Ever since Buhari got into power as the president of Nigeria, there has been a fierce debate on if he is truly delivering on his campaign promises. However, in all of the debate and intense argument, there is a general consensus that he is truly delivering on one, and that is – the fight against corruption.

Whether it is fair or balanced is a matter for another day but everyone – or almost everyone – agrees that President Buhari is not going back in the war against corruption. A number of people from the immediate past government have had their days in court over corruption charges and the most prominent of them all has to be the Ex-National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki.

As investigation intensifies on the unfortunate generosity of Sambo Dasuki with funds meant to purchase arms and ammunitions for the Nigerian military, there are indications to suggest that it may all have been done under the knowledge and approval of Ex-President, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan.

The consistent link to Goodluck Jonathan in the corruption mess have divided the opinion of many on whether he should be tried or not. It seems, however, that a number of people believes that the former President should be left alone.

Their argument is hinged on the fact that he has been an exemplary role model of true democracy by conceding defeat in the last general elections, thereby giving room for a peaceful transition. They believe that in a continent where leaders are notorious for holding on to power at the detriment of the people and the democracy they are meant to uphold and protect, the action of Gooduck Jonathan – in the face of pressure to do otherwise – was brave and for that he should be given a soft landing.

Punishing Jonathan, as they have argued, could send a wrong signal to other African leaders who may be considering to also relinquish power once they are voted out or out of term.

As convincing as the argument may sound, it isn’t well thought-out. Communication can sometimes be in multiples, where the transmission of certain messages could also mean the transmission of another – although unintended and not directly stated.

Advocating for Jonathan to be given a free pass because he conceded defeat in an election he lost in order to preach the message of democracy looks fancy but then again, in doing so, we would only be communicating to leaders across Africa that the key to getting away with any atrocity they may have committed while in office is losing the election and conceding defeat.

If the allegations are proved true (by the EFCC and Law Court), Goodluck Jonathan may have supervised and controlled the looting of the country’s treasury, and inadvertently killed thousands of innocent Nigerians and soldiers who were denied better arms because of the illegal act.

He may have set the country back by many years all for the gain of himself and his friends. Conceding defeat should not, in any way, grant him immunity from trial and responsibility for his actions.

In giving him immunity, we won’t only be portraying him as a man who upheld democracy and is duly rewarded, we are also showing the world a man who got away with grievous crimes because he conceded defeat in an election he lost.

The continent and the entire world is watching.

—————–

Op–ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija

The author, Adeshina Peter, can be reached via @shina_pitta