|
Federal government suspends Yakubu Sankey, acting director-general of NIPSS, for criticising Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan’s ruling on the camera theft scandal in China involving D.A Briggs
The drama began in far away China earlier this year with the disappearance of a digital camera belonging to Lawan Daura, member of course 30 of the National Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies, NIPSS. Daura and other members of the course 30 were in China on tour.
After a prolonged search for the missing camera without luck, the management of the hotel in China where the students had lodged was contacted. The hotel management decided to clear its name by playing back the close circuit television recording of activities in the hotel. This allegedly showed D.A Briggs, one of the course members and an indigene of Bayelsa State, taking the camera and hiding it in his bag.
Thereafter, the drama shifted base to Nigeria - Jos the base of NIPSS and Abuja, where Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan, the chairman of NIPSS board is based.
The management of NIPSS suspended Briggs for the alleged offence but Jonathan directed that the action be suspended for now. Yakubu Sankey, acting director-general of NIPSS, felt the vice-president’s action had the potential of eroding the autonomy of the institute and said so publicly.
By press time last week, Sankey had become victim of the NIPSS theft scandal while Briggs, the suspect was recalled and had actually taken his seat at institute.
Sankey was suspended from office for what the federal government termed “acts of insurbordination, unruly behaviour to the vice-president and acts prejudicial to the security of the state (Nigeria)…which are punishable by summary dismissal.” The letter of his suspension, dated October 16, 2008 was signed by Hakeem Baba Ahmed, a permanent secretary in the office of the secretary to the Government of the Federation, SFG. He was further directed to hand over his office to the most senior director in the institute and await further directive.
Newswatch investigations, however, revealed that the reasons adduced for the suspension of Sankey were indeed a smokescreen to cover the sins of Briggs, as revealed by two panels which investigated the matter. The first, termed Investigative Committee, was set up in July this year, after the Course 30 participants returned from China, where the theft incident took place. Headed by Rasak Okanlawon, an Air Vice Martial, AVM, who also is a study group director at NIPSS, the committee was set up by Akin Akindoyeni, then DG of NIPSS.
Newswatch learnt that the VP was agitated when he received the report of the Investigative Committee which detailed how Briggs was caught in the act. The report contained also an account by Lawal Daura, the victim who is a co-participant in Course 30. Lawal had narrated how Briggs was later found with his camera in China after he had declared it lost for several days, and Briggs claimed ignorance of it on several occasions.
He told the committee that all his colleagues from Nigeria also denied seeing the camera, and that the situation prompted him to accuse the management of the hotel where they lodged in China of being behind the theft. This forced the management of the hotel to play back a close circuit television recording of activities going on there which showed Briggs picking up and hiding the camera in his bag. It was a shame for which the accused could have been jailed in China.
In the report which the committee submitted to Jonathan, in his capacity as chairman of the NIPSS Board, Briggs was painted in bad light.The committee said it found evidence that the accused indeed, picked the camera, kept it on his person and remained silent on two different occasions without releasing it, despite complaints, accusations and ultimatum emanating from Daura, the owner. The committee described the act by the accused as dishonest and abhorrent. The committee members agreed entirely that he stole that camera."The conduct of D.A. Briggs …fulfils both physical and mental requirements of stealing and criminal misappropriation respectively, as defined under the criminal code,” the committee members said in their report. The committee however pointed out that the essential mental element of intent to permanently deprive the owner of the camera is lacking, because Briggs claimed to be suffering from the disease of forgetfulness called amnesia. A nurse was said to have confirmed the disease in him.
The report of the second investigation, by NIPSS’ Appointment and Discipline, AP/DC, committee set up after the first was reviewed by the DG was more damning. The panel said in their report that “the service record of the accused contains several cases of misdemeanour and gross misconduct,” and that the case of the missing camera for which he was investigated, is truly a case of theft, having international ramifications. That aspect of the report tallied with media reports that Briggs had been involved with similar incidences before.
Reports had it that he was at one time also alleged to have stolen $500 from the wallet of Nuhu Ribadu, former Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, chairman , a fellow course participant. In another instance in Lagos, the Benue State head of service, who is also a course participant, was reported to have once accused Briggs of stealing N100,000 from his jacket’s pockets. There was no independent confirmation of these allegations by Newswatch.
The panel went further also to dismiss an aspect of the investigative report which attributed Briggs’ behaviour to amnesia. The panel punctured the basis of the report, pointing out that a nurse was professionally incompetent to make a statement on such a medical condition.
Instead, the panel believed that the issue of memory loss was brought in to divert attention on the real issue of theft at stake. "The issue of memory loss/forgetfulness…seems to be a disingenuous afterthought and an attempt to trivialise a matter that has negative international, national and institutional consequences,” the panel reported. The panel noted also that the issue of memory loss pails into insignificance, when it is noted that Briggs admitted the guilt in his response to a query.
On the strength of what it found, the panel made four recommendations concerning Briggs. The first was for him to be suspended indefinitely, while in the second, the panel asked NIPSS management to withdraw him from further participation in the course. The third recommendation was for the termination of his appointment. In their final recommendation, the AP/DC panel said: “his admission of guilt coupled with other evidence adduced by the Investigation Committee constitutes cogent and concrete proof.”
Newswatch learnt that Jonathan found the contents of the panel’s report unacceptable. He was said to have expressed anger that the NIPSS management had the effrontery to set up a panel and committee that tried a highly placed indigene of Bayelsa State without his prior knowledge.
He promptly moved, on August 6, to ask for advice from Ahmed Gulak, his special adviser on legal and constitutional matters as well as from Michael Aondoakaa, the attorney-general of the federation and minister of justice, AGF.
Both officers were said to have advised the VP against endorsing the action taken by the NIPSS management. This informed the Jonathan’s decision that NIPSS should stay action on the report and maintain a status quo till further notice. Ima Niboro, special adviser to the vice -president on communications, gave details of what Jonathan decided in a press statement in Abuja, September 29.
Niboro said the VP took exception to a statement credited to Sankey. Sankey saw this decision as unfair and said so. He said Jonathan was sabotaging the institute’s autonomy by insisting, when Briggs was suspended, that it must maintain a status quo, pending the determination in a law court of the case involving Briggs.
The vice-president described the DG’s alleged statement as “willful distortion of facts of the matter” and “disrespectful censure of the office of the vice-president.” Details of the advice the VP got were also made public through the press statement.
The legal adviser’s advice, the statement said, was that “only a court of law could try a case of alleged theft before an administrative panel of inquiry could take an action against a staff if the court finds him guilty of the offence alleged.”
That advice was said to have tallied with that of the AGF. Aondoakaa, is reported to have counselled thus: “It is my advice that the director-general, National Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies be directed to refer the matter to the police for investigation, and await the outcome before any administrative action can be taken. I also advise that NIPSS maintains the status quo ante, pending the outcome of police investigation and legal advice thereon, as all actions earlier taken are ultra vires, null and void.”
The vice-president decided that, based on advice he received, the action taken by the management of NIPSS was wrong. "We find as therefore absurd, Sankey’s brash claim to have acted to protect the country’s image, when his ill-advised actions potentially placed our national image in greater danger. Government takes exception to this mischievous attempt to bring the Office of the vice-president to disrepute, and fully intends to treat the circumstances and import of Sankey’s remarks with all seriousness,” Niboro said.
The VP’s action and utterances have since been attracting public condemnation. Soon after the views of the VP were made public, a group called Christian Foundation for Social Justice and Equity, addressed a press conference. Joseph Sangosanya, executive secretary who spoke on behalf of the group, said Jonathan erred.
Sangosanya said, after reviewing the entire episode, the pertinent questions to ask are whether the DG has the power or not to discipline any staff that erred and whether the VP was right in ordering that Briggs be reinstated when he brought international shame to the country. Again, he believes that it is also pertinent that the public should look beyond the action of the VP and examine the issue in correct perspective.
In passing a verdict against Jonathan, he said: “It was established that Briggs picked the camera. Both Briggs and the VP acknowledged that fact. Was Sankey right in his action? This is where the VP also erred. The civil service rule gives chief executives powers to deal with erring staff and that is after following due process. Was due procedure followed in Briggs’ case? I am inclined to say yes.”
Sangosanya drew parallels with what happened in recent past, to justify his stand that Sankey, indeed needed not have waited for police investigation before suspending an erring staff as opined by the VP. “Not long ago, two ministers were sanctioned for their roles in spending some unspent funds from their ministry. What did President Yar’Adua do? He immediately dismissed them before they were taken to the court for them to prove their innocence. A former minister of education and a former senate president were relieved of their positions in similar circumstances and about 16 senior members of staff of the federal ministry of health are still on suspension pending the outcome of the case by the court of justice.”
He explained that where a case has been established against a public servant, the first step is to relieve him of his position until he is proved innocent by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the present case, he said, the acting DG was right in suspending somebody adjudged to have erred and who also has a case of dementia. “If Briggs does not have a sound mind, how do we expect him to fashion a sound policy for Nigeria, more so as the Course 30 participants were to examine critically Yar’Adua’s 7-point agenda and make recommendations?” he asked.
Sangosanya believes that the case of Briggs has brought a moral burden on the present administration’s principle of rule of law. “It means that the law has different interpretations for different classes of people. The VP should allow the action taken by Sankey against Briggs to stand for the interest of justice and fair play. The acting DG was right and the VP wrong, in every aspect with respect to the Briggs, saga,” he said.
Abubakar Innua, an Abuja based lawyer also shares the views of Sangosanya. Innua told Newswatch that the VP made mistakes in his handling of the NIPSS theft scandal and that the blame should go to the legal officers who advised the VP on the matter. He cited over six judgments of the supreme court to support his view that the VP erred, especially in holding that Briggs shouldn’t have been suspended before police investigation was conducted.
One of the cases he cited was Alhaji Lasisi Yusuf Vs Union Bank of Nigeria Limited (1996) 6 SCNJ 203. He said it is a classic case involving master and servant relationship as well as dismissal of employee by employer where common law applies. He explained that it is sufficient in these instances to give employee opportunity of being heard before exercising power of dismissal and that there is no need to have employee tried in court of law before power of dismissal is exercised.
The lead judgement, by Wali, justice of the supreme court, JSC, clearly said it all. “Before an employer can dispense with the service of his employee under the common law, all he needs to do is to afford the employee an opportunity of being heard before exercising his power of summary dismissal, even where the allegation for which the employee is being dismissed involves the accusation of crime… It is not necessary nor is it a requirement under S. 33 of the 1979 constitution that before an employer summary dismisses his employee from his services under the common law, the employee must be tried by a court of law where the accusation against the employee is for gross misconduct involving dishonesty bordering on criminality. I may go further to say that the provisions of S. 33 supra have no application to the facts of this case. See Ransome-Kuti Vs AG of the Federation (1985).
The learned Judge went further to explain that, to satisfy the rule of natural justice and fair hearing, a person likely to be affected directly by disciplinary proceeding must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to enable him make a representation in his own defense. And that the complaint against him must not necessarily be drafted in the form of a formal charge. It is sufficient, he said, if the complaint as formulated conveys to him the nature of accusation against him.
|