Where Sagay got it wrong
Walter Bagehot of the London-based Economist magazine brilliantly argued that “any writer or commentator who withholds important information, which is essential in the judgement of his readers, commits a great historical fraud.” Anyone who had the opportunity of reading Professor Sagay’s interview on Major Al-Mustafa would have no hesitation to conclude that he was on […]
Walter Bagehot of the London-based Economist magazine brilliantly argued that “any writer or commentator who withholds important information, which is essential in the judgement of his readers, commits a great historical fraud.” Anyone who had the opportunity of reading Professor Sagay’s interview on Major Al-Mustafa would have no hesitation to conclude that he was on a mission to re-victimize the victim by attributing to him unfair motives, even if it is at the expense of the suspect’s interest. Which normal human being would choose to remain in detention for more than 12 years for the fun of it? Professor Sagay’s comments are full of contradictions and his arguments cannot dovetail with common sense.
The fact that Professor Sagay was silent about important facts pertaining to Major Al-Mustafa’s case is itself a clear proof that he wants to hang the victim and deny him the right to fair treatment. In the course of the trial of Al-Mustapha and others, many revelations came to light, which exposed the political motives of the trial from the start. The government’s star witness in the trial, Barnabas Mshelia (a.k.a. Sergeant Rogers) caused a major embarrassment to the prosecution team when he turned a hostile witness and revealed how two former Ministers of Justice, the late Chief Bola Ige, Mr. Kanu Agabi and the former Lagos State Attorney General, Professor Femi Osibanjo, had visited him in jail to seek his cooperation to implicate Major Al-Mustafa and others. The government did everything to cajole Sergeant Rogers, including his reinstatement into the army by former President Obasanjo, as a means of inducing him to implicate Major Al-Mustafa. Sergeant Rogers’ revelation sent the prosecution team reeling for cover from the embarrassment and the trial had to be adjourned for months.
Can Professor Sagay pretend to be unaware of this development? Why didn’t he advise Chief Kanu Agabi and Professor Osibanjo, who are still alive, to defend themselves against the allegation of attempting to induce a witness with pecuniary and material rewards in order to implicate a murder suspect? In fact, inducing a witness is a perversion of justice. Is it normal in the eyes of Professor Sagay for the two senior lawyers to conveniently or silently ignore the damning revelation made against them by Sergeant Rogers? If there was no political motive , why should the late Bola Ige, Kanu Agabi and Professor Osibanjo be desperately interested in visiting Rogers and seeking his cooperation to implicate Al-Mustafa?
In fact, even recently, the trial Judge had warned the prosecution team against further delays in producing their witnesses in court, after failing to do so three times before. General Ishaya Bamaiyi, who was earlier discharged and acquitted after languishing in jail for more than 10 years, had successfully proved to the court why former President Obasanjo wanted him dead. As a former member of the General Abdulsalami Abubakar’s administration, Bamaiyi kicked the idea of endorsing Obasanjo as the official candidate for the 1999 presidential election. General Bamaiyi argued then that it was preposterous to bring in a retired General as a presidential candidate at a point Nigeria was committed to civilian-to-civilian transition to democracy. For kicking against Obasanjo’s endorsement, General Bamaiyi had to spend more than 10 years in jail for expressing an honest opinion.
Does Professor Sagay think that Nigerians are ignorant of the politics, intrigues and private motives behind the trial of Major Al-Mustafa and others? You don’t have to be a lawyer to intelligently follow events or understand the intrigues surrounding them; no lawyer should insult the intelligence of his readers either by propagating half-truth or outright distortion to suit his bias as Professor Sagay was seeking to do in his interview. He cannot pretend that the trial of Al-Mustafa is not tainted with politics and prejudice.
When the trial began in 1999, the first Judge who handled the case caused a controversy when he openly declared that “criminals” should not sit down and give evidence in his court. Major Al-Mustapha and others were never convicted but the Judge was already referring to them as criminals! Professor Sagay knows about these events and it is, therefore, disingenuous for him to tell Nigerians that Al-Mustapha chose to intentionally suffer by remaining in jail perpetually! Why was he silent about the long delays by the prosecution to produce their witnesses? The prosecution told the court different stories why for three consecutive times they couldn’t bring their witnesses in court as they had previously promised to do.
Former President Obasanjo was never a hero of June 12 and he is merely using Kudirat Abiola’s murder to gratify his private vengeance against Al-Mustafa. If Obasanjo so much believed in the right of victims, why did he storm out of the witness box at the Oputa panel in 2001 after he was asked questions about the circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs. Fumilayo Kuti, the late Fela’s mother at the hands of the so-called unknown soldiers in 1977?
A former Supreme Court Justice, Chukwudifu Oputa and a former Aviation Minister, Chief Femi Fani Kayode who are both lawyers, had publicly lamented the cruel length of time the trial of Major l-Mustafa has taken. None of them blamed the victim for delaying his own trial.
Kachalla wrote from 39, Brigadier Musa Usman Road, Biu, Borno State