I have a friend who is currently in prison.
He lost his case at every level of our judicial system — the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and ultimately, the Supreme Court. From start to finish, he was represented by some of the finest legal minds in this country.
I have deliberately refused to read the judgment of the Supreme Court. I do not consider it necessary. The judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which I have read repeatedly, together with the very charges brought against him, are more than sufficient to disturb my conscience.
The Charges That Raised More Questions Than Answers
My friend was charged on fifteen counts. Each count alleged the same thing in substance: that he stole from a private financial company by engaging in “cooked-up transactions” without the consent or authority of the company.
Yet, as I examined the charges and the judgments, certain questions refused to go away.
I could not find:
- Any complainant who alleged loss,
- Any injured party,
- Or any person who claimed that property had been taken from them.
The case was not brought by the company.
It was brought by the EFCC, which claimed to have investigated my friend’s management of the company.
The prosecution’s position was that my friend acted without authority in helping himself to company funds.
The Company That Said No Crime Occurred
Here is where the matter becomes troubling.
The company itself, through its chairman, testified for the defence.
He produced board minutes and documentary evidence showing that the board of directors met — at a meeting my friend was not even allowed to attend — and formally approved every transaction that later became the subject of criminal charges.
The chairman further testified, backed by records, that:
- The company lost no money.
- None of the transactions caused any financial harm.
In short, the alleged “victim” denied being a victim.
How the Courts Reasoned
The High Court brushed aside the board resolutions and concluded that the transactions were a scheme concocted by my friend to defraud the company.
The Court of Appeal went further. It held that the board resolutions were invalid because a certain manager — not a member of the board — was not invited to the meeting to brief the directors.
On that basis, the court concluded that the transactions were unauthorized and criminal.
I have not read the Supreme Court judgment, but it upheld this reasoning.
A Simple Question About Stealing
At this point, a fundamental question arises:
For stealing to occur, must there not be an owner of property who complains that they have been deprived of it?
If the owner of the property — the company acting through its board of directors — testifies that:
- the accused had its blessing,
- the transactions were authorized,
- and no loss occurred,
can a court still conclude that the accused stole from that company?
More troubling still:
Can a court set aside the resolution of a private company authorizing an act, and then turn around to say that the same act was done without authority and therefore amounts to a crime against that company?
When Regulation Becomes Retribution
This matter returned to my thoughts during a prison visit over the Christmas break.
My friend, resigned to his fate, said quietly:
“You know Government cannot be embarrassed. They don’t like you to win them in court.”
His case arose from a fallout between him and regulators of the financial system — regulators with whom he was once a powerful player.
We now speak of reconciliation with “the powers that be.”
Yet that statement has refused to leave my mind.
What Is the Judiciary For?
Of what use is a judiciary that cannot make a finding against government or its interests?
History teaches us why independent courts exist:
- to protect individuals from the overwhelming power of the state,
- to ensure equality before the law,
- to prevent the sovereign from being judge in its own cause.
Before courts existed, monarchs ruled and judged through their officials.
It was unthinkable to succeed against the sovereign.
Have we turned a dangerous bend in this country — one where it is now policy, spoken or unspoken, that government must not be embarrassed by adverse judgments?
Salt That Has Lost Its Taste
If courts cannot stand firm when government or powerful interests are involved, then we must ask the hardest question of all:
- Of what use is a judiciary that cannot protect the citizen against the state?
- Of what use is salt that has lost its taste?
This is not merely about one man in prison.
It is about all of us.
Because once criminal law becomes a tool for settling political or regulatory scores, no citizen — powerful or powerless — is truly safe.
Published by Chuks Nwachuku
