 |
| Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd) |
PURSUANT to the Supreme Court in Dokubo-Asari
v FRN (2007) ALL FWLR (PT 375) 588 (pg 585-586) per Muhammed JSC (CJN rtd),
fundamental human or individual rights may be suspended over national security.
However, such situations apply at pretrial stages; prior to arraignment in the court.
The moment arraignment is done; the court assumes the position of the referee.
Thus,
to pay no attention to its order on account of national security or whatever reason
is off beam and akin to bringing back the obnoxious proscribed Decree 2 State
Security (Detention of Persons) of 1984 which then gave indefinite powers for
detention of persons without arraignment on security ground.
In a democracy, rule of law is
supreme. Under the doctrine, once a
matter is laid before a court, it connotes submission to the jurisdiction of
the court. Hence, all parties; the accuser – the accused are under duties to
abide by the rulings of the court for a conducive atmosphere. It doesn’t matter
the nature of charges hanging on the suspects. Where a party believes the court
is biased and did injustice in a matter, the appropriate thing is to approach a
superior court for appeal. For self-help, it is a non sequitur.
Historically, self-help does more
harm than good to the society as it brings fears and uncertainties. Rule of law
is the trademark of democracy. For example, the government can competently
arrest a suspect over threats to national security. But the suspect must be arraigned
accordingly and if the court grants bail or directs release from custody,
except appealed, the suspect must be released in line with the court order. Under
no circumstances will national security justify indefinite or indiscriminate
detention.
Arguably, the power to suspend
fundamental human rights terminates at prosecution in the court as arraignment
amounts to total submission to the legal justice system. So also, the power vested
in the government on national security doesn’t supersede a court order. Otherwise,
needless for arraignment in the first place if any of the parties cannot be
bound by the verdict of the court. It is more pathetic when a suspect after
securing a bail from the court labored to meet the conditions which may be
tough only to be denied the partial freedom.
Frankly speaking, the grievous allegations
against Col. Sambo Dasuki (rtd); former National Security Adviser to erstwhile
President deserved severe punishments if found guilty, precisely the inconsiderate
diversion of public funds earmarked for arms procurement amidst alarming insecurity,
which led to loss of countless innocent lives. Incidentally, the doctrine of
rule of law doesn’t see it from that angle. It makes it compulsory that
everyone including the government must submit to the court for fair-hearing as the
temple of justice alongside the mantra; the last hope of the common man. If
not, it may be abused some day in future for selfish motives.
Consequently, since no fresh charges
were filed against the accused person, government should thoughtfully comply if
the suspect met the bail conditions as ruled by the court. Rule of law is
simply adherence to prescribed procedures particularly obedience to court
orders irrespective of justification or not. To release a suspect on bail
doesn’t amount to exoneration from alleged charges rather simply a judicial
practice that distinguishes the system from the barbaric jungle justice.
Of course, my views would have been
different if the federal government had appealed the ruling or filed fresh
charges as done previously even without him stepping out of the custody. But as
that is not the case, the court order should be complied with as a civilized
and democratic society. According to Tom Bingham, “the rule of law is held to
be not only good in itself, because it embodies and encourages a just society,
but also as a cause of other good things, notably growth”.
For example, former governor of
Plateau state, Joshua Dariye was on bail for years till the day the court
delivered judgment on his case. From that point, he was moved into the custody.
Ditto on former Taraba state governor, Jolly Nyame who also bagged 14 years
jail term. Several others were on bail while their prosecution lasted but
finally jailed. Thus, bail is only a partial freedom and if the prosecution has
cogent reasons while it shouldn’t be granted, the reasons should be adduced to
the court for consideration knowing that the court exercises discretion on
bails.
What the government essentially needs
is a good prosecution team to conclude its case meritoriously. Above all, the
government needs to look into the incongruous delays that have become accepted
norm in the legal justice system to the extent that some matters have stayed
over a decade in the court which already tantamount to injustice to a party in
the suit. According to William Ewart
Gladstone, “justice delayed is justice denied”.
Nonetheless, the determinations of
President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration to restore sanity, prudence and accountability
in the polity deserved commendation. The federal government requires public
support to continue in its task to rid the nation of corruption and lawlessness.
However, it is imperative that all actions must be within the ambit of the law
while the fight gathers momentum. If not, the laudable efforts may be endangered.
Umegboro is a public
affairs analyst and Associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (United
Kingdom) -07057101974 sms only
No comments:
Post a Comment