IMMUNITY clause, taken in its literal sense, means that special provision in a statute book conferred on an occupant of a seat, be it social, religious or political; to enable the occupant perform his/her assigned duties unhindered.

IN the instant case, immunity clause in the Nigerian context, is one which has a long-standing socio-political, historical as well as judicial antecedents, before it became entrenched in our Constitution as Section 308 of the 1999 document.

AMONG others, it confers on an occupant of a public or political office, particularly in the capacity of President, Vice-President, Governor or Deputy-Governor, protection from arrest and prosecution, against any criminal or civil matter in official capacity, while still in office: an instrument which the drafters of the Constitution have argued, would help in making such office holders to keep focus on their duties of governance without distractions from frivolities.

Be that as it may, many Nigerians who occupy such positions over the years, have hidden under this constitutional provision to engage in untoward attitude while in office to loot, mismanage, kill, rape and deceive the people. This has been of serious concern to all Nigerians, hence efforts by successive administrations to find lasting solutions to such official corruption, while some concerned citizens have also called for the removal of such provision from the constitution, which they believe encourages official corruption.

IT is in the light of the above that The NIGERIAN OBSERVER considers a recent call by Mrs. Farida Waziri, the current chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), for the removal of the immunity clause (Section 308) from the Nigerian Constitution, claiming that, “it has only made the leadership to be ‘careless’ and’‘reckless’ about the way they spend public funds.”

ORDINARILY, such a call is one that should attract the attention of all well-meaning Nigerians as the problem of corruption in high places, particularly among our political office holders has become a pandemic, with its cancerous effect ravaging the entire fabric of the Nigerian society. But for such a call to come from somebody of Waziri’s calibre who is at the helm of affairs of an anti-graft commission that has a mandate of ensuring that official corruption is reduced to a bearable minimum, shows that she is yet to come to terms with present realities.

IMMUNITY clause is actually not the stumbling block in the fight by the various anti-graft bodies, against official corruption; but the ineptitude, lack of conscience and diligent prosecution of the campaign, by those vested with the powers to do same. The NIGERIAN OBSERVER wonders why, since assumption of office of Farida Waziri as EFCC boss, no actual arrest and/or prosecution, spectacular enough to make Nigerians believe that she is there to fight corruption, has been made.

EVEN more vexatious is the claim by the EFCC under Waziri that the case files with which to presecute former political office holders, some ex-governors and other corrupt pubic officers were missing from EFCC custody.

THE rule of law doesn’t presuppose continued protection of an indicted public officer, neither does it mean that such corrupt officers cannot be investigated while in office in the interim and prosecuted after they leave office. This is against the background that so many ex-governors and public officers who were accused of corrupt practices while in office, are now walking on the streets in Nigeria and abroad, as free men and women with no hope of recovering from them, the illegally acquired wealth and loot.

AT this point, The NIGERIAN OBSERVER admonishes the police, the State Security Service and officials of the EFCC to see this war against corruption, as a priority and to fight it in all its ramifications, so that our already battered image both at home and abroad, could be redeemed.

THE EFCC, ICPC, CCB and all other stakeholders in the anti-graft crusade, should device a means of taking preemptive and proactive measures of checking corruption rather them allowing it to take place first on a massive scale, before embarking on arrest and prosecution of offenders. Above all, rather than calling or waiting for the removal of the immunity clause, anti-graft bodies must be up and doing and diligently prosecute such “protected officials” at the end of their tenures.

Also, rather than publicly announce their strategies for combating financial crimes, they should keep such plans to themselves as “trade secrets”, so as to be successful in their operations.

Home | About Us | Advertising | Archives | Contact Us | Weekend OBSERVER | Sunday OBSERVER