Corruption: Akanbi, Sagay, others disagree on immunity

The desirability or otherwise of the immunity clause in the nation’s constitution again came to the fore on Thursday as eminent lawyers in separate interviews disagreed on the subject.

While a former President of Court of Appeal, Justice Mustapha Akanbi (retd); and three prominent Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Mr. Olisa Agbakoba, Chief Afe Babalola and Mallam Yusuf Ali, called for the removal of immunity clause from the Constitution, a popular constitutional lawyer, Prof. Itse Sagay, said no.

Section 308 of the nation’s constitution confers immunity from trial on the President, Vice-President, governors and their deputies while in office.

Akanbi, Babalola, Agbakoba and Ali opined that with the unbridled and monumental corruption perpetuated by some public officials, removal of immunity clause could be a starting point to nipping corruption in the bud.

Akanbi who is a former Chairman, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, said it would be counterproductive to continue to allow corrupt public officials  to continue in office if there is an established and a clear case of corruption against such officials.

He said, “I think that there is a consensus by everybody that if a man is corrupt and he continues to run the country, then he will be setting an example in corruption for others to follow. So, if there is no immunity and he is prosecuted, it is better for the society and the country.

“If there is a clear case of corruption, nobody should take cover under immunity. I agree that during this Constitutional Amendment, it should be reflected that any public official, be it at the presidency or the governor that has a clear case of corruption should be prosecuted even in office.”

Agbakoba said he was in support of the removal of immunity clause in respect of corruption matters. He, however, said it might not totally end corruption.

According to him, there is the need to have strong anti-corruption institutions for a meaningful anti-graft war.

Babalola said the rationale behind the immunity clause was to ensure that public officials such as President, Vice-President, Governors and their deputies could concentrate on their administrative work.

He, however, said that with the high rate of corruption, once a public official had been investigated and there was a clear case of corruption established against such a person, the the person should be prosecuted.

According to him, this should be reflected in the constitutional amendment.

He added that there was the need to strengthen the judiciary and anti-graft agencies to ensure thorough prosecution and possible conviction of corrupt officials.

“We should amend the constitution such that once there is a prima facie against a governor who has been investigated, he should face prosecution immediately. He should not wait until he is out of office and continues his corrupt acts,” he said.

Ali said the immunity clause should be removed with respect to corruption and constitutional issues.

“We are saying that the immunity clause should be amended to reflect that there will be no immunity for corruption matters and illegal or unconstitutional issues committed by governors or presidents. There should be no immunity for these acts, especially corruption matters.

“From our experience, once these people leave office, nobody remembers those things. You can imagine how many people that became Senate president in the past, allegations were made against them by anti-graft agencies at that point but later what came after it? Some of them are now in the corridors, in fact sitting rooms of power,” Ali said.

But Sagay cautioned against the removal of immunity clause. He stated that the removal of immunity clause could be counterproductive. He reasoned that it could distract public officials from performing their responsibilities while in office.