Oputa Panel ......What Next?

by

Louis Odion 

"Truth crushed to the earth shall rise again"
-Shakespeare paraphrased

It is impossible to contemplate the idea of the Human Rights Violation Investigation Commission in isolation of seance, a psychic process that enables a dialogue between the spirit of the dead and the living towards unearthing some truths. Truths so extracted are supposed to heal the wounds of the minds of the living. But as we learnt from folk tales, it is never always a smooth process. Accidents do happen during the auguries of the contending principalities.

By 1999, what the Nigerian nation was seeking in political terms could be described as a form of seance in order to come to terms with her own murdered past. The nation was emerging from a wilderness of ruinous military rule. The old values of society had been debased. The blood of innocents had been spilt. The public till had been robbed. So, the nation said it wanted reconciliation. In political terms, reconciliation presupposes that balance and harmony have been lost in society, resulting in loss of confidence in one another.

However, against initial projection, the Commission did not take off until a year later. But barely a year on, it would appear that Nigeria's own seance is beginning to be menaced- ironically- by the truths it is seeking to unearth. The signs are already emerging. By the time-table, the commission which opened shop last October is supposed to round off early next month having moved round the nation. But many questions have been left unanswered.

The idea really is fashioned after the epic Truth Commission that heard cases of abuses in South Africa following the demise of Apartheid. But of curiosity is the fact that terms of reference of the commission do not include the amnesty clause. In South Africa, it was possible for former foes to step forward and confess the diabolism they wished each other yesterday in the firm assurance that no criminal charge would be preferred against them afterwards. Perhaps, if it could be said there was any form of reconciliation in South Africa through the instrumentality of the Truth Commission, the credit is due substantially to this amnesty guarantee.

The fact that there is no such amnesty clause in the terms of reference of Oputa Commission has made one thing inevitable: witnesses have tended to colour some facts and withhold some truths. General Dipo Diya, despite overwhelming evidence, would not agree that he actually plotted to seize power from General Sani Abacha in December 1997. Justice Chukwudifu Oputa himself has stated times and again that what most of the witnesses have busied themselves with in the last ten months is telling lies.

This leads naturally to another question: what happens after all the stories? Many persons have accused of grave transgression against fellow Nigerians. For instance, General Ibrahim Babangida has been accused of grave felonies including kleptocracy and allegations that his regime masterminded the murder of the celebrated journalist, Dele Giwa, on October 19, 1986. Curiously enough, people like Babangida have so far refused to appear before the commission to answer the charges. Will that be the end of the case? Will the commission recommend that criminal charges be formally commenced against such defiants?

In the terms of reference of the commission, the body is supposed to hear cases of human rights abuses alleged from the advent of military rule to 1999. Of course, these would include cases of perceived state murders, unjust incarcerations, security men-to-civilian cruelties among other forms of abuses. The five-point terms of reference read:

• Ascertain or establish the causes, nature and extent of human rights violations or abuses with particular reference to all known or suspected cases of mysterious deaths and assassinations or attempted assassinations committed in Nigeria between the 1st day of January 1984 and the 28th of May, 1999;
  
  
• Identify the person or persons' authorities, institutions or organisations which may be held accountable for such mysterious deaths, assassinations or abuses of human rights and determine the motives of the violations or abuses, the victims and circumstances thereof and the effect on such victims or the society generally of the atrocities;
  
  
• Determine whether such abuses or violations were the product of deliberate state policy or the policy of any of its organs or institutions or whether they arose from abuses by state officials of their office or whether they were acts of any political organisations, liberation movements or other groups or individuals;
  
  
• Recommend measures which may be taken whether judicial, administrative, legislative or institutional to redress the injustices of the past and prevent or forestall future violations or abuses of human rights;
  
  
• Make any other recommendations which are, in the opinion of the Judicial Commission, in the public interest and are necessitated by the evidence.
  
  In letter, the commission is supposed to make recommendations to the Federal government at the end of the exercise. But in spirit, it is supposed to help achieve healing and reconciliation between the predators of yesterday and the prey. But just how much of this has been achieved? The first condition for forgiveness is supposed to include admission of sin by the aggressor and show of remorse. Indeed, not before then can there be skin-deep healing.
  
  Another critical point is the argument by legal authorities like Chief FRA Williams that the commission exists in a constitutional void. On behalf of General Babangida who did not want to appear when subpoenaed last December, Chief Williams contended before the Federal High Court, Lagos that the Oputa panel is an illegal body with no authority to conduct judicial inquisition into what happened in the past. The renowned lawyer argued that Cap 447 being the existing law ought to have been brought in conformity with the 1999 Constitution through validation by the National Assembly, failure of which makes its existence invalid as it clashes with the provisions of the constitution as enunciated in Attorney General of Benue State versus Ogwu. In the submission which spanned 38 pages, the kernel of Williams' argument was:
  
  
• Whether or not the Tribunals of Inquiry Act Cap 447, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria is constitutional and valid;
  
  
• Whether or not section 5, 5(d), 10, 11(1)(b), 11(3), 11(4) and 12 of the tribunal of Inquiry Act, Cap 447, are constitutional and valid or are inconsistent with the provisions of section 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution and invalid;
  
  
• What is the legal consequence of the answers to the first two questions with particular reference to the appointment and terms of reference of the Oputa Panel by Section One sub-section 8 of the 1999 Constitution as amended section one sub-section 13; and
  
  
• In the light of the answers to questions (1) (iii), are the plaintiffs entitled to claims on their originating summons?
  
  Williams argued that the subsistence of Cap 447 after the constitution has come into effect is determined by section 315 of the 1999 constitution which stipulates that for it to be valid, it must have been passed by the National Assembly, House of Assembly or appropriate authority which by order is empowered to make modifications to bring such a provision to conformity with the constitution. Invoking the authority of Doherty Versus Balewa (1961) 1 ANLR 604, Williams submitted that Cap 447 can only be applicable to matters and things within the then Federal Capital Territory of Lagos having been set up by the military in 1966. In this circumstance, he said that no mention was made of the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja nor did the matters being handled border on matters for which the law was enacted.
  
  When disclosures hurt
  The chairman of the commission, Justice Chukwudifu Oputa Thursday visited Aso Rock, the seat of power, to hold a closed door meeting with President Olusegun Obasanjo. Justice Oputa, fondly called Socrates in legal circles, would keep sealed lips after the parley. Instead, he would refer all enquiries on the outcome of the visit to the office of the Special Assistant to Obasanjo on Media and Publicity, Mr. Tunji Oseni.
  
  But feelers emerging from Aso Rock indicate that the presidency may not have been too comfortable with the shocking revelations emerging from the sittings of the commission in recent times particularly with grave allegations being levelled against the person of the former head of state, General Abdulsalami Abubakar over the mysterious death of Nigeria's famous political prisoner, Chief MKO Abiola on July 7, 1998 in what is potentially pointing to an explosive fall-out.
  
  General Abubakar is not alone. The two heads of state before him have also been dragged into disturbing controversies. The name of his fellow townsman and one-time boss, General Ibrahim Babangida, has been mentioned several times over the Dele Giwa affair. Only on Wednesday, the Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, said during the hearing of his petition against the Abacha regime that he had information to give on the fifteen-year-old puzzle. Alhaji Umaru Dikko, the enfant terrible of the conservative wing of the northern political establishment, has also accused Major General Muhammadu Buhari as the mastermind of the failed bid to kidnap him in London in 1984, naming Lt. General Theophilus Danjuma, the incumbent Minister of Defence, as the go-between in the $10 million kidnap attempt involving Israeli mercenaries.
  
  The presidency, it would appear, is under intense pressure not only from its own intelligence department which is organically predisposed to become edgy when "matters of national security" become the stape of open debate but also from some other forces whose interests appear endangered.
  
  In the last two weeks, for instance, a story has been peddled around that the family of a former head of state who have been at the receiving end of the transparency campaign of the Obasanjo administration is set to hit back by creating a crisis of confidence in the government's security circle using the instrumentality of the Oputa Commission. The penchant of Major Hamzat Mustapha to give expose- even when unsolicited- on high-level security arrangement of the past is said to be part of this conspiracy. Indeed, whenever Major Mustapha, Chief Security Adviser to the late General Sani Abacha, makes such disclosure, wild applause is what usually greet him from the gallery of the hall, leaving the commission members on the high table to watch with embarrassment. A development which Justice Oputa himself seems to be displeased about. During a chat with newsmen shortly before going into the closed door meeting with President Obasanjo Thursday, Oputa had frowned at the way people applaud witnesses at the commission sittings, describing such as a distraction:
  
  "Majority of those who come to clap during our sittings do not understand what the people they cheer have said and I believe that Nigerians need to change their attitude towards fellow human beings," Oputa said.
  
  But one thing is clear: feathers are being ruffled invariably by the revelations being made at the commission. And the pages of the newspapers appear the new theatre of war. The case of Chief Abiola has easily become the case. In the beginning, Major Mustapha submitted that the "powers-that-be" masterminded the death of Abiola. Given that the state at that material time was personified more or less by General Abubakar, his second-in-command, Admiral Mike Akhigbe and the Chief of Army of Staff, Lt. General Ishaya Bamaiyi, the easy conjecture then was that the search for the truth could not transcend their trinity. The picture was made clearer in December when the former Director of the Directorate of Military Intelligence, Brigadier General Ibrahim Sabo stated point-blank that following the death of General Abacha on June 8, 1998, General Bamaiyi suggested to him "Don't you think it is better now to also kill Abiola so as to balance the equation?"
  
  Another perspective to the matter was given Thursday in Abuja by a police officer, ASP Theodore Zoddack, who was the personal guard to Abiola to his last day. While testifying before the commission in Abuja, ASP Zoddack stated that Abiola was hale and hearty up till the moment he escorted him to the venue of a scheduled meeting with a delegation from United States. On that fateful day, he said he received a radio message from the Chief Security Officer to General Abdulsalami Abubakar, Major A. S. Aliyu, to bring Abiola from the detention camp to the Aguda House for the meeting. He said up till the moment he left Abiola to go and pass a message to Admiral Akhigbe on the order of the CSO, the detainee was mentally alert and physically fit. He, therefore, asked the panel to invite the CSO to explain the circumstances under which the politician drank the tea that resulted in the cough that finally killed him. He expressed curiosity that tea could be served Abiola behind him when the statutory practice was that on no account should any edible be given him without having passed through his security clearance as his personal guard.
  
  The noose around the neck of General Abubakar would seem to have tightened further by another revelation by General Sabo later that the former head of state manifested "high propensity of looking for money and grumbling loudly any time he did not get his wish". Before now, Mustapha had alleged that he handed over N500 million cash and dozens of luxury cars in his custody officially to General Abubakar after Abacha's death and said that the money was pocketed by the general while the fancy cars were shared to his pals and girl-friends.
  
  According to Sabo, the Abubakar regime pillaged the economy, siphoning several billions in both local and foreign currencies including $40 million allegedly contributed by a consortium of multi-national companies to General Abacha towards the actualisation of his self-successsion bid. He also alleged that the general gave out the contract for the printing of the N100, N200 and N500 currency notes at the inflated rate of $45 per N1000 even when the preceding Abacha regime was offering the contract for $10 per N1000. Similarly, he said the regime of General Abubakar got an Israeli contractor to supply the conventional crash helmet used by cyclists in the place of ballistic helmets for Nigerian troops that participated in ECOMOG operations. He also alleged that a pincely sum of $1 m was supposed to be the "parting gift" to members of the Provisional Ruling Council as civilians prepared to take over power in May 1999 but this was later reviewed to $500,000 and said he later confirmed what each member got was $50,000. He, therefore, urged the panel to ask the general to account for the disparity.
  
  Sabo's revelations would appear to have made a mince-meat of an advertorial which appeared in some newspapers a day earlier signed by faceless "friends of General Alhaji Abubakar" which attempted to portray him as a fine "officer and gentleman" who "brought a gush of fresh air into the lives of Nigerians after they nearly all got asphyxiated under Al-Mustapha and his boss". On the question of N500 million Mustapha claimed he handed over, they asked rhetorically: "Was the N500 million in physical cash? Surely, this would require at least eight bullion trucks to haul, as the highest denomination in the country then was the N50 note. How was the money handed over: by courier, personally or cheque?"
  
  They averred that contrary to the picture being painted by Mustapha, General Abubakar should be seen as the "authentic hero" who made the retreat of soldiers to the barracks possible in 1999.
  
  The accusations and counter-accusations are bound to continue. But the question that agitate the minds of many is: will this be the end of the story? Definitely, Abuja cannot be comfortably with all this. One, a number of issues involved verged not only on "national security" but also on public morality, especially considering that this is a government that is making an issue out of probity and accountability.
  
  To a certain group, too much liberty is given by the commission to witnesses to "run their mouths" during the hearing of the case. To them, the commission should have applied some checks to ensure that certain things are not said in the open like that. This group, it would appear, are the one that is presently in the vanguard of the campaign to make the presidency buy the theory that there is a conspiracy to destabilise the government through the Oputa Panel.
  
  This is the new worry of Abuja.