Is the issue of corruption more heinous than these classical cases of treason and treasonable felony? Mike Ozekhome SAN asks…

The Media is agog once again over the issue of the exercise of Presidential powers in favour of Alamieyesigha, et al. The frenzy is so palpable that the polity presently reeks of a surfeit of verbal fist-cuffs and a cacophony of diverse opinion (comparable only to the Biblical Babel) as to the legality, constitutionality or otherwise, the morality of such an act by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. But does the President actually have the legal, constitutional and moral right to have acted the way he did? If yes, is the exercise of that right necessary and expedient?

Let us briefly examine the meaning of the word “Presidential pardon” itself. According to Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition, page 1113), a pardon is “an executive action that mitigates or sets aside punishment for a crime. An act of grace from the governing power which mitigates the punishment the law demands for the offense and restores the right and privileges forfeited on account of the offence...a pardon releases the offender from entire punishment prescribed for the offence and from disabilities consequent on his convictions; it reinstates his civil liberties”.

A presidential pardon therefore, effectively relieves the offender of all punishments, penalties, and disabilities that flow directly from the conviction. In the US case of BOYD v UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 450 (1892), for example, the Defence objected to the testimony of a witness who had been convicted of larceny. In response, the prosecution presented a full and unconditional pardon issued by President Harrison. The Court held that the pardon restored the competency of the witness to testify. According to the court: "the disability to testify being a consequence, according to the principles of the common law, of the judgment of conviction, the pardon obliterated that effect."

The above conclusion is supported by the English common law from which the framers of the American Constitution drew their understanding of the scope of the power being granted the Chief Executive. The “Pardon Clause” of the Constitution was derived from the “pardon power” held by the King of England at the adoption of the Constitution. Thus, at common law, it was well settled that a pardon by the King removed not only the punishment that flowed from the offence, but also "all the legal disabilities consequent on the crime." See Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law 416 (1852); See, e.g, CUDDINGTON v WILKINS, 80 Eng. Rep. 231, 232 (K.B. 1614).

The consequence of these authorities and historical voyage is to show that a Presidential pardon completely, wholly and effectively cleanses the donee or beneficiary of all the crimes, or of all the offences committed, including, the odium, obloquy, disability and infamy attached thereto. Like Naaman the leper, who dipped himself into River Jordan seven times on the order of Spirit-filled Prophet Elisha and was cleansed of his leprosy, the donee is totally cleansed of his leprous conviction in the absolving and remissioning waters of Presidential pardon and clemency (See 2 Kings 5: 1 – 27).

Read More http://channelkoos.com/index.php/news/4171-alamieyeseigha-deserves-state-pardon-mike-ozekhome

Mike Ozekhome is just stating the obvious facts.

Alams has contributed alot to the peace and stability we all enjoy in the Niger Delta.
Opposition and haters are the onse behind the artificial outrage by quoting fictitious
Obama and Bill Gates officials in attempt to continue deceiving the gullible.

youngies:
The consequence of these authorities and historical voyage is to show that a Presidential pardon completely, wholly and effectively cleanses the donee or beneficiary of all the crimes, or of all the offences committed, including, the odium, obloquy, disability and infamy attached thereto. Like Naaman the leper, who dipped himself into River Jordan seven times on the order of Spirit-filled Prophet Elisha and was cleansed of his leprosy, the donee is totally cleansed of his leprous conviction in the absolving and remissioning waters of Presidential pardon and clemency (See 2 Kings 5: 1 – 27).

The part in bold is the crux of the matter. As far as the law is concerned, Alams never committed a crime. Alams never stole from his people, and he's free to contest elections in future (Senate in 2015, perhaps?)

No one is describing his action as illegal. What we're saying is that the president has sent an unspoken message that his government tolerates corruption. In other words, any and every public servant is encouraged to steal, because there's the probability that (s)he can go scot-free.

Prosperous societies are not built that way. In every functional society, there's the rule of law. where those who do wrong get punished to the full extent of their crimes. If President Jonathan will not muster the balls to set the right example, then we're probably better off with another (wo)man on the saddle.