THE DAME PATIENCE JONATHAN CONUNDRUM & THE AUDACITY OF CORRUPTION- STEVE AUSTIN NWABUEZE (OPINION)

It’s been exactly 16 months since President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan peacefully and I dare say, gracefully even if certain facts surrounding his tenure are unedifying, left the imposing walls of Aso Rock as the 4^th democratically elected  President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with his wife, Dame Patience Jonathan . That is no longer news. What is news however is that the media has been awash in recent weeks of a $15M slush fund credited to a company under investigation for money laundering and allegedly linked to Patience Jonathan. Anybody who expected her to maintain the same level of equanimity and low profile like her husband particularly in view of the jolting circumstances under which the Presidential election was won and lost, must have been gravely mistaken.

 Mama Peace as she prefers to be called has epitomized anything but peace in her desperate but quite  characteristic bid to stake her claims to a fraction of the  filthy lucre pilfered by desperate politicians determined to plunder the common wealth. Dame Patience Jonathan had in her characteristically bullish manner through her legal representatives, demanded the un-freezing of her account within 14 days by the EFCC or she would contest the propriety of the action of the anti-corruption agency.

More disturbing is the fact that this is coming at a time the entire nation is tethering and reeling from the ravages of corruption that have plagued the entire nation for decades.  The entire nation has been lying prostrate in utter capitulation to the unbridled and unprecedented sleaze that has engulfed this country particularly in the last decade. 

The fact as presented in the media is that certain companies accused of violating the Money Laundering Prohibition Act were under investigation by the EFCC. The companies and their directors were arrested and charged to court. These companies and their directors were arraigned before a court of competent jurisdiction. The charges were read to them and they claimed to have understood the charges. They voluntarily pleaded guilty before they were lawfully and properly convicted by the court. There has been no suggestion whether expressly or covertly by the companies’ legal representatives that the confession was obtained under suspicious circumstances. Incidentally, the defendants were domestic staff to the former First Lady and were made Directors of the said company.   Unless and until the judgment is set aside on appeal, it would remain forever. In the eyes of the law, all the proceeds of the crime have been lawfully forfeited to the state.

Legally speaking, Madame Patience’s company is a different entity from her even if she is a Director. The Company is therefore licensed to own property including cash. However, in situations where the company is found guilty of infringing on the provisions of the law, the court would look at the Directors of the company as the directing mind and will of the company to impute guilt and punish accordingly in view of the fact that the issue of legal personality is a legal fiction which the law would circumvent in appropriate cases to punish infractions of the law by the company. Her advisors must have advised against appointing her a Director to deflect attention from her when the bubble bursts as it has done in this instance. How else does one explain the rather ludicrous situation of a signatory to an account of a company claiming ownership of the funds when she is not even a Director?

 Instances abound of situations where a signatory is not the owner of the account. The Accountant in a big establishment, the Bursar of a school et al are usually signatories to accounts containing tons of money which they don’t own. One is therefore curious to see how her lawyers argue this case.  Having incorporated a company for the purpose of ventilating this shady act, Madame Patience must have assumed the risk of forfeiting her loot in the event of a successful investigation by security agencies.

This has been made relatively easier by the introduction of the BVN policy by the CBN which has ensured that the various accounts linked to individuals are covered by one BVN number. Is madam Patience the owner of the BVN number used to link the said accounts? If she is, then it is high time she is invited over for questioning by the EFCC particularly in the light of her claims. My impression however, is that in furtherance of this clandestine liaison, her larkies must have been procured to use their own BVN number. Indeed, I don’t know the position with corporate accounts but it is common sensical to assume that the BVN numbers of individuals must have been used to operate the said accounts most probably the BVN of the accused persons. If this assumption is correct, then her tantrums and hot air should be ignored altogether and traversed appropriately in the event she makes good her threat to go to court.

Indeed, in ordinary civil proceedings in court, the rightful claimant to a disputed property can come forward and file what is called an Interpleader summons to underline his claims with an affidavit in support adumbrating on his claims. Judgment is then entered accordingly on the preponderance of evidence. This is not even the case in this instance particularly in view of the criminal innuendoes that pervade the entire transaction. No court would entertain such an application on the ground of public policy except the Claimant is absolved of complicity in the matter.

In a criminal proceeding, since the State is the accuser, it doesn’t cherry-pick whom to prosecute. Parties are picked as events unravel themselves. Unless a third party has in some way been implicated by the original defendants, such third party cannot be made a party to criminal proceeding. The Defendants in this case apparently have not implicated Madame Patience to the extent of warranting an invitation to the law enforcement body. Suffice it to say that the EFCC still has its focus firmly riveted on the company itself being a different entity from the owners. The converse would have been the case had the defendants laundered the money in her name albeit allegedly. She would have been not just a party but a necessary party to the proceedings whose presence would be relevant for the eventual determination of her guilt or otherwise.

Lawyers of reputable backgrounds have argued that her right to fair hearing has been infringed for failure to ask her questions concerning the account before freezing it. This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the company is in law and in fact a different entity from her even if she is the owner of the company and therefore eligible to own assets including cash. It is therefore not within her purview to arrogate the rights that inure to the company to herself. She therefore lacks the locus standi to bring any action on the funds of the company. Secondly, being a criminal proceeding, no court would entertain such suit on the ground of public policy particularly since the money is not standing in her name.

Taking a cursory look at the personality in question;  This was a woman who was actively mired in the controversy that trailed the politics of her home state , Rivers State against the then Governor Rotimi Amaechi. Politicians and contractors alike constantly paid homage to Aso Villa not in respect of the President, but his wife who was considered powerful enough to scuttle their chances of getting favours from the Presidency. To the consternation of Lagosians, “Mama Peace” would pay un-scheduled visits to Lagos and leave in her trail a long stretch of traffic in the commercial city for hours without the slightest consideration of the peculiar terrain of the city as major roads would have to be cordoned off in deference to the “Fisrt Lady”. A visibly angry Governor Fashola had in frustration publicly condemned this attitude. 

This was also a woman who had to be placated with an appointment as Permanent Secretary by Governor Seriake Dickson in a sickening capitulation and acknowledgment of her political powers. In the thick of electioneering, this same woman had labeled President Buhari “Brain-dead”. Madame Patience had during the controversial tenure of her husband as President betrayed an embarrassing streak of a contentious and controversial figure and cut the figure of an uncouth and unruly First Lady shorn of the refinement that the position demands. Even though the office of the First Lady is more ornamental than functional, Dame Patience elevated that position to an elective position. Her vindictiveness reared its ugly head early on when she took her Predecessor, Turai Yar’Adua to Court over a plot of land she claimed she needed for her pet project knowing full well that a formal request to the FCT Minister would have given her any parcel of land at an area of her choice in the FCT to carry out her pet project. She insisted on the divisive, tenuous and fractious option of litigation until she was deservedly trounced in court.  

The same self-styled First Lady had embarked on a trip to her home state, Rivers State in sheer bravado during the Guber elections in the state without a thought as to the high level tension the move generated. She assumed the position of the opposition in the state and employed all the instruments of coercion at her disposal like a pariah to foment trouble. The consequences were understandably  internecine and devastating. Yet, when the table turned at the polls for her and her cronies who craved a perpetuation of the biggest financial heist in the annals of this country, she adopted a siege mentality to curry the sympathy of he traducers.

This was a woman who was reportedly hospitalized in Germany to tackle a yet to be identified life-threatening ailment and came out of it and vowed to become a better person. A thanksgiving ceremony was held in church where she apologized to everybody she has wronged and vowed to become a better person. And so what happened to that “born again” Ex First Lady and what happened to her resolve to become a better person?

Dame Patience never had chains of companies to record a turn-over of $15m in a single company to lay claims to its ownership. Where are her tax returns to know how much of her earnings she has given back to the Nigerian economy?. Was the former First Lady arrogating the perks of a  political office holder to herself while her husband was in power and used that to shield herself from investigation? Even if her salary as First Lady is charged on the national treasury one is curious to see how much she has amassed in savings to gross over $15M within a very short time. Let us not forget that this is just a single company whose shady deals have come to the fore. The EFCC must generate more forensic evidence to fish out more of these companies used to launder slush funds.

This woman must either have a water-tight case to have the effrontery to lay such claims or she must be wallowing in a pitiable delusion to assume it is going to be business as usual when her words were law.

This issue does not call for unnecessary lachrymal effusions nor needless dissipation of energy. It calls for a concerted effort by the security agencies to do more digging on this woman who has an uncommon talent of generating mind-boggling turnovers at the shortest possible time. The sentiment that we should let sleeping dogs lie should be discountenanced in entirety while efforts are channeled to unravel this mystery. After all, we may be close to a major breakthrough in our assets recovery drive and no force should be spared.

We must separate sentiments, emotions, sympathy or political consideration from the due process of the law.

Steve Austin Nwabueze is a Lagos-based Lawyer and can be contacted via

e-mail @vivakaizer@yahoo.com