Security Vote is not personal entitlement

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has said failure of public officers to give an account of security votes entrusted to them amounts to stealing or criminal misappropriation, adding that it is akin to genocide.

This formed part of the reasons the Court of Appeal on Friday affirmed the conviction of a former Governor of Taraba State, Jolly Nyame, whom the High Court of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory had earlier convicted and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment on June 30, 2018.

The appellate court, in a decision by a different panel, equally affirmed the conviction of a former Governor of Plateau State, Joshua Dariye.

Justice Emmanuel Agim, who read the lead judgment of the three-man appellate court panel on Nyame’s appeal, noted that in Nigeria, there was a “pervasive tendency by public officers to regard or treat security votes given to them for security of the state as their personal entitlement or funds, this belief is completely wrong,” Justice Agim said.

He said any public officer in charge of such funds must either account for them or return them to the public coffers, saying the failure to do so would amount to stealing.

He said, “Every public officer or servant who receives government or public funds as security votes or however described for security or other public purposes must use the money for the purpose, or render an account showing that it has been used for such purpose or return the money to the government treasury if it has not been used.

“If the recipient of such funds cannot account for the use of such funds for the purpose it was meant and has not returned same to the government treasury, then that is clear stealing of public funds or criminal breach of trust or criminal misappropriation of funds.”

Justice Agim said the defence put forward by the defence lawyer suggested that Nyame “believed that as a governor, the security votes were his personal entitlement to be used as he pleased without any responsibility to explain how he used same and that since it is his entitlement, he cannot be said to have stolen same.”

“This belief is completely wrong,” the judge said.

On the diversion of money meant for the purchase of grains for the people of Taraba State, Justice Agim added, “The appellant, who recognised that the Taraba State people were faced with the threat of famine and that they were already suffering untold hardship due to lack of grains or escalating costs of grains, approved the release of the funds to purchase grains to distribute to Taraba people, but diverted the funds for his personal use and did not buy the grains, leaving the Taraba people in their untold hardship, waiting helplessly for the famine to come upon them.”

‘Corruption rampant among public officers, servants’

The appellant’s lawyer, Mr Ahmed Raji (SAN), had contended that the sentences imposed on Nyame by the trial court was excessive but the Court of Appeal disagreed.

“The nature of the crimes, the fact that they are routinely committed by public officers and servants throughout the country as a usual process of public administration, their impact on the community and people of Taraba State and the circumstances of the commission of the offences justify a deterring punishment,” Justice Agim noted.

‘Corruption is a crime in the class of genocide’

Justice Agim categorised corruption, due to its widespread impact, in the class of genocide, saying he saw no justification why offences like murder or armed robbery with less impact were being punished by death penalty and corruption was not.

“In view of the dangerous impact of the crime of public office corruption on  the state security and the generality of the people, it comes within the class of crimes against humanity like genocide, terrorism and large-scale violation of human rights.

“There is no justification for imposing capital punishment for serious crimes like murder, armed robbery with less widespread impact and punishing a more serious crime like public office corruption with more widespread impact in terms of imprisonment prescribed in Section 115, 119, 309 and 315 of the Penal Code Act.

“These cannot be sufficient deterrence.

“But the courts are bound by law not to exceed those terms of imprisonment.”