Dr Aliyu Tilde
Yes. That is what it boiled down to. The trial, now over, was actually between Ibrahim G. Wala and Abdullahi Mukhtar, Chairman, National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON), not the official version of Wala v. Inspector General of Police. Wala is sentenced to seven years in prison. Mukhtar believes that the conviction of Wala has cleared his name. Does it mean that we have heard the last about the case? No.
In this article, I penned down my observations about the case on which I have gathered so much information in the past two days. Let me say that Wala did not show the best example of activism. Neither did Mukhtar exhibited the thick skin expected of a public servant who would have followed more potent paths of clearing his name without resorting to court action. The most critical point, however, concerns the judge who allowed anger to influence his judgement.
Come with me.
- WALA
At the risk of being accused of blaming the victim by some of his supporters, I dare say that Mr Wala’s personalization of his allegation was wrong. He was incessant in attacking Mr Mukhtar as a person directly, excessively, repeatedly and provocatively.
Many have correctly complained that Mr Wala’s approach lacked decorum especially for the Northern audience which is not used to accusation of officials in such a brazen manner. The same disapproval goes with the publication of investigation and litigation documents in breach of many legislative and judicial rules. The last breach – publishing a video on the judgement – while the court was still in session was catastrophic as it gave both the prosecution and the judge the weapon to aggravate the sentences. Generally, when any court is in session, publication of its proceedings is unlawful except with its permission. Perhaps Mr Wala did not know this or perhaps he saw it as an opportunity to say his last word before he bid farewell to his freedom in few minutes time. Neither is ignorance of the law nor desperation could be an excuse before a court.
Added to this was the levity with which he treated the case. He has boasted several times that he would not mind going to jail on this matter. Various reliable sources have also informed me of how he refused to yield to any amicable resolution of the matter, including the intercession by reputable individuals after he failed to prove his claim in court. More annoying to them was how he immediately breached every agreement reached at by publishing fresh allegations on his Facebook page. Mr Wala has denied the allegations.
Unlike the print media we were used to and which subjects our material to editing by others before publishing, social media provides us with an opportunity that is increasingly appearing too fast for many of us to handle reasonably. With haste is regret, said the Prophet (S). The need for caution by all users cannot be overemphasized here.
Social media poses a bigger challenge for its users: the feeling that one is surrounded and protected by his many followers. This false togetherness vanishes once the storm of trouble becomes imminent.
Another thing that Mr Wala’s case has proven is that social media is not a no-man’s-land anymore, as many still assume. Gradually, the cover of anonymity and unaccountability which it initially provided us is now removed the long arm of the law. We must therefore employ self-censorship, get our facts correct and ready to defend them before the court of law not before that of public opinion alone.
Finally, we must never forget that no matter how committed we are to an altruistic cause, we remain human whose surest hallmark is fallibility. When this primary feature inevitably manifests itself in any of our actions, we must not hesitate to acknowledge it, show remorse, correct the wrong and seek for forgiveness from whom we harmed by our failed judgement. This will not demean us one bit. It will rather decorate us with the jewel of humility that others will admire. In this case, ego could be our most formidable enemy.
- MUKHTAR
Mr Mukhtar, will always explain that he reluctantly went to court only to clear his name against the recalcitrant and unrelenting defamatory attacks of Mr Wala. However, his resort to criminal prosecution of the same matter while a civil case of N1.5billion in damages that he instituted in another court was still subsisting attests more to his determination than disinclination to extract a flesh from Mr Wala. Clearly, his enormous influence as the head of a service department of the government was brought to bear on the case.
NAHCON Chair Mukhtar
My worry is that this may not be the end of the matter in the press and social media and NAHCON may attract more scrutiny of its activities so long as Mr Wala remains in jail. The judgement, like many others before, may not be enough to clear Mr Mukhtar’s name before the public. How many people today believe that Nafi’u Rabi’u did not “actually” kill his wife in the early 1980s in Kano despite a judgement passed by a court in his favour then? How many in America believe that O.J. Simpson is innocent in spite of his acquittal in the famous murder trial in 1996? In the same vein, how many people will believe that there is no corruption in NAHCON or that Mr Mukhtar is innocent in spite of yesterday’s judgement?
People understand that the law is not after “actual” truth; rather it is concerned with “factual” (logical) truth arrived at from a fact or set of facts which proves or fail to prove a claim in accordance with a given standard. A victim of rape may not prove her case beyond reasonable doubt causing the acquittal of the accused by the court. However, that does not mean that she was lying. Depending on her credibility before the public, for example, people are likely to believe her and disbelieve the court that might have turned down the case on technical ground. After all, how many cases of wrong convictions – or even wrong executions – has the world witnessed? Conviction, therefore, can exonerate someone in court but not in public. This is a fact which Mr Mukhtar, the police and the entire government can do nothing to dispel.
Resort to the courts and especially the criminal prosecution, I still hold, does not conform to the convention of government in handles such issues. Usually, the matter is ignored, like the allegation that $2billion were missing when Buhari was the Federal Commissioner of Petroleum Resources, or the N1billion rice deals of Umaru Dikko, or the diversion of $12billion under Babangida, or the numerous accusations of Obasanjo – many of them outrightly defanatory – by Sam Nda Isaiah, etc. If necessary, means of subtly silencing the accuser are employed by the state.
When I raised these suggestions, I was told that Mr Wala was such a personality that would only become emboldened by the day if he is ignored and the barrage of accusations were just limitless so much so that Mr Mukhtar felt that he had to resort to the courts. Then I suggested another way – rebuttal.
A continuous social media rebuttal of Malam Wala’s accusations with facts and figures as the Commission has done on several occasions before investigation committees would have sufficed. We must never underestimate the intelligence of readers. People easily relate with facts faster than do courts. Someone once accused me on Facebook of facilitating the theft of N500million by our governor-elect in 2015 when I was the Secretary of the Transition Committee of my state. I laughed over it, simply published a rebuttal in the same Facebook and the matter died there and then. I would have never forgiven myself if anyone had gone to jail for that. Though, as we saw on Facebook, Mr Wala was persistent in coming up with new accusations against Mr Mukhtar, I believed NAHCON had the capacity to defend its Chairman against such allegations before the public – if only clearing his name was the motive. To me, the Police was not the best alternative at all.
The die is now cast. Mr Wala’s incarceration is likely to make NAHCON a subject of intense probe by individuals and organizations alike especially with the palpable suspicion that pilgrims are short-changed since the Hajj fare was raised to N1.5m per seat. There are fears that it will be N1.8m this year. Many people believe that the laudable reforms undertaken by the Chairman should have resulted in a decrease, not increase, in the fare since saving in millions of dollars are made.
THE JUDGE
I am most disappointed with the judge, with due respect to my brother, his lordship. A person of his station should have known better how to clear anger out of the path of his judgement. Here is what happened.
Various witness accounts narrate how Mr Wala recorded and released a video of his opinion about the conviction minutes before the judge would return and deliver his sentence. Earlier before a 20 minute recess and after taking Mr Wala’s plea of leniency, the judge indicated that he will fine the convict on all the three charges. The release of that video to the public did not go down well with any of Mr. Wala’s supporters in court and on social media. It was a big mistake.
No sooner than the judge asked the opinion of the prosecution council about the leniency plea by the accused did the prosecution try to show that Mr Wala is unrepentant on his crime, citing example of how in the last few minutes he released a video in which he accused the trial as unjust. As soon as the judge saw the video, he became very furious and started making utterances that clearly signified his degree of provocation. He picked his pen and started writing his sentence, which he angirily announced. He meted maximum prison sentences on Mr Wala on all the three counts of guilt without option of fine. Though he has the discretion, it was very unfortunate as it was borne out of anger.
In sentencing Mr Wala to 7 years for “unlawful assembly,” the judge erred, big time in my opinion. Nowhere in the Penal Code is any provision made for sentencing a convict to 7 years for unlawful assembly. The maximum is five years, and which on all the three sections it was given it had to do with a member of the assembly who knew “that such unlawful assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse” (s. 104) or rioting in which deadly weapon was used (s. 107) or for assault or threat to assault or obstructing any public servant from his duty of dispersing an unlawful assembly (s. 112). All other offences related to unlawful assembly stipulate maximum prison sentences between one and four years only.
The judge intepreted the non-registered status of CATBAN as a basis for accepting that it as an “unlawful society” that is covered under section 97A of the Penal Code and which stipulates the maximum sentence of 7 years for its membership or managing it (97B). No evidence was tendered in the court to prove that CATBAN is “an unlawful society … declared by an order of the Governor to be a society dangerous to the good government of the State or any part of it”, like Islamic movement in Nigeria which El-rufa’i declared unlawful. CATBAN was never proscribed by anybody. Agreed that, like TBO, it was not registered.
Yet, the judge was unanimously reported using the term “unlawful assembly.” This is what Premium Times reported on this charge, for example:
“On the charge of unlawful assembly, Mr Wala was found guilty of using his organisation, the Citizens Action To Take Back Nigeria (CATBAN), to form an unlawful assembly. The judge ruled that the organisation was unregistered.”
So will millions of unregistered political and social associations henceforth be declared unlawful assemblies even without the essential ingredient of “common object … to commit crime” as defined by the Penal Code under s.100 or without any declaration by a state governor as unlawful society in accordance with s.97A?
The many lawyers I contacted have expressed disgust over the final conduct of the judge. Being angry, he would have postponed the sentencing until a future date, some said. He would have kept his cool and at worst charge Mr Wala with contempt separate from his earlier conviction, others said. But allowing the video to influence his sentencing after he has read out the conviction leaves a lot to be desired in his conduct as a judge.
These and other loopholes that the defence lawyers will identify in the ruling may form a solid ground for appeal. Mr Wala may not spend seven years after all. With skilful lawyers he can even apply for bail pending the ruling of the appeal court.
CONCLUSION
I hope both public officials and activist like me will learn from this case. As the realities of a democratic society requires that the former wears a thick skin against criticisms, the latter must be ready to meet the requirement of the law in whatever they feed the public with. This is not the last we will hear about allegations of corruption in government agencies just as it will not be the last we will hear from Mr. I.G. Wala. We will now miss him for a while but one day he will return to the platform that accorded him both the voice of an activist and the trouble of a jail term.
I will finally enjoin us to fear God in dealing with one another. Just as I am against public servants using their status to bear on cases that involve them, activist must also show enough decorum and maturity in pursuing their cause, with cogent facts and without exposing the officials they accuse to public ridicule and hate before they are found guilty. Judges must remain impartial. As a rule, they must not bendover backwards to satisfy any party before them or follow their whim in aggravating punishments. We must not forget that soon shall all of us stand before one God to account for our deeds – the one and only Lord that will not be swayed by blackmail, status or anger to mete injustuce on anyone.
Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde
16 April 2019
