The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA), has strongly condemned what it describes as the disturbing and obvious attempt by the House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating the so-called Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council (PFIPC) by assuming the role of investigator, prosecutor and judge in a matter that is already before a court of competent jurisdiction.
HURIWA particularly expressed concerns over what it noted appeared to be an overwhelming determination to exonerate certain powerful officials without subjecting every aspect of the controversy to equal scrutiny.
The rights group stated that the Chief of Staff to the President occupies one of the most influential offices in the Presidency, stressing that taking into consideration the weight of the allegations and the public interest generated by the controversy, the appropriate response would have been for him to voluntarily step aside to enable an independent and transparent investigation capable of commanding public confidence.
These were contained in a statement by Emmanuel Onwubiko, national coordinator of HURIWA, in which it further said that instead, what Nigerians are witnessing appeared to be an aggressive effort to protect the image of powerful public officials while directing the entire weight of public attention toward one detained suspect who has been denied the opportunity to publicly defend himself before the committee.
It also noted that what Nigerians witnessed during the committee’s latest sitting was a carefully choreographed political spectacle apparently designed to manufacture a predetermined narrative and shield highly placed public officials from searching scrutiny.
The human rights organisation noted that the speed with which the committee rushed to pronounce the appointment letter of Prince Adeyemi fake, its repeated public declarations on the authenticity of documents, and the tone adopted by the committee chairman, all combine to create the unmistakable impression that the verdict was written long before the hearing commenced.
HURIWA said; “This is not legislative oversight. It is legislative overreach. This is not accountability. It is, in our view, an attempt to influence public perception while judicial proceedings remain pending.
“The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria recognizes the doctrine of separation of powers. The National Assembly is not a substitute for the judiciary, nor is it constitutionally empowered to conduct proceedings in a manner capable of prejudicing matters that are sub judice.
“It is therefore deeply troubling that the committee appears determined to reach sweeping conclusions while the substantive issues remain before the courts,” it stated.
HURIWA also said that even more disturbing is the persistent refusal or inability of the Nigeria Police Force to produce Prince Adeyemi before the committee despite repeated requests.
It stressed that the explanation offered by the police is neither convincing nor satisfactory in the circumstances, adding that the continued detention of the principal actor, the prolonged adjournment of his case, and his absence from proceedings where grave allegations are being publicly canvassed combine to raise fundamental questions about fairness, transparency and due process.
HURIWA specifically said that justice cannot be done in the absence of the central figure in the controversy and insisted that the refusal to produce Adeyemi effectively deprived him of the opportunity to confront the allegations against him and to present his own account before the committee.
HURIWA noted that such a situation offends the constitutionally guarantee of fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution.
According to HURIWA; “A careful examination of the utterances of the committee chairman leaves reasonable observers with the impression that the panel has already embraced a particular conclusion.
“Such conduct undermines confidence in legislative investigations. Legislative inquiries must be impartial. They must not become instruments for validating official narratives or providing political soft landings for influential office holders,” it stated.
HURIWA also said that it found it curious that a matter involving alleged failures of due diligence by multiple public institutions is now being reduced almost exclusively to the actions of one individual.
“This raises serious questions. If forged documents allegedly passed through several government ministries, departments and agencies, Nigerians deserve answers as to how such documents repeatedly escaped institutional verification.
“The investigation should not become a convenient exercise in identifying a lone scapegoat while systemic failures and possible official complicity receive little or no rigorous examination.
“Democracy demands accountability at every level. No public official should enjoy immunity from public scrutiny simply because of political influence or institutional relationships.
“The House of Representatives must resist every appearance of acting under external influence or institutional solidarity. Legislative independence is measured not by loud pronouncements but by demonstrable impartiality,” it stated.
HURIWA therefore called on the House of Reps to suspend further public pronouncements capable of prejudicing pending judicial proceedings in order to allow the courts to discharge their constitutional responsibility without interference.
It also called on the Nigeria Police Force to comply with every lawful process relating to Prince Adeyemi and guarantee his constitutional right to fair hearing.
HURIWA urged Nigerians to remain vigilant, emphasising that public institutions derive legitimacy from the Constitution and the rule of law and not from political expediency.
It further said; “Any investigation perceived as predetermined, selective or designed to protect the powerful while denying others the opportunity to defend themselves ultimately weakens public confidence in democratic governance.
“The credibility of this investigation will not be measured by the volume of accusations made at televised hearings, but by whether justice is seen to be impartial, transparent and firmly anchored on constitutional principles”.
