By Jide Ajani
On June 17, 1972, some 40 years ago, at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee, five burglars were arrested.

According to classified reports, the  men were arrested while attempting to forcefully gain entry into the offices of the Democratic National Committee – on the face of it; but ostensibly to plant bugging devices.

Bernard L. Barker, “a realtor from Miami, Florida, was a former Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, operative. Barker was also said to have been involved in the Bay of Pigs incident in 1962”; Virgilio R. Gonzales, “a locksmith from Miami, Florida and he was also a refugee from Cuba, following Castro’s takeover”; James W. McCord, “a security co-ordinator for the Republican National Committee and the Committee for the Re-election of the President (Richard Nixon), was also a former FBI and CIA agent who was dismissed from his RNC and CREEP positions the day after the break-in”.

Then, there were also Eugenio R. Martinez, who worked for Barker’s Miami real estate firm,  had CIA connections and was an anti-Castro Cuban exile”; and Frank A. Sturgis, another associate of Barker from Miami,  who also had CIA connections and involvement in anti-Castro activities”.

The five men were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications.  They were indicted by a Grand Jury on September 15, 1972.

Question:  What is the connection between these men and the case the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, attempted to weave around former Speaker Dimeji Bankole and deputy, Usman Bayero Nafada, and the acquittal they got from Justice Suleiman Belgore of an Abuja High Court?

Whereas the five burglars ended up being indicted, an indictment which was to lead to the unearthing of their real intentions of the burglary incident, ultimately leading to the impeachment and resignation of Nixon as President of the United States, as a result of the persistence of one John Joseph Sirica (March 19, 1904–August 14, 1992), then the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia who was able to see through the surprising admission of guilt by the men and, therefore, caused other further investigations into the matter; the case brought against Bakole and Nafada ab initio had the imprimatur of persecution.

The judgment handed down by Belgore has the capacity to further muddy the already murky waters of corrupt practices in high places in the country.

Whereas Judge Sirica was able to see through the acts of the men, choosing not to believe their lame admission of guilt and ordering fuller investigations into their acts, Justice Belgore, who said the duo were not the approving authority and that, in any case, the approving authority being those saddled with the management of the affairs of the House should have been the ones standing trial, ought to have appreciated the implications of his distinction between illegality and immorality, especially within the context of a polity of clashing values.

It should be noted that the manner of the arrests of Bankole and Nafada   smacked of intended persecution – and some Nigerians saw through it.  They were both seen as victims of the House of Representatives’ refusal to abide by the zoning arrangement of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and, more audacious, for causing President Goodluck Jonathan to be embarrassed by the anticipated defeat of his choice for the office of  Speaker.  And which may also explain why the charges were deemed to be shambolic by the judge.

On a final note,  however, had Judge Sirica not been more perceptive and insistent that a bigger klieg light be beamed on the Watergate burglars, the historical inquisition,  which led to the resignation of Nixon,  would not have been witnessed.

Conversely, the judgment by Belgore that both men acted immorally and not illegally could become a Magna Carta of dubious disposition.  This should not be interpreted as wishing Bankole and Nafada ill.