Amnesty Or Criminal Immunity? …That Case Against Adumu, Others

Last year, during the informal public debates on the unrest within the Niger Delta region and the threat it posed to the economic survival of Nigeria, all of which eventually culminated in the pronouncement of amnesty to militants by President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, this writer raised some questions that were unanswered.

One of them, and indeed the primary nucleus of today’s treatise is the supposed reach and limits of the unconditional amnesty granted militants, among them suspected felons declared wanted by the Police for crimes against the state and her citizens.

It is true that under the criminal justice system which Nigeria operates, all crimes within the scope of criminal prosecution are deemed to be against the state, hence the need for public prosecutors, often either with the police force or in the States’ and Federal Ministries of Justice and Attorney-Generals.

Even so, aggrieved individuals seeking justice could obtain legal fiat to prosecute their cases using their own choice of legal representation.

That being the case, the question thus become, does the Federal Government have the power to grant a citizen amnesty for a crime, not against the state but against a fellow citizen? Should the Federal Government’s amnesty cover notorious criminals suspected to have taken fellow citizens’ lives, maimed others, raped women and made assassination attempts on lives of fellow citizens? These question were unanswered then and today still beg for satisfactory answers because of the blanket nature of the amnesty.

In a conflict of the kind which pitched proactive Niger Delta militants against the Nigerian State and which involved armed confrontation and sometime hijack by common criminals, there is no question that some innocent citizens, particularly defenceless men, women and children could be caught in cross fire. In war, those are deemed accidental casualties in battle and in the end of combats, families of such deaths are considered in the reconciliation, reintegration and reconstruction efforts. Under the conflict in question, such casualties are Federal and State responsibilities and ought to have been provided for. But these are not the nature of deaths for discussion here.

What are, include, victims of crimes like arson, murder, rape, armed robbery, kidnap for ransom and wanton destruction of citizens’ property, not the states. In these cases, should the Federal Government deny the aggrieved parties their constitutional right to seek relief over such, most times, unprovoked crimes not against the state nor her economy but against defenceless citizens?

Ignored then, the need for answers to these questions has re-emerged and now pitches Rivers State’s High Courts 3 and 10 sitting in Port Harcourt, against the Federal Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello  Adoke (SAN).

The Attorney General had through his state counterpart asked the Rivers State government to discontinue the trial of four ex-militants accused of murder and threatening the life of a serving commissioner in the state. The affected four standing trial include George Adumu, Wellborn Isaiah, Loveday Samuel and Luke Loveday all from Andoni Local Government Area of the state.

In the letter which was presented to the presiding judge of the State High Court 10, Justice Boma Diepiri, Adoke pointed out that the offences for which the accused persons were being tried were committed in 2008, and fell within the presidential Amnesty programme.

By discontinuing the trial, Adoke’s letter argued, the Rivers State Attorney-General would help ensure that the affected ex-militants participate in the rehabilitation phase of the amnesty programme. A copy of the same letter was sent to the Special Adviser to the President On Niger Delta, Mr Timi Alaibe, who it was said, initiated the move through a missive to the Federal Attorney-General and Minister of Justice dated May 28, 2010.

Expectedly, penultimate week, Fatai Aremu Oso (SAN), counsel to the accused persons formally read to the open court presided by Justice Diepiri, the ‘stop trial’ order to the amazement of all, particularly the aggrieved parties seeking Justice.

Ruling on the objection raised by the defence lawyer as contained in the Federal Attorney-General’s letter, the Presiding Judge, Justice Diepriri held that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the offence for which the accused persons were standing trial and for the same reason cannot be hindered by any appeal to amnesty, meaning, the trial must go on, amnesty or not.

In simple terms, what the presiding judge has said is that amnesty is a forgiveness of sins against the Federal Government and not a blanket immunity from criminal trial for suspected crimes against fellow citizens and the state.

Media reports say, George Adumu and three others of the Icelander Group allegedly attempted to assassinate one Naaman Jehoshaphat on November 28, 2009 after the October 4, deadline for the amnesty, at the Golf Prince Hotel, Abana Street, Old GRA in Port Harcourt. That matter was said to have been reported to the police who after investigation, trailed and eventually arrested the suspects. They were subsequently charged to court for kidnapping, attempted assassination and other offences pending against them with the police.

With this background, should the court obey the Attorney-General and acquit the accused persons, since, as ex-militants, they are covered by presidential amnesty; or uphold the rule of law as enshrined in the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and give justice to the just? Is the learned Justice right in choosing the latter option? If so, what are the implications of such choice, considering efforts being made to avoid any further resurgence of violent protests within the Niger Delta region?

It is clear that the Attorney-General’s request was informed by the need to assure repentant militants of the Federal Government’s sincerity in the pronouncement of amnesty and reaffirm that militants would neither face criminal trial nor punishment for offences covered by the amnesty package. This is so because, should other ex-militants feel a sense of insecurity by way of trials for offense committed during the conflict, they may be united by misfortune and again attempt to truncate the relative peace thus far witnessed in the region.

But the learned Justice also has a moral duty to administer justice and if possible put away confirmed and convicted felons from among the civil society. Her zeal is without doubt powered by the conviction that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice,” as Martin Luther King (Jr) warned in one of his most quoted letters in 1963.

Furthermore, there is what is commonly accepted as a moral, even legal creed as contained in Article 40 of the Magna Carta, which virtually vows, “to no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.”

The learned Justice’s insistence that the real plaintiffs, in this case, those legally injured victims of the accused persons’ alleged crimes also deserve justice as much as the militants their amnesty, is very well served.

Need we mention, “Justice without strength is helpless. Strength without Justice is tyrannical … unable to make what is just strong we have made what is strong just”, as Blaise Pascal once mused in Pensees. Is that the case before us today or not?

My Agony is that although the Federal Government’s amnesty is for ex-militants not ex-criminals, the difference which the ordinary man finds in both is like that between 12 and a dozen.

This is why Methinks, only well-informed legal minds like courts of competent jurisdiction can help distinguish militants from criminals, in order not to risk the rights of citizens in search of justice or inadvertently punish genuinely repentant Niger Delta militants for offences against the federal government that have been forgiven via the amnesty pronouncement.

The truth is that forgiveness is earned not imposed. Forgiveness for crimes against the Federal Government, should come from the Federal Government, that of state should come from the state but most importantly, crimes against and wounds inflicted on Tom, Dick and Harry should be forgiven by Tom, Dick and Harry and neither the state nor the federal government lest the wrong signals be sent that the state defends only the strong against the meek and weak.

My Verdict: Let High Court 10 determine if those standing trial are ex-militants or criminals. If not satisfied, the state can then grant presidential pardon to the strong.