Yahaya Bello Vs EFCC: Between Immunity And Impunity

The disturbing drama that occurred at the Abuja residence of Alhaji Yahaya Bello, the immediate past governor of Kogi State, on the 17th of April, 2024, which involved the men of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) trying to gain entry into his house to effect his arrest, was one ugly incident that has once again triggered the debate on whether or not political office holders, precisely the executives, should continue to enjoy immunity from prosecution and legal action.

The EFCC had arrived at Bello’s house at about 9:30am to quickly apprehend him, but were met with stiff resistance from the policemen and security operatives guarding his house. In a bid to avoid a breakdown of law and order and avert any physical altercation with Bello’s guards, the operatives of the Commission simply barricaded the entry and exit points to Bello’s house and cordoned off the entire street leading to his house so that there wouldn’t be any loopholes for his escape. But at about 2:30pm of the same day, the Kogi State governor, Alhaji Usman Ododo, arrived at the scene with his retinue of heavily-armed security men and aides and demanded to access Bello’s house. He was allowed to go in alone with his official car, while his entourage waited for him outside.

After about two hours of Ododo’s entry into Bello’s house, his official car was seen zooming out of the house through an unmanned exit, in a manner that suggested he had taken Bello along with him. Ododo came to the rescue of his predecessor who is a person of interest in an ongoing investigation on money laundering and embezzlement of public funds, and thwarted the arrest of a suspect who has countlessly evaded arrest and declined several invitations by the Commission.

The EFCC operatives who were stationed at the scene could not stop Ododo from whisking Bello away just because he is one of the thirty-six governors who enjoy political immunity and wield lots of powers. One can only wonder if constitutionally, a Nigerian governor has the power to interfere with the operations of a federal commission such as the EFCC, whose job is of key national interest.

The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria bestows immunity on members of the executive arm of government (that is: the president, vice president, governor and deputy governor) to shield them from the distractions and disturbances that could stem from legal entanglements. The Constitution appreciates and envisages the magnitude of troubles and disturbances that could come to the occupiers of such important offices, and provides for their immunity so that they cannot be prosecuted or dragged into any legal tussles while they are in office. Members of the executive arm of government can only be prosecuted after they have left office, which is why many of them perpetrate all manner of atrocious and unimaginable crimes while in power.

An EFCC witness at the trial of former Plateau governor, Joshua Dariye, said he was once assaulted physically by the ex-governor during one of his visits to the Plateau State Government House. He said he had visited the government house to carry out an official assignment which involved gathering information for an investigation that was soon to begin, and was standing at a corner in the government house premises pondering on how to go about his assignment when suddenly he felt a strong blow on his head. He said the blow sent him crashing to the ground and that when he turned to see who the attacker was, he was shocked to see the ex-governor wielding a large club in his right hand and threatening to hit him again. He said he begged the governor not to strike him again and promised never to return to the government house if he was allowed to leave with his life.

Such is the manner of highhandedness that is typical of some governors. They are immune to prosecution and legal charges while in office, hence political pundits and legal eggheads have relentlessly called for a review of the Constitution to remove the immunity clause attached to certain political offices so that “any” serving politician who violates the law will face its full wrath. That a governor, who himself is a product of the law, would interfere with the enforcement of the law in the name of being an “immunity bearer,” is something that should be strongly condemned and frowned at. That the power vested in the office of governor could be abused in the manner described above, says a lot about Nigeria’s value system and the sacredness it attaches to the rule of law.

In his opinion on whether or not immunity should be removed from political offices, Barrister Ike Anazodo stated that immunity for public office holders should be abolished to allow for the instantaneous censuring and penalizing of all calibers of defaulters and law breakers as a deterrent to prospective offenders. He stressed that the maintenance of law and order in the country is of paramount national interest and must be pursued at all cost, and that anyone who is antithetical to this, their status notwithstanding, is an enemy of the state and must be treated as such.

But Barrister Patrick Okereke Nwajah, a seasoned constitutional lawyer, strongly objects to the removal of immunity from political offices as according to him, it can lead to a situation where a political office holder will be so bombarded with litigations and legal entanglements that he will be unable to properly discharge his duties and responsibilities. He added that the conferment of immunity on public offices such as president, vice president, governor and deputy governor is in adherence to international best practices, and that there is no serious democratic system in the world that does not attach immunity to its most important political offices.

On the flipside of this important debate is the argument that political immunity breeds rascality and mischievousness. Dr. Chris Igboanugo, a general psychologist and public affairs analyst, takes the case of Yahaya Bello as a classic example of “immunity-induced rascality.” Igboanugo believes that Bello’s behaviour since leaving office is a reflection of the fact that the ex-governor is yet to come to terms with his “no-immunity” status. He thinks that Bello, having enjoyed the carte blanche of political office for eight years, is finding it very difficult to adjust to the life of a private citizen and come under the radar of the law. He further averred that the series of behaviours that the ex-Kogi governor has put out since the drama of his evading arrest commenced, is a clear indication of how much he is still intoxicated with immunity and power despite not being in office anymore. He then concluded that such behaviour can be seen as ‘one of the demerits of allowing some people too much power to act anyhow the wish.’

While political immunity is considered by many as an instrument necessary for the operationality and functionality of the offices of president, vice president, governor and deputy governor, there are however those who think that it is unfair not to extend the same privilege to other ‘equally-important’ political or government offices such as those of the Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Speaker of a State House of Assembly and the Chief Justice of the Federation, along with the Chief Judges of the states. The argument is that all political offices should enjoy immunity as no one office holds more preeminence than the other; but to this submission, Nwajah responds with a rebuff:

“You cannot compare the offices of the executive arm of government to other political offices. The office of a president or governor, for instance, is the most important of political offices, so how would you leave such an office without immunity? Do you want to subject the highest office in the land to wanton desecration and nothingness? If you think other political offices should enjoy immunity like the office of the president or governor, then you might as well grant immunity to every other common man on the street.”

Now, the argument on whether or not immunity should be removed from political offices cannot be concluded with any definite stance as the parties proposing and opposing the motion all have strong points in their contentions. However, political immunity should never be abused. It is a good argument that certain political offices should be fortified with immunity, and it is equally a reasonable contention that those who enjoy political immunity should never yield themselves to debasing conducts that can undermine the sacredness of their offices.

As Nigeria is a country governed by the rule of law, it would only be right and just that the law always prevails. Refusing to submit to the law or adhere to its dictates is a recipe for anarchy and chaos, and no one is safe in an anarchical society. Let all those who are saddled with the responsibility of leading show good examples, while the followers emulate them. That is how great societies were built throughout history.

Nwachukwu is a journalist and media consultant. He can be reached by email at [email protected] and on X (formerly Twitter) @Cmatencore

Disclaimer: This article is entirely the opinion of the writer and does not represent the views of The Whistler.