The hypocrisy of criminalizing a guilty plea

Perhaps, it is because the origin of the legal system is foreign, that is why a lot of Nigerians had always exhibited crass ignorance, on the highly technical matters of the prosecutorial processes within the refined confines of a courtroom but should we blame them, after all, it is said that; justice must not only be done within a judicial chamber, it must seem to be done within the mindset of the public. Thus it is highly understandable yet inexcusable, the opprobrium generated by the highly flabbergasted Nigerian people, about the conviction and light sentencing of Mr. John Yakubu Yusuf for 2 years to run concurrently, with an option of the payment of 750 thousand naira as a fine, who is an Assistant Director at the Nigerian Police Pension Office, on a 20 count charge bordering on criminal conspiracy, theft, money laundering, breach of trust and the conversion of pension funds entrusted in his care, into a personal usage, belonging to the Nigerian Police Pension Fund. A charge brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission under section 309 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 532 Laws of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The premises of the interdiction lie in the allegation on the accused of converting individually and collectively with others, the various sums of 24.2 billion, 1.3 billion and 1.7 billion naira into purposes other than which it is meant to be administered, which also includes the unlawful acquisition of a vast number of choice properties, that had been acquired from the proceeds of illegally procured funds of the Nigerian police retirees. When the story hit the airwaves and the print, the reaction was immediate, swift and in unison, which is a total condemnation of the conviction, especially the length of the sentencing, which is to run concurrently or rather the option of the payment of a paltry sum as a fine, an act that I could gladly align with but the attempt at impugning the whole of the judiciary is highly erroneous, because a judge applies justice by the virtue of provable facts before him and subject to the provisions of the codified law applicable, which is this instance case is the applying of section 309 of the Penal Code and upon a conviction, it had decreed a sanction of 2 years with an option of the payment of a fine for similar type offences. Right from time immemorial and within the development of civilization, human beings have adopted the operation of the rule of law, to govern, organize and develop the whole society and one of its fundamental principles is the concept of separation of power, which is a system that entails the three arms of a government to be independent in their functions, yet cooperating with each other in the provision of necessary essentials of power, which are governance, infrastructure, security, leadership and justice. However, from the context of this specific discourse, it is important to note that the function and responsibility of enacting laws, has always been placed on the legislature, which is a body of elected representatives of the people, constitutional endowed and authorized to make laws. While the judiciary is only enabled to interpret such legislative enactments, which within such limited confines has given rise to judicial enactments, that is a situation when a judge sitting in chamber delivers judgment, which becomes a binding precedent on lower and equal courts of superior record, raising the term and a referral of the Doctrine of Binding Precedent as a judge made law. Of course, the enormity of a crime which has captured the imagination, the deep disapproval and almost a universal condemnation, could tempt a judge to seek to make such a law, by giving a sentence that is not within our codified statute books, as an expression of dissatisfaction with the penalty contained therein. Unfortunately, such judicial activism is neither tolerable within the law, nor acceptable to procedural conventions of justice guided by tendered facts, as against the earlier times and periods when the law was applied at the whimsical urgings of a mob action, which could be momentarily great but deeply imbued with the possibility of the misapplication the law and institutionalization of injustice. A wide gulf that announces the rule of law, which also separates a society of unenlightened savages from a colony of civilized modern state, governed by an established norms and values codified in an agreed constitutional document. In fact, despite the widely generated condemnations, could a country that tolerates illicit acquisition of wealth, express such emotive outrage on an integral part of itself, as represented by its judiciary. The simple truth is that every Nigerian knows it takes a number of years to obtain a valid conviction, were a proper trial is to be conducted, which in this instant case did not happen, because the accused easily pleaded guilty, while forfeiting his illegally acquired assets to the government, serving as a mitigating factor in sentencing, while his status as a first time offender is a factual reality to be noted, during the delivery of judgment. Thus, if justice is about reforming an offender, rather than punishing a convict, an admittance of guilt is one sure way of celebrating a legal system, while the lack of resolve and unprofessionalism within a prosecutorial body like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, that lends to the inability to trace stolen funds and assets for judicially authorized confiscations, should not be entirely blamed on a whole system governed by a group of fallible gentlemen.