 On the oddily home invasion, former President Jonathan urges federal government to review whistleblower policy. And Vice President Yemi Osibajo urges lawyers to end slow judicial process. This is PlusPolitics, I am Mary-Anna Cohn. Former President Goodlock Jonathan has called for the modification of the whistleblower policy, saying it can damage the economy if not well managed. He made the recommendation while reacting to the invasion of the Abuja resident of a judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Mary Oddily, allegedly on the information given by a whistleblower. While joining us to discuss this is legal practitioner Chris Itaminola and former Special Advisor to the River State Governor, Oppenabu Inko Taira. Thank you very much, Mr. Taira, for joining us. Good evening, everyone, and good evening to you. You and I have spoken about this invasion before. And then we're looking at it from the whistleblower policy angle. Let's revisit this issue of whistleblowers. Now, we know that the whistleblower policy became more known of when the government came up with the idea of people returning funds or people reporting, you know, looters, public office looters. And of course, we all know how that ended. A lot of these whistleblowers ended up not being as protected as they should be. A couple of them complained of the monies because the percentage of these monies was supposed to be given to them. But in terms of the Mary Oddily situation, how does this even play out in the first instance? Well, the whole thing turned out to be messy when the attorney general of the federation denied involvement. Of course, the magistrate agreed that it was issued, but it isn't the advance. We are ridiculous because it said it was, they went to the wrong address and they gave me wrong information. As sad as it is, I don't think we should really bother about a such war and issue against any particular person. Because nobody is insulated from prosecution, nobody is immune from prosecution. And when the issue is such war and it does not necessarily mean what they actually went for could be found in the hope of the persons, property that has done such. Nevertheless, Nigerians are worried because of their views. It is being reprimanded right now to embarrass people. I also want to state this, that I also disagree with the situation where a saturant will be issued and the operatives that are supposed to execute the saturants have been frustrated because that will have a negative effect on our justice system. Nevertheless, the only way we can end this unnecessary abuse of the issue out of saturant is to ensure, for example, on the part of the whistleblowers, if an information is given to the security operatives, they should ensure that they ascertain the veracity of that information. They should not just swing into action immediately without carrying out investigation. They should ensure that proper investigation is being carried out before they swing into action because it could become embarrassing to the victim. And just like now, the credibility of the saturant is being questioned. If I see a saturant today, honestly, I will not want to honor that saturant. That's why it has a negative effect on our justice system. Because I will doubt in view of the authenticity of it, a situation where what are the contents of the saturant? One is about the date and time of issue. Two, the confirmation of the probable cause to search. Three, even the period that the operatives were moving to carry out the search, the period is even stated. So it is not of your own being will, of your own volition, that you move it when you want to move it. It is stated. So when all these things are stated, the address of the house to be searched, and that's where I say it is sound laughable when they say it was done in error. Because you, if this at the very least justice, for example, number 10 B B Ravi Street. And on that paper, 10 B B Ravi Street is written on 9 B B Ravi Street. There is no way you can go to number 10 B B Ravi Street. It's not possible. And that is why it is generating the plurality generated. And that is why it is being perceived as witch hunting. Let me come in there. I'm curious. I'm curious. I'm curious. I don't think it has to do with assassination. So I've been saying it has to do with bringing her right into dispute so that you will not emerge as the CDN executive to bring the poverty of logic because she is to retire next year. Why the CDN will retire the year after? So the issue of succession does not even come in, you know? I want to ask about the modus operandi because such warrants, yes, are very important. But then how do they, you talked about how it's been carried out at the time. And there have been several times where security agencies, especially the State Department of State Services, break into houses at odd hours of the night. So I'm wondering that time that is stated on the warrants, why is it not adhered to strictly? And the issue of mistakes, I have... But at that time, I didn't get that. At that time, that was... You said that the time that they need to affect that search is also clearly written on the warrants. But then we see, that's what I'm asking, the adherence is the issue here because I have taken the report of a man whose house was broken into by DSS agents and they were not necessarily looking for him. They were looking for someone else. So this can actually be a mistake, can't it? But then it's the way they carry out the search that should be questioned here. Why go about it as if you were there to assassinate or kill a person? Because the way they went about it, the man lost money that he kept in his house. He lost jewelry. They destroyed the appliances in his house, et cetera, et cetera. Is that how a search warrant is supposed to be carried out? Is that such a warrant? Is that such a warrant? But like I said, if you have a period on it. So if the operatives move in, not within that period depulated by the magistrate of the drug, then it's an illegal act. Then you sue. It's an illegal act. Just like in other cases. You have the time when to execute. You cannot, the prisoner or the visitor, another guy is going to say, today it has to be two o'clock. That's when I have the time. Everything is stated. If you do it before it's illegal, you do it after it's illegal. Before it's modern, after it's modern. Everything is signed. So if, that's when they say period. Maybe on it you could say 10 p.m., between 10 and 11, or 10 p.m., or 12 p.m. But if they say, so if the court grants it, there was ever security reasons. The court grants it. Then the court has granted it. But if the court doesn't, then the people the operatives acted illegally. Probably that is why people are weaving the interpretation of assassination. That's why they're weaving. And secondly, don't forget that you have the antecedents. We are worried, as always, on that right from when we were the needy to get up to date. As always on that security, they're the residents of just judges and justices. And that's why you do things like that. What do you have against the judiciary? But the presidency has not in any way, has not in any way been incriminated in this issue. The person who's been fingered in this issue was the attorney general. The office of the attorney general was accused. Don't forget that, that is one and number two. But the attorney general is not the president of the federal republic of Nigeria. Sorry? Sorry? The attorney general is the attorney general of the federation, not the president of the federal republic. He acts at the behest of the president. He acts at the behest of the president. There's no way there will be a way on the premises of judges and justices without knowledge. Supreme Court justices will turn the imprimatur of Mr. President. That is not possible. That is not given how highly placed they are. It is definitely not possible. And the attorney general himself being a lawyer, he's a very senior lawyer, senior advocate of Nigeria. It's definitely not possible. He might have gotten the consent because he would have been acquitted by Mr. President. So he might have gotten the consent of Mr. President for him to have done that. He cannot do that on his own condition. He cannot do that on his own condition. It's not possible. That's not possible. Nobody can come up to the police. Let me refer to the statement by former president Goodlock Jonathan. I'd like to quote him directly. He said the concept of whistleblowing helps to give information, but that information should be slightly investigated. And if you need to be sure before you strike, it should be modified so that security appraisals do not go into the voice of discoveries. If things are not done properly, he says, people will exploit it to the advantage. People who give wrong information to security operators should also be punished. As much as whistleblowing is okay, it will help to control it. It must be done in a way that it will not injure the economy. I'm trying to put side by side the whistleblowing issue and the economy and what ties it together. That is exactly what is a little bit confusing to me, because whistleblowing is all about giving information secretly, so officially, to the establishment for them to carry out certain actions, information that will help the economy. For example, you have a criminal, you have an armed robber, or you have a panel secretary or an editor-general, or somebody is committing some sort of fraud in the ministry. You go and disclose to the authorities you should have investigated. That's what it's talking about. You don't just take the information hook, line and sinker, because what information is a function of loud? The informant loves or revives the victim. I will just come up to say this man, just because he is a political enemy, or just because he took his girlfriend, or just because he slept with his wife, will now say this man is involved in this. I know of so many cases like that, that this man is involved in this, and it's not true, it's not a genocide. And if you have such an informant that dispenses mendacity, then that informant himself, and that's why every whistleblower or parties must ensure that they know the houses, they know them to their houses. If you come and give me any information, you must show me where you reside, your office, or something. I must trace you to something, you'll be like everything. So that if that information is questionable, I will come back for you. And that will be a very larger thing with this college dispensation of falsehood. That is exactly what Jonathan is talking about, and I completely agree. But then, on the issue of having a whistleblower who have a negative effect on the economy, I don't really think so. I don't know why he's saying that. I cannot question his own argument. But the truth about it is that it is rather positive than negative. Because if, for example, now I say Marianne is an armed robber, and they invade Marianne's house, or Marianne's house is a gun runner, she has guns at home, and they invade Marianne's house and there is no gun. The only negative aspect is on the image of Marianne, and if it is who beyond the devil does that, there is no gun in my house. That's the only thing. But how will that affect the economy is what I cannot reconcile. I don't know. I'm not saying what he's saying is not correct, but I cannot perform it. I cannot perform how he's going to affect the economy, negative. Because if I'm sure of my information, if I'm sure of my information, and I give the story that they will disclose that information to you, and you can't carry out if it was right. How does it affect the economy? I can't comprehend that. He might have his reasons. Maybe if he's asked, he's going to sponge it. He's going to tell you what he did, but I cannot, as I sit here now, tell you how negatively, but I can explain how positively, like in the show called as well, but negatively, I don't understand how it will affect the economy. Let's come back to the way or the modus operandi of, you know, such as in different houses, at the behest of a magistrate or somebody being armed with that warrant. We have seen many people whose houses were broken into, like I said earlier on, who sometimes are shot dead because maybe they're resisting or maybe they were not ready for this invasion. You know, sometimes people may be said to be feigning ignorance, but then they have no idea because you're in the wrong house. I think one of the most recent is that the DSS raided the house of one of the ex-big brother African housemates, and she was scantily clad. I think the day after she posted about it and said that she was still facing trauma from what happened the night before. Now, if they had not necessarily recognized that because she was a public figure, she probably would have been shot dead or something bad would have happened. Is it just about reviewing this policy of whistleblowing or should we also be reviewing these searches or breaking into these homes? I'm going to pose that question to Mr. Tamunola. I'm sorry, let me pose that question to Mr. Tamunola because he's a lawyer. Mr. Tamunola, the issue of whistleblowing is not just that of people giving misinformation or wrong information, but how about the searches and how it's done. Many people have fallen prey to maybe a wrong house, a wrong residence or a wrong person, a case of a wrong person. And sometimes these people end up being shot dead or being beaten or maimed. So what about reviewing that process of searching or taking a person into custody? The brutality that follows? Well, let me say good evening to you, Adora. Let me say good evening to you, my friend, my brother in Kotaria that I haven't seen for so many months now. And... Mr. Tamunola, good evening. Good evening. You see, the law, the law is very clear. When it comes to issue of summons, when it comes to the execution of warrants and whatsoever, the law is clear. It's governed by the administration of criminal justice at No. 7 of 2015. There is nothing wrong with the law. There is everything wrong about the implementation. When we are talking about the aspect of whistleblowing, the important thing is who he, who alleges must prove. There is nothing wrong. For the aspect of whistleblowing, let us first of all establish that where there is a right, there is obligation. And because there is a right and obligation, there is also a benefit. And if there is a benefit, there must also be sanctioned in the context that I see. When the whistleblower is found to be culpable, what happens to him? Because based on that information that is abused, the magistrate takes an action. And of course, in order to be able to issue the warrants, the law is section 35, section 36, section 37, section 38 of what you call the Part 3 of the administration of criminal justice act. The magistrate will not just act in the act, will not act in the act. The magistrate is expected to know the facts. The magistrate is expected to be furnished with who you are going to arrest. The magistrate is expected to be furnished with that information regarding the identity, the location and whatsoever. So based on that, you can't be talking about a misnomer. You can't be talking about error. You can't be talking about a misplacement. You can't say you are going to... But these are the claims that were made by the magistrates. We all heard it. No, but so somewhere along the line, once I want to go there, I say breach. Because now you are going to the house of a particular person. That person has a right under the Nigerian constitution, under section 4 of the Nigerian constitution. When you are wrong, that person has the powers to come against you. Whether you are federal government, whether you are state government, you are local government, whether you are the Nigerian police and whatsoever. The unfortunate challenge I have here is that our institutions are not just working. Let's cast our mind back to what is quite... Black lives must be saved in America. Black lives matter. Up till today, there are people that are still going in. Those particular people that initiated and executed that incident, we know what has happened to them. And the trial was public and whatsoever. For these people that have come, the autonomy general is complicit. If the autonomy general is complicit, the beginning of the journey is that it should be formula not to simply say, I resign, I step aside. And of course, not only that, if he's culpable, he's not above the law. It should definitely be tried. There must be a proper investigation. But the attorney general has said that he doesn't know anybody. He doesn't know this man. He's never met him ever before in his life. And so what he's telling us is cock-and-boo stories. I don't know the reason why those statements were made. Sorry, Miriam, I beg your pardon. Apologies. Miriam, the simple reason why those statements could be heard is because we have weak institutions. Because on the basis of strong institutions, look, investigations will be made within weeks, within days, within months. Look, Donald Trump was alleged to have done something in his wee days, in his closing days. Up till today, investigations are still going on regarding the invasion of the White House, I mean of the Capitol and so on. So the simple problem is that you get into a party, you get into government based on the party, and then there are breaches, there are infractions, and somebody sees back and say, okay, this is a member of party A, party B, and on the basis of that, rather than to sanction for, to give sanctions, investigations, appropriate sanctions for infractions, what you do is to turn the other way around. For goodness sake, if you could do this to the justice of the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, then who are you and me? It's unfortunate. Quickly, before we go, because we're running out of time, Mrs. Taminolla, you're saying that the attorney general needs to be put on trial or investigated because of the claims that have been made. The magistrate on one hand is saying it was a misnomer, misinformation, it was a wrong residence, and you have clearly stated that he needs to have the right information. What if he was also misled? Secondly, where is the precedence in this country that a highly placed person like the attorney general of the Federation, who's also a political appointee of the president, is being investigated on that level, especially when it's been watered down to he said, she said, I don't know this person, et cetera? Look, it's still the same challenge we are talking about. It's because of weak institutions. Because at the end of the day, who is the attorney general of the Federation? I mean, for goodness sake, he came in by law. His oppressions are by law. Look at what happens in South Africa. We are talking about Zuma. We are talking about other officers. Look at Oka that was, I mean, was taken in regarding certain infractions emanating from Nigeria. Where is that man today and whatsoever? The most important thing is, I mean, there is nothing like ignorance of the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's all it was done in error. How do you know who is at fault, except by an investigation? How do you know whether the attorney general, the magistrate, had done something? I mean, a magistrate is expected to act judiciously and judicially. You are expected to take a decision judiciously and judicially. And even the cost of it, it is found that definitely you haven't done exercise at what is your decision. Judiciously and judicially, what will happen? You must be investigated. There are appropriate authorities. The NJC is there to, I mean, to look into the infractions of such a magistrate. And then for the attorney general, for goodness sake, it is because some of us have proved ourselves to be higher than the law. To be higher better and so on. So no matter what we are talking about, just go back. That if this could happen to Mary, how many of you just say Mary, imagine what would happen to the common man on the street. Imagine what would happen to Iqotaria that is there and whatsoever. It is pathetic and we need a foundational restructuring. Definitely. Well, we'll keep our eyes on that story as it develops. But I want to say thank you to Opunabal Incotaria and of course Chrissy Tabunola. We're out of time. We're out of time in one sentence because we need to go. Those authorities that have been arrested, what has happened to them? We want to know. Like the Tabunola like he said, they should be prosecuted. And let the attorney general go to court to prove his innocence. We'll wait and see what happens. We'll wait and see what happens. But thank you very much. Chrissy Tabunola, Opunabal Incotaria. Thank you very much for joining us on this conversation. Thank you. My pleasure. Well, thank you all for staying with us. We'll take a short break. And when we return, we examine the need for judicial reforms in Nigeria.