Patience Ibifaka Jonathan, former First Lady and Permanent Secretary in the Bayelsa State Civil Service, a position which she was promoted to national outrage, is in the news again for the wrong reasons. Mrs. Jonathan has embroiled herself in a controversy; whose optics resembles obstruction of justice in an alleged fraud case involving $31.4 million in frozen accounts. Although four companies which owned the accounts pleaded guilty to money-laundering charges, the former first lady is claiming ownership of the frozen accounts. She has filed a fundamental application asking the federal court in Lagos to declare that freezing the accounts without any court order or prior notice to her, was in breach of her fundamental rights. Claiming the EFCC had inconvenience and embarrassed her; she has instituted a $200 million suit against the anti-graft agency. She is urging the court to declare and discharge the no debit/freezing order as unlawful, and restrain the EFCC from subsequently freezing the accounts. This sounds like a bad joke taken too far and a distraction. The real issue here is how Mrs. Jonathan got the $31.4 million?
The EFCC had taken former presidential aide, Amajuoyi Azubike Briggs, former Skye Bank official, Damola Bolodeoku, Pluto Property & Investment Company Ltd and Avalon Global Property Development Company Ltd to court in an alleged $31.4 million fraud involving the companies with no registered addresses. Also charged were: Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd; Trans Ocean Property & Investment Company Ltd and Globus Integrated Services Ltd. After representatives of the four companies pleaded guilty to money-laundering, Mrs. Jonathan came out to publicly claim the funds in the frozen accounts. Through her lawyer, Gboyega Oyewole, she challenged the credibility of the four company reps; accusing the EFCC of organizing a circus by presenting fake persons without any proof of formal designation as the companies’ representatives in the case.
Accordingly, she has filed a suit seeking $200 million in damages, and naming as defendants, EFCC, Skye Bank and one Emmanuel Dudafa, former Special Assistant on Domestic Affairs to her husband; erstwhile President Jonathan. The former first lady is miffed that her “well-earned image” has been maligned in the court of public opinion through the “tissues of lies being churned out by the EFCC in respect of the matter,” according to a statement by her lawyer. Mrs. Jonathan argued that she was neither a director, shareholder, promoter nor participant in any of the four companies that pleaded guilty, and that she was the sole signatory to all the accounts.
This incident brings to the front burner issues of law and ethics in governance, and they constitute avoidable pressures on the polity. Naturally, the question that has necessarily been provoked is: how did the former first lady amass such a stupendous amount of money when a majority of Nigerians were scavenging for survival during her husband’s tenure? Mrs. Jonathan claims the accounts were opened to facilitate her travel overseas particularly for medical treatment and sundry purchases for herself and her late mother. She said she directed Dudafa to open the accounts for her, only for him to open them in his companies’ names rather than her name. She then alerted the bankers, who promised to rectify the anomaly, but apparently failed to do so. Nigerians are not fooled.
This explanation stands logic on its head, given that the accounts were opened six years ago and she has been operating them until the EFCC ordered them frozen. Besides, unless you are Patience Jonathan, why would anyone need four accounts opened in their name only for travel and sundry expenses? Whatever the exact amounts in the frozen accounts, it is most embarrassing for the former first lady to make herself the center of a brazen corruption case. Even so, for reasons of decency, self-respect, a sense of propriety, and consideration for best practices in public office, she ought to have been more circumspect before bringing an action against the EFCC. At a huge reputation cost to her image and that of former President Jonathan, her actions put her husband in the spotlight for the very wrong reason.
Notably, this is not the first time Mrs. Jonathan is involved in conduct unbecoming of her station as the former first lady. Her several public goofs while her husband was in office are well documented in an unedifying diary of her person and position. In, and outside the corridors of power, she has continued to behave like an all-conquering empress in ways that embarrassed the nation. When her husband was president, she assigned cabinet ministers to do her bidding and she took on governors and elected leaders at the slightest opportunity. In one instance, Mrs. Jonathan, surrounded by her friends and family members, made her address on a customized podium adorned with Nigeria’s official seal, and coat of arms, in flagrant disrespect of the country’s sovereignty and cherished ideals. To use the coat of arms in the manner she did amounted to a desecration of national symbols and disrespect to Nigerians.
Against the backdrop of the ongoing fraud trial, it is, however, worrisome that the former first lady is suing the EFCC. The anti-graft agency did not involve her directly in the case ostensibly to avoid the toxic bad blood and backlash of perceived persecution the former first lady by the current administration. Granted that, in the context of the rule of law that underpins constitutional democracy, the Constitution confers on accused persons the rights of fair hearing and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no one should lose sight of the fact that, Mrs. Jonathan is virtually touting the EFCC to investigate her, and saying catch me if you can.
Patience Jonathan’s actions are clearly provocative, and constitute an abuse of the court process; an act for which she should be held accountable. The EFCC should initiate a counter-suit, and charge her with corruption. Anything short of this would be a travesty of justice. This does not in any way mean she is guilty of any charges. But now that she has gone on the offensive to sue the EFCC, there should be no waiting for any directive for her involvement in the frozen accounts named in the fraud case to be investigated. They should strike the iron while it is hot, lest it goes cold. Mrs. Jonathan must explain the sources of the monies because her reasons for opening four accounts are not credible. She has to show legitimate proof of earned income, or the funds should be forfeited as the proceeds of criminal activity. In Nigeria where there are too many sacred cows and corruption cases are too often buried, this is one case with which the seriousness of the war against corruption would be measured.
