Presidential candour

The 19th century French economist and statesman, Frederic Bastiat, may have had Nigeria in mind when he penned this famous quote: "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorises it and a moral code that glorifies it." The extant legal rule, otherwise known as the immunity clause, happens to be one of those legal-moral provisions that sanction the plundering instinct of any ruthless political cabal.

Section 308 of the Nigerian Constitution grants immunity to the Nigerian President and Vice President, as well as state governors and their deputies; from civil and criminal proceedings, arrest, imprisonment, and court process. It implies that the aforementioned cannot be sued or prosecuted for any wrong act committed while in office.

But as President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua has come to realise, there are times corruption becomes so consuming that it turns around to become the parasite that eventually destroys its host, and thus renders the immunity clause counterproductive. Our present circumstance as a nation, facilitated by a burgeoning proactive journalistic culture and an emerging critical mass, is providing that tipping point when corruption ceases to be popular. The question is not solely a moral one. Corruption destroys the social structure, impedes development and denies the majority of citizens the tools they need to build a future.

Bemoaning the state of the nation over which he presides Mr. Yar'Adua asserted last week at a meeting with the representatives of the Yoruba Council of Elders at the State House that: "The level of corruption in our country today does not justify the sustenance of the immunity clause whatever its other merits, since there is the need to make everybody accountable for all their actions... We continue to support the financial and moral independence of the anti-corruption agencies, as well as try to make corruption unattractive by ensuring that anyone found guilty is sanctioned according to the law."

What may have been conceived of as a protective legal mechanism for political office holders against harassment of the kind that would interrupt the smooth running of the state, the immunity clause has, in practice, provided a sanctuary for politicians to wantonly abuse office, sanctify their wrongdoings and have their misdeeds protected.

A few years ago, when some caches of ammunition were discovered in the boot of the official vehicle of a serving deputy governor of a state, prosecution could not be made because the deputy governor had immunity. As it was many years ago, governors are milking their states' resources with impunity and are laundering public funds abroad, yet, they are left scot-free because they have immunity. It is almost as if the assignment of ensuring the smooth running of the state has become a diversion they cannot afford to indulge in.

It may, in some distant time have made sense to argue, albeit with little conviction, that immunity serves to prevent unnecessary distraction from the progressive administration of the state, and by extension safeguards political actors from unwarranted harassment by discontented political opponents. But that idea is fast becoming inconsistent with contemporary legal and political culture, as seen in constitutional practice in the United States, Great Britain, and most recently, Italy, amongst others.

What is heart-warming to know is that, rather than leaning on the practice of other nations, Mr. Yar'Adua seems to have built his assertion on the reality of our situation in Nigeria.

Indeed, Nigerian officials are too corrupt to have immunity and the practice of corruption has assumed the dimensions of a culture enveloping almost every institution that we have.

By his declaration, Mr. Yar'Adua is expressing the frank moral conservatism that expects leaders to be above board and distance themselves from the pestilential influences of criminality. Can we expect the re-emergence of the old servant-leader imbued now with greater conviction and the energy to put his shoulder to the wheel?

We commend Mr. Yar'Adua for this frank submission, it is our hope that he commits action to his pronouncement by cleaning the stable of his government, and in this way encourage Nigerians to resolutely defend the law and impartially enforce it.

In the light of the incessant abuse of constitutional powers that has been witnessed in the country, and in view of Nigeria's fragile democracy, it is clear that the Immunity clause is an obnoxious rule that is counterproductive.

The man in whose power it lies to remove this worthless rule has said it should go. So let it be.