Speaking on issues that should be given prominence in the ongoing constitutional amendment by the National Assembly, he said: “I think the National Assembly should scrap the immunity clause from the constitution in the ongoing constitutional amendment process. It is encouraging corruption. I think we should be equal before the law in a democracy.

“When you allow a Nigerian or somebody to feel special and be above the law for eight years, and after the eighth year, he or she moves to the National Assembly to further his political career, such a person will continue to escape punishment for his wrong actions.

“That aspect should be removed, we don’t need it. It does not encourage accountability as governors can steal public funds without facing the law at the end of the day.”

According to him, anywhere justice was delayed or consequences for actions were prolonged, impunity would reign supreme.

“If they know there is no immunity, everybody will behave well while in office.

“It is only in Nigeria that you can see people who steal billions of Naira walking freely. It is still in the same country that people are lynched for stealing phones that are not even worth more than N10,000. I think everyone should be equal before the law,” he said.

But, contrary to what others like the late President Yar’Adua advocated, Apapa is, however, saying that immunity should be retained for the president to allow him to concentrate on his job.

Mohammed Sani, a former lawmaker in Yobe State, is also of the opinion that the immunity clause has outlived its usefulness and should be scrapped.

Throwing his weight behind the call to scrap the immunity clause from the constitution, he told DAILY POST that: “I support the removal. Recently, I read in the papers that over 50 former governors were indicted by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, over corruption.

“They were alleged to have stolen billions of Naira since the inception of this fourth republic.

“This is because the anti-corruption agencies could not prosecute them until they finished their tenure because they were protected by the immunity clause in the constitution. And it is the same immunity that gave them the gut to steal whatever amount of money they wished while in office as governors.”

He emphasized that removal of the immunity clause from the constitution would make the governors to think twice before dipping their hands into the public coffers to steal.

He stressed that each time they remember that they could be prosecuted as governors, they would be careful with the way they carry on with the state function.

“So, if the immunity is removed, I am sure that the rate of stealing would reduce drastically.

“I don’t understand how they will have the immunity to steal any amount of money they wish and not be prosecuted until the end of their tenure. What if the person dies while in office?

“What happens to all the billions he or she has stolen? So, it is a good idea and it should be supported by all patriotic Nigerians. They should be prosecuted for corruption and other criminal offenses while in office, not after they have left office,” he submitted.

However, the president of the Middle Belt Forum, MBF, Dr. Pogu Bitrus, is one of those who believe that those who inserted the immunity clause in the constitution had good reason for doing so.

He maintained that much as those who enjoy the privilege have abused it in the past, it should not be totally scrapped as being pushed by some people.

This is because, according to him, scrapping the clause would subject the governors to unnecessary distractions, thereby negatively affecting governance and the delivery of democracy dividends to the people.

He suggested that the clause could be modified in such a way that their immunity does not cover them when they commit a criminal offence.

In other words, the immunity should also cover them against civil offences and not criminal offences.

He said: “I think the immunity clause was wisely introduced in the constitution to protect people in such offices from unnecessary distractions. Nigerians have this attitude of ‘if it doesn’t go my way, it shouldn’t happen at all,’ and so, there will be too many lawsuits if the immunity clause is removed.

“However, it can be modified. Yes, there could be immunity for the president, vice president, governors and their deputies, but not when they are involved in criminal offences.

“Just because you are a governor, you go and terminate somebody’s life without recourse to the established legal system because you are protected by immunity; no, such a person has to be prosecuted, whether he is a governor or not.”

“So, criminal cases should be visited on them but whether or not it should happen when they are in office is another issue.

“But, I think the immunity clause is good enough for us and it should be applied not recklessly by governors. So, scrapping it is not advisable at this time,” he told DAILY POST.

A Lagos-based legal practitioner and social critic, Ikechukwu Onodi equally agreed that the intention of the draftsmen who inserted the immunity clauses in the constitution was to remove any obstacles in the way of the executive in performing their constitutional duties to the people, but lamented that politicians, have over the years, proved that they don’t deserve such a privilege.

He is, therefore, in tacit support of the removal because according to him, it has outlived its usefulness, as it no longer serves public interest but individual, selfish interest.

He said: “Experience has shown that an overwhelming majority of our past presidents and governors were involved in self-service as opposed to service to the people.

“Without mentioning names, the best we have had are those who had themselves advocated and even presented bills for the removal of the immunity clauses.

“I support the removal of the immunity clauses because our present crops of political leaders do not deserve such a shield.”

---

Posted: at 14-05-2024 06:48 AM (2 weeks ago) | Hero

You give immunity to thieves...they'll steal for 8years...when they are done stealing and out of office, they'll join the ruling party to evade prosecution.

Posted: at 14-05-2024 08:03 AM (2 weeks ago) | Hero

Too long, let it be scrap but I doubt

Posted: at 14-05-2024 02:47 PM (2 weeks ago) | Addicted Hero