By Douglass Anele
He must avoid the usual mistakes of Nigerian politicians who feel that they must change immediately all the appointments made, and uproot all the structures created, by their predecessors, thereby wasting valuable resources and time.

We can say definitely that some of the people that worked under Segun Oni (and, perhaps, Oni himself) are good. Indeed, some commentators have suggested that, relatively speaking, the former Ekiti State governor did a good job while in office; more importantly, they further claimed that he did not loot the treasury.

That may or may not be true. However, Fayemi should realise that it is better to consolidate the achievements of Oni than to rashly abrogate everything he inherited just to create the placebo of “action governor”. Unfortunately, few actions already taken by Fayemi, such as dissolution of local government councils, are questionable and may create unnecessary problems for him in future. He should “make haste slowly,” because hasty decisions are usually the ones people regret most.

Again, Fayemi must be careful about sycophants posing as friends and lovers of Ekiti State but who, deep down, are only interested in sharing money stolen from the state.

As we stated earlier, his victory in court is much easier than providing first class leadership for Ekiti people, particularly after the satisfactory performance of his predecessor.

If Fayemi improves upon Oni’s achievements, that would justify his victory and strengthen people’s confidence in his ability to govern. He also will be rewarded when next he vies for any elective position in Ekiti. Having said that, let us beam our searchlight on the judicial decisions emanating from different courts regarding cases of corruption and financial crimes involving some prominent, well-heeled, Nigerians.

The tendency towards judicial parochialism is increasing at a time when the level of corruption and financial rascality by members of the ruling and business elite has reached alarming proportions. For example, former governors accused of elephantine corruption nowadays go to courts domiciled in their states to get one type of injunction or another against their prosecution.

The cases of James Ibori and Peter Odili former governors of Delta and Rivers states respectively, are paradigmatic in this respect. Also, plea bargain is gaining ground as a means of letting big men and influential madams receive extremely outrageous light sentences for corruption.

In this category are the decided cases of Tafa Balogun, former Inspector General of Police, Diepreye Alameyeseigha and Lucky Igbinedion, former helmsmen of Bayelsa and Edo states respectively and Cecilia Ibru, former managing director and chief executive officer of Oceanic Bank. The use of plea bargain in disposing cases is an accepted legal practice worldwide.

Its main advantage is that it avoids the necessity of lengthy, acrimonious and exhaustive trials, more so considering the heavy workload of judges and inadequate infrastructure for smooth and expedited dispensation of justice. Those who opt for plea bargain are mostly the rich and famous with huge financial resources to stretch trials almost indefinitely. But whereas in foreign countries, judges regularly reject the process or ensure that convicts are stripped of almost all they fraudulently accumulated and are handed a reasonable jail term as a deterrent, in Nigeria the reverse is the case.

In other words, some of our judges seem not to appreciate the fact that giving very short jail terms to big men and influential madams in the pretext of plea bargain ultimately undermines the war against corruption and corroborates allegations of graft in the judiciary. Again, as we observed earlier, it creates the impression that there are two sets of laws in Nigeria, namely, one for the rich and famous, the other for ordinary citizens. In fact, people now say that it is better to steal billions so that after giving the government a percentage of the loot one would, after two years imprisonment, go home and enjoy the remainder.

If this kind of thinking becomes widespread (and there are indications that Nigerians are embracing it) then the war against corruption has already been lost.

There is just no way the philosophy of “steal as much as you can and return whatever you must” behind the practice of plea bargain in Nigeria can discourage corruption in high places.

The following questions are for judges who offer very lenient soft landing to prominent plea bargainers: what is the fundamental justification for punishing offenders? Should the severity of punishment meted out to an offender be commensurate with the gravity of offence committed?

Is it morally right and just that people who stole billions of naira belonging to Nigerians or to companies as the case may be (with much wider negative multiplier-effects on the society) are given light jail terms whereas others that stole peanuts are jailed for much longer periods?

Should judges be totally insulated from the moral ecology of the society or insensitive to the feelings of the general public with respect to corruption?  It is evident that the way judges handle electoral and corruption cases will determine the type of society Nigeria will be in future.

Thus, they cannot afford to be part of the ugly morass of indiscipline and corruption because, as the old cliché says, “judiciary is the last hope of the common man.” We appeal to those working in the “temple of justice” to search their hearts and minds and tell themselves the truth. Some judges are corrupt; there is no doubt about that.

Nevertheless, although old habits die hard, it is also true that apart from death there is nothing in human existence that cannot change, or be changed, for the better.  Concluded.