On June 19, 1984, the late Chief Rotimi Williams stood before the Public officers (protection against false accusation) Decree 4 of 1984 Tribunal headed by late Justice Olalere Ayinde. Williams was the counsel to two Guardian journalists, Nduka Irabor and Tunde Thompson who were both charged before the tribunal for false publication.

Chief Williams, in his attempt to exculpate his clients, not on the substance of the charge but on certain technical details regarding the charges, laboured on for hours to convince the tribunal on the innocence of the two journalists. As I sat down in that court room of the Federal High court 1, Ikoyi, Lagos as a reporter, where the tribunal was sitting, I couldn't but admire the industry and intelligence of that old man. Even if you didn't agree with him, you would respect him.

On this day, Chief Williams was trying to draw a distinction between "writing" and "publishing". The charge read that the two reporters "published" the contentious story. As it is often the case in cases of this nature, a lawyer would always raise some recondite points of law to exculpate his clients and that was exactly what Chief Williams was trying to do in this situation. He told the tribunal that neither Irabor nor Thompson published the statements before the tribunal, nor was there any evidence that they induced Guardian newspapers to publish them.

According to them, they merely reported a story but did not publish them.

It is in this context that I look at the case of Dr Peter Odili, the former Governor of Rivers State and the Economic and Financial crimes Commission (EFCC)which was decided in favour of the former Governor last week. I want to admit that in cases of this nature, particularly where people have pre-determined mindsets, rationality usually takes flight. Emotion and uninformed reactions hold sway.

In his one and a half hour judgment, Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Federal High court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC from arresting or prosecuting the former Governor. Predictably, the verdict elicited mixed reactions. For the implacable foes of the former Governor, this was a travesty of justice, because as far as they are concerned, the plaintiff is guilty of corruption even without trial. And among the army of these critics are some lawyers who ordinarily would have jumped at the offer of accepting the brief if they had been approached.

However, my concern here is to put these issues in proper perspective, perhaps, that may help in analysing the issues and also elevate the discourse before the predictable name-calling and rabble-rousing that beclouds proper appreciation of the issues at stake.

I wish to point out from the onset that am not averse to criticism of judges and judgments, even if it is Supreme court. For example, I had cause to vehemently disagree with the Supreme court some years ago in the Mohammed Abacha judgment by the Supreme court. But in this Odili case, some of the reactions have been ill informed.

This last week`s judgment was predicated on a previous judgment by another Federal High Court in suit no FHC/PH/C5/78/2007 in the case of Attorney-General of Rivers State v Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and Rivers State House of Assembly. This suit was filed on February 23, 2007 and judgment delivered on march 20, 2007.

In this case, the State government had raised some very serious points of law in respect of the powers of the EFCC vis-a-vis the powers of the State House of Assembly in terms of investigation the finances of a state. In addition to this, the state government also wanted the court to nullify the purported findings of the EFCC on the alleged investigation carried out by the agency in the state. At the hearing, the extent of the powers of the commission, particularly sections 6 and 7 of the EFCC act came up for interpretation.
The EFCC was represented in this hearing wherein it filed a 21- paragraph counter-affidavit and was represented by a counsel during the hearing.

A particular contentious issue was the interpretation of section 7 of the EFCC Act which gives the agency the power to investigate any "person", "corporate body" or "organisation" not governments.

In its 112 page-judgment, the trial judge, Justice Buba made reference to section 125 of the 1999 constitution which stipulates the functions of the auditor-general of a state particularly sub-section 6 which states:” In the exercise of his functions under this constitution, the Auditor-General for a state shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other authority and person."

According to the judge, the 1999 constitution, being a Federal one, the Federal government agencies "shall not in disregard of the provisions of the constitution undermine the smooth operation of the units that make up the federation or interfere with the operation of the units...It is submitted that investigation is a complex matter by the 1st defendant. It is not straight jacket but it must be legal and according to law.

The first defendant should not be seen to be disregarding the constitution in playing its role under the act establishing it. Investigations should also be geared towards finding out the truth but not geared towards taking over an arm of government or a state government in the name of investigation. This is contrary to the spirit and philosophy behind the framers of our constitution and the EFCC Act of 2004.

Having considered the circumstances and facts of this case, the admissions vis-a-vis the provisions of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999; especially sections 120-128 and section 188 of the constitution vis-a-vis the provisions of sections 1, 6, 7, 34 of the EFCC Establishment Act no. 1 of 2004; the actions of the 1st defendant and the interpretation of the provisions of the said constition together with Exhibit HAG 1,2 and all the averments before me. I am of the opinion that the case of the plaintiff has merit. It is bound to succeed, it has succeeded."

In conclusion, the judge therefore admonished the operators of the Federal system. He said: "This case reminds me of what I read on separation of powers that:
"It is interesting to note that many Bible scholars see Isaiah as the small depiction of the Bible. That there are 66 books in the Bible and 66 chapters in Isaiah. They are clearly divided into sections, Chapters 1-39 (they are 39 books in the old testament and chapters 40-66 (they are 27 books in the new testament). The theme also corresponds with the 1st set of chapters addressing law and Government of God and the second group covering grace and salvation of God. I am done. so be it."

After this judgment, the EFCC that was represented throughout the proceedings, did not lodge an appeal at the court of appeal on this judgment. Having waited in vain for the agency to challenge the judgment within the three-month time frame, Dr Odili again approached the Federal High court in the recent case, seeking a perpetual injunctive relief's against the anti-graft agency, which was granted last week after full arguments. This is the thrust of my opening illustration of this piece. A lawyer's duty is to defend his client, using all his legal and technical wherewithals. This is in consonance with the law. That is why I feel amused reading some peoples reactions alluding to the fact that Odili was evading arrest by using the court.

Perhaps, if he had gotten an ex-parte order stopping his arrest and prosecution, that criticism might have been justified. But for someone who approached a court to exercise his fundamental right when his right was about to be infringed, to be pilloried for exercising such steps, beats my imagination.
For the avoidance of doubt, section 46 of the 1999 constitution is clear on this.

Section 46(1):"Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High court for redress".

This is exactly what he has done in this matter. That is why I feel saddened when I read the press statement of my good friend Osita Nwajah, the spokesman for EFCC when he said "Odili can only run but can`t hide. We shall arrest and prosecute him after some time".

While it is gratifying that he said the agency would appeal the judgment, which is good, but to now descend to the arena with personal attacks smacks of vendetta and persecution. When court verdicts favour the agency, it is good but the moment it goes against them, the judiciary get pilloried. Sometime in October last year, I had cause to criticise Ribadu when he accused judges of colluding with politicians by giving ex-parte orders inorder to share their loot.

Even though the top echelon of the agency are my friends, that did not stop me from attacking them if I feel strongly about it, like the case of the freezing of the bank accounts of THE SUN through ex parte order, just because EFCC wants to fight Orji Kalu. Does it mean that the agency colluded with the judge to grant such patently outrageous order? I accused Ribadu of judicial blackmail.

I have always held the view that we should stop personalising this anti-corruption war. What has EFCC done to a "Mrs. Iyabo Akinlawon" of the Siemens scandal who does not have any injunction against the agency?
I don`t particularly get carried away by corruption allegation, not just against public officers but also against private people. I have heard lots of allegations of corruption against Editors but I always tell those who flaunt such allegations to bring evidence. But there is none because you will discover that these people have some axe to grind with some editors who perhaps give their opponents more space than them. Nigeria is a rumour mill.Editors are used to such mills.

I know some people who can swear on their mother`s grave that the top echelon on EFCC is corrupt. I don`t believe it. Ribadu may be brash, abrasive, garrulous and presumptious, but I can vouch for his honesty and integrity. Same for my brother Dapsy, the Chief of Staff, who is as poor as church rat (sorry, church rats are no longer poor because God has blessed His church).

Presumption is as bad as false accusation. In this clime where every elected public officer is
seen as a rogue, it`s difficult to convince otherwise. Odili may have been a generous person who empowered lots persons and institutions. That perhaps is his undoing because those who could not benefit from his generosity would want him hanged. But the fact is that perception is far from reality.

I believe his generous spirit is his personal trait because I have heard some of his classmates in the medical school who testified to how he paid their school fees in medical school when Odili himself was a medical student. It is assumed that if he could empower people like he did when in government, then he must have acquired a lot. But the fact is contrary. Although this may be a bit difficult for those with the mindset to the contrary.

But perception is different from reality. That is why with all the brouhaha of various allegations against former governors in the last dispensation, there was never a time where a foreign account or property was traced to him, except if by tomorrow, some mischief makers may want to start scavenging for imaginary assets. He was one of the few Governors who hardly traveled out of the country throughout his eight year office. That was how Atiku Abubakar was blackmailed that he had bought the whole of Nigeria .

And who would ever think that with the awesome powers of "Baba", such "facts" never came to light? This is Nigeria where blackmail is the order of the day. Even the so-called interim report of the EFCC that was deviously circulated on the internet but which the court has now nullified, there was nothing special. It was just a contrivance to stop Odili presidential ambition because even in the EFCC affidavit in this case that was Odili won, the agency stated that it started its investigation mid-December 2006. Is it possible to do a one week investigation and write a report within one week?

What happened was that the agency just re-wrote the petition written by the man's opponents and presented it as interim report on the eve of the Presidential convention when the man would not have opportunity of debunking the allegations contained therein. Period. End of story. They were all some tepid presumptions that can never stand legal scrutiny.

It reminds me of the so much hype concerning the alleged fat bank account of late Archbishop Benson Idahosa. Because he preached and lived prosperity, it was assumed that Idahosa was very wealthy. But the fact was that whatever Idahosa had, he gave out without looking back. He once said that "my account is in the red while I am in the green".

When he died, a Catholic Reverend Father made discreet investigations into Idahosa bank accounts and was shocked that the man's account was in the red. Whatever he had, he was giving out, being an apostle of faith. The Reverend Father came to Idahosa`s burial to give this testimony.
What does that tell us? Perception is different from reality.