By Samiah Ogunlowo
In a ruling delivered on October 28, 2022 by Justice Chizoba Oji of the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja and made public by media houses on November 8, 2022, the Chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Abdulrasheed Bawa, was found in contempt of court and ordered to be sent to prison for failing to comply with a court order.
The order had directed Bawa to return a Range Rover sport utility vehicle (SUV) and the sum of N40 million to the applicant, former Director of Operations at the Nigerian Air Force (NAF), Rufus Ojuawo.
Ojuawo had filed a motion through his lawyer, R.N. Ojabo, in a suit marked: FCT/HC/CR/184/2016 that the EFCC had refused to comply with the court order directing it to release his seized belongings.
Ojuawo, a retired air vice marshal (AVM), was previously prosecuted by the EFCC on corruption charges but was acquitted by another judge of the FCT High Court.
The prosecution charged him with taking kickbacks of N40 million and a Range Rover Sport (Supercharged) valued at N29.250 million from Hima Aboubakar of Societe D’Equipment Internationalnaux Nigeria Limited, a contractor for the Nigerian Air Force.
However, the judge acquitted Ojuawo in a judgment delivered on 21 November 2018. It rejected EFCC’s case, saying the commission was unable to show that Ojuawo accepted the gifts while carrying out his official duties as military chief and that the gifts were incentives or rewards.
The court ordered EFCC to release Ojuawo’s assets. But due to the failure of the EFCC and its leadership to comply with the order, Ojuawo applied for the jailing of the commission’s chairman for contempt.
The contempt order which is dated October 28, 2022, reads:
“The Chairman Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is in contempt of the orders of this honourable court made on November 21st 2018 directing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Abuja to return to the applicant his Range Rover (Super charge) and the sum of N40, 000,000.00 (Forty Million Naira).
“Having continued willfully in disobedience to the order of this court, he should be committed to prison at Kuje Correctional Centre for his disobedience, and continued disobedience of the said order of court made on November 21st, 2018, until he purges himself of the contempt.”
The Commission, through a statement, immediately faulted the order of the court and said its chairman did not disobey any court order as ruled by the court.
The commission also described Bawa as an advocate of the rule of law and due process who would not disobey any legitimate court order.
It also said the ruling created a wrong impression of the person of the EFCC chairman as “encouraging impunity”.
It also said that Bawa was not served with Forms 48 and 49 as expected in contempt proceedings, adding that after becoming aware of the aforementioned order dated 21 November 2018, released the aforementioned Range Rover to the applicant on 27 June 2022, and approved the process for releasing his N40 million.
Justice system: Too weak for the strong?
Bawa stated that he will appeal the decision and did so right away. But he remained at home, disobeying the court order and continuing with his activities while awaiting a decision from the court on his appeal.
It is entirely permissible to appeal a court’s ruling, but when it is used as a way of preventing justice from being served, its purpose and method should be called into question.
Although the court later set aside the order after Bawa appealed, the issue here is not whether the EFCC chairman defied the original court order or if he was served personally or not; it is the disobedience of the court order by failing to make himself available before appealing.
When a court condemns ordinary Nigerians to prison, they are imprisoned immediately. They can then file an appeal to have their sentence overturned. But when a court condemns prominent people like Bawa to prison, they remain in their houses and petition another court to overturn the sentence.
This is a gross disregard for the rule of law and due process and it contradicts not just the constitution but also the statement made by the commission that its chairman is an apostle of rule of law and due process.
Following due process would require Bawa to first accede to the court’s order, then purify himself of the contempt, defend his conduct before the court, or overturn the judgment by submitting an appeal.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Saraki & Anr. v. Kotoye, defined the word ‘judgment’ as: “A binding, authentic, official judicial determination of the Court in respect of the claims and in an action before it.”
And according to the rule of law, court judgements are to be obeyed. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) prescribes that the decision of all courts in the country shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by “all authorities and persons”.
The image of a blindfolded woman carrying a set of balancing scales is used to symbolise justice. She is not meant to see the people she criticizes in order to avoid being influenced by their emotions.
Those who don’t balance well on the scales receive punishment. That is how the judicial system should operate in a democracy. It shouldn’t change based on who is involved.
This has not been the case in Nigeria, where disobedience to court order in the country has become an endemic mainstay in the polity and has eaten deep into the fabric of the Nigerian society. Yet, the law should be implemented exactly as it is, no matter the caliber, character, or position of the disputants.
If Bawa, as the head of an enforcement agency, failed to comply with court orders and follow due procedure, the Inspector General of Police, Alkali Baba Usman, who was mandated by the court to guarantee the enforcement of the order, should have done so.
But the police high command said it was not aware of the order and so did not carry out the enforcement.
It is not the first time that the EFCC, the police and other government agencies, have disobeyed a court order, the rule of law and due process. There have been several examples of persons disobeying court orders, even agencies that are supposed to set an example.
When the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) appealed the National Industrial Court’s ruling ordering it to cease its strike, the Appeal Court ordered ASUU to first respect the lower court’s order before considering its plea. A demonstration of the due process of the rule of law. This should be the standard.
Therefore, the risk of establishing double standards on legal matters is that the leader sends a message that the law can be ignored, violated and disobeyed.
It now appears as if the Nigerian constitution loses its supremacy in the dispensation of justice anytime it decides in favour of prominent Nigerians holding public offices only to regain it when it comes to disputes involving ordinary citizens.