It is an irony of life that, oftentimes, an equation we had all agreed was sound, incontrovertible and logical turned out to be a mirage, illogical and at variance with intellectual rationalisation.
Take President Bush’s cowboy-like escapade in Hussein’s Baghdad. At the inception of the adventure, every nugget of opinion at every cranny of the globe had it that it was a godsend intervention. Iraq was ravaged; Hussein was captured with a pistol strapped to his holster; and it appeared everything had ended in favour of Mr Bush.
But as the world was celebrating the ‘downfall’ of a ‘monster’ at the White House, the news came that the invasion was a superfluous venture; just as killing a fly with a sledgehammer has been described as an overkill. But in spite of this revelation Mr Bush, from every indication, is determined to stay in Iraq. And with the likes of John Deutch, former deputy US secretary of defense, former director CIA, calling for a pull out, what has been described as Mr Bush’s political bulwark may be assuming the garb of a waterloo.
Turn the searchlight back a little bit. The year was 1998? President Bill Clinton was at the center of Monica Lewinsky’s storm. Now, America has been described as God’s own country. My conception of that epithet is that, since God is a symbol of all that is morally upright, equitable and just, then America must symbolise God’s traits. It follows therefore that such debauchery as nauseating as deconsecrating the American’s Holy of Holies, (that is what the White House should be) with the odour of semen, should be firmly dealt with.
In other words, the moralty had investigated and pronounced Bill guilty; his impeachment was a matter of time; so my friends and I thought. It ought not be otherwise, since Clinton himself rode to the White House on the misfortune of Gary Hart, whose only misdeed was that Dona Rice merely perched on the amiable senator’s laps.
The investigatory abracadabra that saw Bill surmounting those dark days of his political career is now history.
Enough of America; let’s come back to West Africa. This is Nigeria, the year was 2001, the month was December and the day was the 23rd.The chief law officer, appropriately designated Minister of Justice, Chief Adebola Ige, was clubbed to death in his apartment. The civil society was thrown into agitated frenzy and the police swung into action with the Inspector General of police promising swift prosecution.
When ‘swift’ investigation was actualised, all evidences pointed to a former deputy governor. He was arrested and detained with other accomplices. ‘Open and shut case’, we concluded at our informal discussion. Everybody followed the tortured investigation. And as more evidences poured in, it became a palpable certainty that the accused persons would be convicted.
Judgement day came. I had my first premonition of danger when the judge, in the course of the usual admonition that characterise judgement delivery, insinuated that the prosecution was shoddy. He went further to imlpy that the prosecution acted like the defence counsel.
‘Judge Sirica’, my mind screamed.
We still remember that American judge who took the judiciary climate by storm, when he realised that certain elements were hiding vital information from him. Information that would have allowed him to arrive at equity. What did he do? He appealled to the American senate to appoint an independent investigator. We are all witnesses to the result of the independent investigation into the Watergate scandal.
In West Africa, the former Deputy Governor was ‘discharged and acquitted’ for want of evidence, a reason the judge had insinuated arose from shoddy prosecution.
Well, it cannot be conclusive until it is concluded; but what manner of conclusions?
