In the recent past, events following the spate of some mind-boggling pillage of public fund by government officials in the various tiers of government across the length and breadth of this country have yet again ignited the glowing splint of the intellectual debate as to the desirability or otherwise of retaining the immunity clause in our statute book. The debate, as it is usually the case, has created two divides with the pro-Immunity Clause calling for its continued retention while the Anti-Immunity Clause are advocating for its outright removal.
It is interesting to note that on the side of the divide advocating for the continued retention of the immunity clause, the main thrust of the argument has been that, absence of immunity cover will predispose the relevant office holders to a flood gate of litigations capable of causing distractions for them in the performance of their duties. Thus, to the advocates of retention of immunity, preclusion of likelihood of distractions to the public officer concerned in the performance of his official duties forms the raison d’etre of their argument in support.
Now, pray, what is this distraction that will be engendered by the removal of the immunity clause from the statute book? Distraction here would mean no more than the perception that the attention of the public officer would be taken away from the performance of his official duties by reason of the allegation, subject matter of the litigation. If distraction is the singular basis of the above argument, is the entire machinery of government comprising of the various legal and administrative apparatuses not adequate to handle litigations on behalf of such public officers sought to be protected by immunity? How many times has a governor or the president for that matter, appeared in court personally to answer to a charge or an allegation against him? Has there been any incident of undue distractions against the Chief Executives at the local government level who do not enjoy immunity as their counterpart in the other tiers of government?
Assuming that the removal of immunity will trigger off avalanche of litigations, does the end sought to be achieved by such judicial process of dispute resolution not far outweigh the consequences of bottled-up grievances that immunity encourages? And come to think of it, is it not all part of the good values of democratic governance to have governmental actions as well as conducts of our leaders reviewed from time to time by an institution legally empowered to do so?
My stand in support of the removal of immunity clause does not overlook the equally laudable views of those who advocate that the same end of curbing corruption could still be achieved if we can patiently wait for the public officer under the immunity to serve out their terms in office before proceeding against them. This view, however, ignores the fact that leadership institution with its inherent trappings of spiritual and material essence makes the deeds and pronouncements of leaders, particularly the charismatic ones, to command large following. Thus, a corrupt leader left unchecked for an upward of four-eight years, as the case may be, to carry out his thievery is already a pernicious phenomenon in the society, eating away gradually into the psyche of the average member of the society who will sooner begin to see the deeds of their leader as the standard way of doing things. The culture of “settlement”, instituted in the heyday of IBB administrations, which permeated every facet of national life, is still fresh in our memories! Again, the refusal of former President Obasanjo to appear before the House Probe Panel on Energy and the hectic legal battles raging on in various parts of the world between some of our past civillian governors who are alleged to have stashed some of their looted funds abroad and the authorities of the host countries clearly prove wrong those who are of the opinion that we can always easily proceed against corrupt leaders when they are out of office.
It is pertinent to state here that a critical analysis of all the arguments canvassed in favour of retaining the immunity clause reveals that they do not even derogate from the noble objective of curbing corruption sought to be achieved by those calling for the removal of the immunity clause. It does not call for any intellectual effort to know that of all the ills besetting this country, corruption is the bedrock upon which all other ills stand. It is the reason for the energy crisis in Nigeria ; the electoral conflicts raging on in our various courts are traceable to it; it is the cause of misgovernance, manifested in our deplorable infrastructural and systemic decay. It has caused the erosion of societal values.
The fact cannot be gainsaid that of all the many attractive trappings associated with political offices in Nigeria that help to fertilize some of the corrupt tendencies in our public officials, immunity occupies a notorious pride of place. It behoves us to take a more proactive step of removing the fertile ground called immunity that has become the breeding ground of corruption. If immunity clause exists in the statute books in other climes and has proved effectual in the workings of their governments, our own peculiar circumstances have put a lie to its workability in our political terrain. Reason being that the existence of immunity cover for the category of public officer it protects presumes transparent public officers zealously and selflessly working for the good of all and sundry; whom prospective litigants must not be allowed to take advantage of, on account infinitesimal human failings, to hamper, by litigation, the performance of their duties. There already exists a cornucopia of proofs of primordial greed in our leaders to debunk that presumption. Integrity and strength of character that constitute the fundamental basis necessary for the continued retention of immunity clause is grossly lacking among our public office holders. Immunity clause has outlived its usefulness in our legal system. Like apartheid, we must not even countenance its modification. It must be removed out rightly.
*CHRIS E. AGBITI, ESQ.
