Anyone that has followed the ongoing debate over how to deal with the immunity clause enshrined in section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria would have reached that conclusion on which the scripts of many local comedians are based: Nigerians love to argue. We never allow a chance to engage in verbal combat to pass us by. Today, the immunity clause has become the issue over which to exhibit our debating prowess. And most people are joining the chorus on the winning side, namely, to delete and throw executive immunity into the waste bin. Senate President David Mark shares this view and said so early in the week at a book presentation to mark the silver jubilee anniversary of the bishopric of Dr. John Onaiyekan, Archbishop of Abuja. Even President Yar’Adua has lent his voice to the anti-immunity clause campaign: speaking in Davos, Switzerland recently, the president vowed to support any effort to abrogate the immunity clause.

Since Yar’Adua’s declaration, the debate has assumed a new cadence. Cheer leaders have been enlisting in droves. In supporting the president, the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO) averred that he “spoke the minds of Nigerians”. Indeed, the president may have spoken the minds of some Nigerians but he did not speak the mind of all Nigerians: he certainly did not speak my mind. In this country, every arm of government is granted some privileges or immunity by the constitution: judicial officers have immunity over what they say while sitting in their capacity as judicial officers; legislators not only have immunity over what the say in the chambers of the house but are immune from arrest within the complex; in the case of the executive, only a select few (the president and the governors) enjoy any immunity while in office! The immunity clause is a temporary privilege which ensures that no one is allowed to stop the wheel of governance by holding the president or governor to ransom under any guise. It is a temporary protection intended to shield the occupant of the office from distractions while executing the duties inherent in that office. And like any privilege, it is subject to abuse. For those clamoring for the removal of the immunity clause, the plank on which their argument rests is that it provides a cover to perpetrate fraudulent acts and to commit atrocities.

One of the problems of Nigerian politics is the supposition that we can short-circuit the process of historical development. For how long has the immunity clause been in our constitution? Given the ominous implications of it’s removal for governance in a volatile polity such as we have, the immunity clause should be seen as a necessary evil. When the term of the officers that enjoy it expires, they become like sitting ducks. Under Nigerian law, there is no time limit for the institution of criminal proceedings. There are only three statutory exceptions to this rule: sedition which has six months time limit, treason which has two years time limit and custom offenses which have a seven year time limit. To that extent, the logic on which the clamor for removal of the immunity clause rests simply begs the question. We seem to forget that only 74 public officials at the federal and state levels are covered by immunity during any four-year term. That still leaves 774 executive chairmen at the local government level who are not covered by immunity and thousands of commissioners, ministers, heads of parastatals and other tin gods who also wield executive powers and disburse fat budgets.

The voices of those opposed to the removal of immunity clause may be drowned in the cacophony that has attended this debate but their argument that such an ill-advised move would expose the offices of president and governor to an avalanche of law suits that could distract them from the business of governance cannot be discountenanced. With the way courts in Nigeria grant ex parte motions and injunctions, the danger that the business of government in Nigeria may be grounded in the absence of an immunity clause is real.

If the war against corruption is to be won, it should start with sending corrupt officials to jail and returning looted property to the public till. This can be achieved not by bickering over the immunity clause but by showing demonstrable political will to punish corruption. What stops us from setting up special courts to give expedited trial to public officers accused of abuse of office. Crime thrives when offenders are allowed to evade justice. So long as one public officer is seen to escape with his loot, so long will others be encouraged to abuse their office. We need to publicize the asset declaration forms of public officers. The audit mechanism needs to be strengthened by ensuring that the appointment and removal of judicial officers, the Auditor General of the Federation, State Auditors General, and the Auditors General for Local Governments of the various states are not left to the whims and caprices of the executive.

Since President Yar’Adua reported to the nation that over $10bn was wasted on the power sector by the past administration public expectation has been that some people will be questioned over such a gargantuan squandering of public revenue. But the matter has been left in limbo like all others before it! What about all the high profile fraud cases involving public officers that have left the nation in shock over the last few years? Or even the cases of some of the 774 LG council chairmen who between 1999 and 2007 received over three trillion naira in allocations from the federation account with little to show for it! The cases of some ex–governors who enjoyed the much talked about immunity are progressing at snail speed in various courts. Is it immunity that has delayed action on these cases? In any case, will an accused person whose guilt is eventually established beyond reasonable doubt be convicted or will he be surreptitiously allowed to escape justice? Will the public suffer the double jeopardy of loosing the public till to an individual and seeing that individual wallowing in the luxury of his criminal acquisitions? These are the questions that are giving the silent majority sleepless nights and not this palaver about what to do with the immunity clause.

All your vehement argument in support of immunity was swept inside the gutter with your own hands in the 2nd to the last paragraph to wit:"If the war against corruption is to be won, it should start with sending corrupt officials to jail and returning looted property to the public till. This can be achieved not by bickering over the immunity clause but by showing demonstrable political will to punish corruption. What stops us from setting up special courts to give expedited trial to public officers accused of abuse of office." So try to answer this question wise one, " if the President who should galvanise this political will you are mouthing here is manifestly corrupt, who shall galvanise the will? The IGP, Senate President, CJN, Governors' Forum? Who? Who will set up the Special Courts, a corrupt President. Who will appoint the judges there, the corrupt President. You see that if the head is rotten, nothing meaningful can come out of the entire body, no matter how hard you try. I always see people that condone the irresponsibility of the No. 1 seat of power as uninformed and sheer illiterates. I see them as people who are just here on earth to eat and shit without using their senses for anything reasonable. Can migrane be compared to a foot-ache? You mentioned Judicial officers and Lawmakers who have immunity to "say" things while in their chambers. Is the immunity to "say" the same thing as the immunity to "do". You amuse me to no end. Look, the sheer fact that some advance countries practice immunity is no reason why we should practise it too. Ours is a peculiar country with a peculiar culture. If 5 Presidents are sent to jail in a year in Nigeria, you will discover that Ministers will sit up and Governors will rule well. The idea of clothing people with immunity and after 8 years they become semi-gods that no judicial officer can arrest in Nigeria is foolish and unthinkable. We can continue calling ourselves a nation while other countries try and jail criminals who ruled us in their country for us. Pleeeeease say something better. [/color]