Fit to wake the Dead

Mrs. Patience Jonathan

$31.4 million! And another $5 million. And another $15 million. Total $51.4 million! All linked to the wife of a former President of the Federal Republic.

The former First Lady had petitioned the anti-graft agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) claiming ownership of the first. In the course of investigation, the second and third surfaced.

And now I hear something about $15 million of that money being meant for settlement of the former First Lady’s medical bills! Medical bills incurred since 2013 when her husband was the President of the country. Medical bills already fully paid by the Nigerian State.

Wonderful! This must be one hail of an ailment. And one hail of a hospital too. Surely such hospital could wake the dead and cause the corpse to walk. Come to think of it, the former First Lady once claimed that she actually died but God chased her back to earth.

I don't even know who to be angry with – Mrs. Patience Jonathan – for insulting our intelligence – or those who swallowed the insult and still defend her claim that the money was for her medical bill.

$15 million medical bill! What is/was her ailment? Or is/was she cloning herself or recreating another Patience Jonathan?

I opine that in a corruption case, once a prima facie case has been established that a suspect or accused has money, assets or property, or is living a lifestyle well beyond his legitimate income, the onus of proof should shift from the prosecution and rest squarely on the accused. Thus, the legal requirement should be on the accused to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the subject of prosecution is not a product of corruption

Now, I read someone trying desperately to argue that all that money could have been gift. Apart from this line of argument being a an unintelligent attempt to disguise the insult, I posit that if true, then that is exactly why her husband’s regime was such a disaster; and why the country was taken for granted under his watch.

Gift! What a gift! Looking at the moral angle, could any leader of a country refuse whoever doles out such gift to his wife, even if what the gift giver wants sabotages the country's national interest? On what moral/legitimate ground could a president of a country, much less his wife, receive such a gift? What was at stake?

I also read another person argue that the $31.4 million could be the proceeds of investment. The writer challenged the EFCC to prove that the money was proceeds of corruption. Of course it could be legitimate investment, but the question is if it was legitimately earned why deposit such money in the personal account of a domestic servants who were neither signatories to the account nor were they aware of its existence?  Even more curious is the fact that Madam Jonathan is the sole signatory to the account. Yet the account does not legitimately belong to her. 

Let us not deceive ourselves. Anyone who could go this length has something to hide. Admittedly, proving the case would be near impossible; but that is not because there is no case against Mrs. Jonathan. Proving the case would be difficult simply because of our legal system which is at best a morass. Our legal seems to have been deliberately enacted to aid and facilitate fraud. Our so called leaders know this, and have been manipulating the loopholes to advantage. Mrs. Jonathan knows that the worst case scenario would be for the case to end up in plea-bargaining.

There is no doubt that our justice system does need a comprehensive overhaul if we are to make any headway as a nation. That overhaul, in my view, must not only be total but also novel. It should include, for instance, the removal of the extant legal requirement of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" before a prosecutor can secure conviction on a corruption case.

I opine that in a corruption case, once a prima facie case has been established that a suspect or accused has money, assets or property, or is living a lifestyle well beyond his legitimate income, the onus of proof should shift from the prosecution and rest squarely on the accused. Thus, the legal requirement should be on the accused to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that the subject of prosecution is not a product of corruption.

This may sound extreme and bizarre, but truth is an unusual problem requires an unusual measure to solve. Our legal system, as it is today, is incapable of tackling official corruption.

But beyond all this, I am curious to know how transactions running into millions of Dollars passed through a bank account without them being reported to relevant authorities as required by the Money Laundering Prohibition Act. Or were they reported and the EFCC and NDLEA – then under President Jonathan – turned theirs eyes away? Your guess is as good as mine.