Don't Extradite Alamieyeseigha

By

Crispin Oduobuk

crispinoduobuk@gmail.com

"This is not the usual all-of-them-are-thieves rhetoric because even if indeed they are all thieves, the 'catching' of these thieves must begin somewhere. The question is: what did the British authorities do when they had DSP? If he gets sent back there, won't he make another dazzling getaway, this time probably disguised as a big circus clown, only to show up somewhere sunny like the Caribbean or Asia, smiling that broad smile of his under his 'resource control' hat? Moreover, are there no courts in Nigeria?"

It is no earthshaking matter that President Obasanjo's government, using typical military strong-arm tactics, has kicked DSP Alamieyeseigha out of the Yenagoa Government House while paying fleeting attention to that dubious concept referred to as 'due process'. Indeed, now that they have in effect violated the constitution--which President Obasanjo swore to defend--and relocated the 'Governor-General of the Ijaw nation' to presumably less auspicious quarters in Abuja, there's even less of a tremor regarding the question "Who's next?" Without doubt, there can be no prizes for guessing it could be the chap on the plateau because, well, let's face it; even he must realise by now that it may indeed be him. Then again though, every other guess might just be right. Or wrong. Yes, we're in that loop now; the guessing game. The only consolation is that it all comes out in the wash and everyone shall know with time.

Meanwhile, the fact that DSP (it does have a certain familiar ring to it now, doesn't it?) has pretty much become the new poster child for top-level corruption without being convicted of any crime in a court of law as yet says a significant bit about the attitude of both the Nigerian state and her peoples to so-called 'due process'. The point here is not to be found in the usual all-of-them-are-thieves rhetoric because even if indeed they (whoever 'they' may be) are all thieves, the 'catching' of these thieves must begin somewhere. And lamenting over who is in what political camp that has fallen into disfavour and is therefore getting the stick just won't do. Instead, here's the nugget that should concentrate the mind if only for a minute: What precisely is DSP guilty of and where has the charge, or charges, been proven in accordance with the law? In other words, what has happened to 'due process'?

Laughable, not so? When last did 'due process' (whatever the concept really means) apply to Nigerians in any sphere? Was it at the 2003 elections where the dead, like the late Chief Harry Marshall, purportedly joined millions of others to vote largely for one party? Was it when Charles Soludo unilaterally decided he's got to have mega banks, so to hell with puny banks? Was it when this government decided it has to get rid of many of the landed property that its predecessors had bequeathed to it? There is a certain manifestation of contempt that the current operators of the machinery of governance have for the Nigerian nation, her principles, institutions and citizens, which is evident in virtually all their deeds. So why should they be less disdainful in the apparently inconsequential matter of kicking a serving elected governor out of office? Didn't the governor himself (wait for it) show that he has scant regard for processes of any kind, whether due or undue, when he took to his heels rather than stay and face trial in a foreign land and, perhaps, clear his name over the grave criminal charge of money laundering?

What is more, following the man's 'magical' reappearance in these shores, has trial by an ensemble of all shades of public commentators, government henchmen and 'yes' men, including some self-styled 'human rights activists', not obliterated any need for appearance in court? The man is guilty is guilty is guilty. So they all say. And not just the state and her minions. A good number of supposedly intelligent folks too. Of course, there are also a good number of dissenters saying the opposite. Yet now that the 'guilty' DSP is down, probably waiting to be gored, to ask a question that might be interpreted by any stretch of the imagination to be in his favour may amount to inviting a lynch mob to devour the questioner.

For the record, let it be clear that your correspondent has no business with DSP, except of course, whether one hates or likes him; he's a 'bloody' Nigerian like the rest of us. And before the lynch mob swings into action, let it also be known that not even the spurious concept of South-South (an irritating and misleading moniker) can deepen brotherhood beyond that of belonging to the same forever-bumbling country. Now that the disclaimers are out of the way, is there any sense in continuing to mourn the trampling of the very document every single official in this country (including DSP himself) was supposed to uphold? Pointless. It's already fait accompli. As it would be for whomever the bell tolls next with more or less the same excesses.

Now, regarding DSP, all talk of extradition should cease henceforth. Extradite him to what? When the British authorities had him, what did they do? Collude with him to play hooky looking like an overweight madam attending a wedding owambe in a colourful iro and buba? If he gets sent back there, won't DSP make another dazzling getaway, this time probably disguised as a big circus clown, only to show up somewhere sunny like the Caribbean or Asia, smiling that broad smile of his under his 'resource control' hat? Moreover, is it now the business of the Nigerian state to be arresting her citizens for onward transfer to foreign overlords to deal with as they please? Every iota of nonsense associated with this entire business must stop with immediate effect. If that sounds uncouth, lay all the blame you may wish, but spare some for the circumstances in which this writer grew up. Your correspondent came of age knowing little other than military presence in the life of the nation. And President Obasanjo is still of that ilk as virtually all he says and does demonstrate (look no further than his performance at the recent aviation stakeholders' forum). So what one understands is the language of command, not that of persuasion. DSP must not be sent to Britain under any pretext. And that is final. To hell with any other proposition in that direction.

If the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is hell-bent on seeing DSP pay for his alleged crimes, there are courts in Nigeria. The man should be tried here. If he's lucky like the former Police Inspector General Tafa Balogun, at the end, he'll probably get hugged (six months in jail is a hug, not a slap on the wrist) with a light sentence. If the judge decides a DSP should get less than an IG, why, the man might even be set free. And then again he may get the 21-years-to-life treatment, possibly with the not unsuitable proviso that the key to his cell be thrown away. Whatever may be the endgame in that direction, it would be far better to leave DSP in these shores than to further denigrate this nation by sending the man back to Her Majesty's court in London. For what would the government prove by sending him back to London ? That they're fighting corruption with vigour or that he's a bigger lawbreaker than all the other lawbreakers? Are we all so unmindful of or totally unconcerned about the long-term socio-racial consequences of extraditing DSP to Britain? Would the British government extradite a British citizen to Nigeria for any reason? Good counsel--if not instruction--should prevail in this matter.

Why Is The Aviation Minister Still In Office?

After the Bellview and Sosoliso accidents, why is the Minister of Aviation still in office? After the permanent secretary and a director in the ministry have been sent on suspension, why is the minister himself still there?

Like the archetypal superstitious Nigerian, your correspondent must ask: what sort of juju does he have? Who is his babalawo? If his Oga has drunk love potion and is head-over-heels salivating for the minister, is the man himself so lacking in shame, so keen to occupy high office that he cannot find it in himself to resign? Is there no point of 'enough' whatsoever? Is this not the same man that the Senate rejected several times when he was presented before them as a minister? If five months are not enough for a minister to assess and begin taking concrete steps toward correcting the decay in a ministry, is it also not enough time to tell that he'll never get round to it?