|
Joshua Dariye, Alamieyeseigha and EFCC Double Standards By Dozie Ikem Ezeife, Esq.
Joshua Dariye’s bombshell revelation that he diverted ecology funds meant for Plateau State to President Olusegun Obasanjo’s 2003 Presidential re-election campaign seems to have been dwarfed by the ongoing 3rd Term imbroglio. There appears to be a conspiracy of silence on the part of the press and the law enforcement agencies of the Federal Government. At a time when Nigerians convicted of fraud ala 419 are receiving mega-jail terms, it seems those on the highest reaches of power and their buddies are Teflon to the EFCC.
Ex-Governor Alamieyeseigha of Bayelsa State is cooling his heels in jail for allegedly fleecing his State of hundreds of millions of naira and rightly so. However the President, his Vice and Senator Ibrahim Mantu whom Dariye claimed took part in divvying-up the Plateau State’s ecological funds are poised to skate through unscathed. This is indeed a sad commentary on the President’s much-vaunted fight against corruption and corrupt practices.
The President and EFCC’s Nuhu Ribadu are constantly claiming that the crusade against corrupt people in Nigeria are not restricted to only the President’s real and perceived political enemies. However, the Dariye and Olabode George episodes are making it increasingly impossible to prove the President’s critics wrong.
War against corruption is legal, ethical and moral in composition. One cannot effectively wage this war if one is himself mired in corruption. Or at least the appearance of it. If one is guilty of the same crime one seeks to root out, one loses the moral high ground to wage an effective battle. There is nothing worse than moral hypocrisy. One should be consistent in one’s principles. If one claim to abhor corruption and vows to hunt perpetrators of corrupts practices, one should correspondingly look in the mirror and at those one surrounds himself with. You cannot maintain a clean exterior if your intestines are putrid and reeking of stench.
If indeed the President, his vice and Senator Mantu received any proceeds from the ecology fund, they are as guilty as Joshua Dariye, albeit for receiving stolen property. It is trite that one who receives stolen property with appropriate knowledge is guilty of a crime. I submit that these individuals did know that the funds Joshua Dariye was funneling to them or their campaign was stolen from his State. They knew because the checks they received presumably were drawn not from his personal account but from the State accounts. I am positive that they knew that the funds were not personal donations from Dariye. Dariye had no such money to donate to anybody. It is disingenuous of the Obasanjo administration to insist on trying Dariye for stealing from his State but not those who shared in the spoils of his fleece.
Returning the funds to the people of Plateau State laudable as it might seem, is of no moment with respect to guilt. The crimes of larceny (theft) and receiving stolen property are complete once the culprit dispossesses the victim(s) of their property with the requisite intent. A theft or the cousin crime of receiving stolen property does not cease to be a crime simply because the culprit returned his loot to the victim. The act of repentance and restitution is only relevant with respect to mitigation of punishment. It does not erase the guilt and stigma of the original act. Returning stolen funds to the victims by the thief does not erase the crime. It merely assists the thief in mitigation of punishment. So the fact that the President, his Vice and Senator Mantu returned to Plateau State the funds funneled to them or their campaign by Dariye is of little relevance to their possible crimes.
Another aspect of this whole sorry ordeal which commentators assume lessens the gravity of the misconduct by these leaders is the fact that the funds went to their re-election campaigns and not to them personally. That again is immaterial. Receiving stolen property is a crime. The use to which the property is put after it is received is immaterial. It would have made no difference if these men merely used the money to feed widows and orphans. Robin Hood and his band of merry men raided the rich and fed the poor with the spoils, yet they were still thieves and robbers despite their apparent good deeds. To this writer there is no difference between channeling public funds to your personal account and directing the funds to your political campaign. A thief is a thief. The moral outrage and repugnancy ought to be the same in both instances.
The National Assembly which is constitutionally charged with oversight functions over the Executive Branch of Government should as a matter of urgency invite State Governors who received ecology funds from the Federal Government and require them to prove how those funds were utilized. One will not be surprised if a decent chunk of those funds found their way to the PDP or the President’s 2003 re-election purse. Yet the Prez has the temerity to feign indignation on the alleged fleecing of state coffers by Joshua and Alams.
Since Commissioners, Members of the State Assembly and Officials of Plateau State are being hounded by Nuhu Ribadu for sharing in Joshua’s bazaar of the absurd; Crusading Nuhu must visit Obj, Atiku and Mantu with the same fate. Nothing less would be acceptable.
Dozie Ikem Ezeife, Esq. Oakland, California
|