Mohammed Abacha and Breach of Trust

By

Abdulsalam Olatubosun Ajetunmobi

Abdsalm@aol.com

Dear Sir,

I would be very grateful if you could consider my article, "Mohammed Abacha and Breach of Trust" for publication in your reputable website.

It is quite alarming to read the press statement issued over the weekend by Fifty-eight members of the country National Assembly who have called for the release of the detained son of former Head of State, Mohammed Abacha (ThisDay News (online) 02/08/02). It is a pity that despite the obvious sympathy that the enhanced form of Shariah is currently enjoying in the 12 northern states, by teeming populace from that part of the country, these senators, under the banner of 'Northern Senators Forum,' should still "wonder aloud that justice has been sacrificed on the altar of victimisation" by the Federal Government for keeping Mohammed Abacha in Kuje Prison, Abuja for the latter's failure to make "concrete arrangements to refund to the state cover, $1.2 billion" his family has siphoned from the public treasury when their father, late General Sanni Abacha was the country's Head of  State.

It is paradoxical that the family of the former Head of State, late General Sani Abacha Abacha is enjoying accolades rather than condemnation, not least from the north where Shariah is being enforced. My instinct tells me that late Sani Abacha clearly owed all Nigerians duty of care during his rulership and going by all accounts, he breached that duty. In addition too, I believe that his son, Mohammed Abacha is not far removed from this indictment because the facts borne out that he, as an accomplice, intentionally aided in the breach. There has been disclosure here and there and a lot has been attested to by the Federal Government itself. For example, President Obasanjo confirmed recently in a newspaper report that Abacha family had in "a compromise deal" promised to refund certain amount of money to the Federal Government in exchange for the son's freedom from prosecution. And apart from this financial impropriety, there are other indictable crimes adjudged to have been committed by some conspirators of which Mohammed Abacha allegedly featured prominently in the regime his father was the maximum ruler. A case in point was his alleged involvement in the murder of Alhaja Kudirat, wife of the late acclaimed winner of June 12 presidential election, MKO Abiola though he has been discharged of this by the Supreme Court. However, in spite of denials, various trials, acquittal and now the clarion call for his freedom by the Fifty-eight senators under the aegis of the Northern Senators Forum, I still believe that no reasonable person, no neutral observer and more importantly, no rational figure would beat his/her chest and conclude that Mohammed Abacha was innocent of all the happenings during his father's rulership whose dysfunctions and blunders have been partly responsible for the woes that have since been bedevilled the country unlike what the

To understand my grim diagnosis, I must now focus on the term, the duty of care as referred above. A duty is an obligation assumed or imposed by law to conduct oneself in conformance with a certain standard and, according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, a duty of care is "a duty to use due care toward others in order to protect them from unnecessary risk of harm." So for examples, a director of a corporation for example, owes duties to the corporation and its shareholders: a duty of loyalty and duty of care. Similarly a manufacturer who introduces a product into the stream of commerce owes a duty of care to the person who purchases the product. In the business context, a company owes various duties of care to customers, strangers, neighbours, and even competitors. And in certain circumstances however, a person may be subjected to a heightened standard of care. This arises when a person possesses special professional or technical skills or training. Thus an aspired a leader of a country, elected, selected or imposed must have an enormous responsibility and a greater duty of care towards the citizens. These duties of care involve playing propriety, acting with compassion and honesty towards his/her citizenry in a manner consistent with the best interests of all the subjects. But where a leader and his cohorts throw away the entire fine attributes and choose the path of corruption, felony, embezzlement and looting of public treasury, then a breach of trust has occurred. And, referring to Abacha era of which the actor under reference i.e. Mohammed was an active (or passive?) participant, one may ask: did the regime use due care in protecting the country and its citizenry? I doubt so. Are these senators and perhaps those from Shariah practising states not conversant of the breaches of duty that occurred during that time? Why are their voices becoming louder and louder against justice? Why can they allow justice to exact itself?


To ask further, is it satisfactory (according to Shariah) to have the left hand of Mallam Bello Jangebe or Lawali Isa, a firewood seller, amputated for stealing a cow or two bicycles and no cutting of hand, or any form of criminal sanction, in the case of looters of public funds and their co-conspirators, accomplices, aiders and abettors? Where is the theistic rationale for distinguishing the criminal culpability of poverty-stricken subjects from dubiously rich subjects? I am yet to appraise the reason why the religious personalities from the Shariah practising states have not forcibly come out to clarify why it would be perfectly in order to draw a distinction between the criminal liability of crime perpetrators and their accomplices. Is it morally and ethically sound, for a sincere believer to be 'stunned,' as the members of the 'Northern Senators Forum' would rather say, by the continued incarceration of Mohammed Abacha who has been 'confronted with about 121 charges for alleged financial crimes by the Federal Government." 

On a wider and non-partisan perspective, to deprive someone of his/her hard-earned money and property through theft is, I am sure, agreed to be unjustified, socially unacceptable and indeed inimical to the person concerned. Therefore, when a leader of a country, who is a trustee to the beneficiaries or citizens of that country, abuses the trust under his care by encroaching upon the property of the nation under his care without any justifiable reason, he is a menace to a peaceful society and hence should be looked upon with terror and not with praise! Without doubt, that of kind of a leader becomes dangerous to the society and if no sanction is applied against that leader, he or she would in the long run cause unrest in the society. In addition, whoever is adjudged to be his accessory, whether before or after the fact, must face stricter measure and no sympathy must be shown to him or her and no one is expected to shed any tear.
Further more, even from a religious angle, breach of trust is a very serious thing in the eye of Islam especially in state affairs. And I am sure that Christians in the country too frown at insincerity of purpose while supporting a duty of candour by a leader and his supporters. Breach of trust, according to Islam is indeed a great sin. The Holy Prophet of Islam, on whose peace and blessing of God, is reported to have cursed the "bribe-taker and bribe giver," He also said, when a trust is broken, "there is a breach of duty with consequence of sin and punishment." Even though a Muslim may have many defects, it must not be "breach of trust and falsehood." Adding that whenever certain people are found "committing breach of trust" no one should hesitate to "burn his commodities and beat him." (Mishkat-ul-Masabih vol. 3 p 605 -606)

So, in the light of the above, specific rights and duties, can only logically flow from the duty of care. For this reason, I do not think it would be in order for certain commentators and analysts including some politicians (e.g. Fifty-eight senators under the aegis of the Northern Senators Forum) and also figures especially from the Shariah states to seek to bend the law, whether Shariah or Common Law, to obtain the results they want for Mohammed Abacha in spite of the public knowledge of all material facts about the family's role in the pauperisation the country during their father's tenure in office. If theft in the case of the two earlier mentioned lower members of our society calls for the extreme punishment of cutting and this penalty is considered perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned, then what would be the legal (or is it religious) wisdom behind a freedom call, by some sympathisers, for someone accused of "111-count charges of financial crimes" who is even offending our sensibility by vowing "not to negotiate with government except he is released?"

Finally, unless our compatriots in the north want to conjoin us, through their unguarded utterances and actions, to believe that the Shariah project being implemented in some part of the northern states is designed to reward "looters, the dubiously wealthy and social climbers" but punish unfortunate ones at the lower rung of the ladder, they must now face up to the task of  resolving the unfathomable paradoxes being perceived by many in their efforts at  rejuvenating Shariah in their areas.

Yours faithfully,

Abdulsalam Olatubosun Ajetunmobi
London, UK