National Judicial Council (NJC) is the body empowered to discipline erring judges and judicial officers, particularly those whose misconduct are referred to it for investigations.
Last week the NJC set up an investigative panel to probe the allegations against Justice Abubakar Talba of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) after his recent judgment in the case involving John Yusuf, who was found guilty of stealing N32bn Police Pension Fund.
John Yusuf and his accomplices, namely Esai Dangabar a former director; Atiku Abubakar Kigo, a permanent secretary, Ahmed Inuwa Wada, Mrs Veronica Ulonma Onyegbula and Sani Habila Zira were arraigned before the court on a 16-count charge for the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of the property.
They were also alleged to have received gratification and converted to their own use certain property to wit: the sum of N14,518,567,724.36 (fourteen billion, five hundred and eighteen million, five hundred and sixty-seven thousand, seven hundred and twenty-four naira and thirty-six kobo belonging to Police Pension office lodged with the First Bank of Nigeria Plc.
The accused persons were said to have converted to own use various other sums of money, bring the total of the amount so converted to N32 billion. And the offences allegedly committed by the accused persons were brought before the court in separate charges under Sections 115 (ii), 119, 315, 97 and 309 of the panel Code Act. Cap 532 Laws of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria 2007.
Esai Dangabar, Atiku Abubakar Kigo, Ahmed Inuwa Wada,Mrs Veronica Ulonma Onyegbula and Sani Habila Zira the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th accused persons respectively pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The 4th accused person, John Yakubu Yusuf, pleaded guilty. Probably for the convenience of the plea bargain allegedly entered between the prosecuting agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)) and the accused, an amended three-count charge, which stated specifically that he committed offence containing only three separate count, was brought against John Yusuf..
Specifically, the amended charge against him was that he committed the offence punishable under Section 309 of the Penal Code Act. Cap. 532, Laws of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria 2007.
According to Section 309 of the Penal Code under which the accused was brought before the court, “whoever commits criminal misappropriation shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.”
Justice Talba, in his judgment sentenced Yusuf to two years in prison for each of the three counts for which he was standing trial to run concurrently with an option of fine of N250,000 on each of the counts.
The convict preferred to pay the fine and instantly arranged the payment of the seven hundred and fifty thousand naira fine. The conducts of the court, the convict and the prosecution who immediately re-arrested the convict attracted huge public outcry and condemnation.
The prosecuting agency, EFCC, expressed its dissatisfaction with the judgment. It is its constitutional right to appeal and it has done so.
The public felt shortchanged by the case as the layman could not understand why a civil servant entrusted with public fund involved in misappropriation (stealing) of N36bn would be fined N750,000 while people who stole goats are languishing in jail for five years.
Barrister Pius Ofulue described the judgment as morally wrong and the public were justified in their outcry. The issue has to do with our numerous obsolete laws, which are now to the advantage of criminals.
For instance, this particular law, Section 309 of the Penal Code gave option of “two years or with fine or with both,” and the judge chose to convict Yusuf to the maximum term of two years imprisonment or fine; that is, the judge chose the lesser punishment for Yusuf the convict.
The trial judge used his discretion and decided not to sentence Yusuf “with both” fine and imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. Judges are known, in fact, and they are allowed, to use their discretions where a law is not specific or gives an option.
Several people have rightly argued that discretion must be used judiciously and that in the instant case, the judge would have opted for both fine and sentence. They forget that after the accused had pleaded guilty, his counsel pleaded with the court for leniency, stating that all the convict’s landed property have been seized by EFCC.
In any case, since the issue of the judge’s discretion formed part of the appeal now before the Court of Appeal Abuja division, it should be left for the appellate court to trash out.
