France’s Nicolas Sarkozy is in trouble. It’s because the French police detained the immediate past president days back. Those law enforcers said he had questions to answer about allegations of corruption. This isn’t the first time a former French president would answer questions about corruption. But that of Sarkozy is of special interest; a rare fish caught in a net is ever a spectacle, anyway. And note that nailing an ex-president can be an arduous task, even in nations which carefully project that they apply rule of law across board.
Continue..
Continue..
The reasons are obvious: Provisions exist in the statutory powers of a president that may serve as curtains when he misbehaves; ex-presidents have garnered friends, influence and resources; nations and citizens are embarrassed to have their national symbols sent to jail, and they will avoid it if they can; also the aura of the office of the president is such that negotiating to have others stand as ‘fall-guys’ and receiving presidential pardon can be on the table. How President Gerald Ford had quickly pardoned President Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal in the United States of America comes to mind here. And the way the Iran arms for hostage scandal of the Ronald Reagan era went is another example. Even Bill Clinton escaped being impeached and prosecuted over the Monica Lewinsky saga. These show it’s difficult for law enforcers to nail leaders. But law enforcers are less the issue here, rather, it’s the political environment and the will to get a leader to account for his deeds. So, pushing one to the precipice as Sarkozy’s case shows is worth noting. In this French’s latest drama though, there’s a temptation to draw a comparison with what’s been happening in Nigeria lately. But the international system is in focus. Let the reader make inferences as deemed fit.
There’s a significant angle to what transpired in France, not just for that nation but for the international system. The following should be noted however: No nation is snow-white clean on the issue of corruption, and none will ever be. None has preventive measure that’s fool-proof. No attempt to call leaders to account is totally devoid of political calculations. As things stand, the French opposition has accused the government of setting up Sarkozy at a time he’s planning to start his political campaigns. Yet, the fact that the political class doesn’t step forward to block the process is a reason law enforcers are able to engage Sarkozy in the first place. Even at that, the idea of investigating a former French president with the possibility of bringing him to trial is intimidating. For it would have been inconceivable for an outsider to imagine, for instance, that a Jacques Chirac, another ex-French president, could be convicted. Chirac was
the very last of the generation of post-World War 2 French leaders with looming, larger than life iconic personalities, the embodiment of France’s power to French-speaking millions across Africa, leaders who had the carriage of royal presidency that J.F. Kennedy had equally symbolised in the US, but which fell flat after his assassination, which Nixon to some degree had resuscitated with his magnetic personality and forceful use of power, and which fell flat again after he was forced to resign, a point to which America’s presidency never fully returned not even under a Ronald Reagan. For France, Charles De Gaulle, the WW2 hero, was the first in that order, before the rock-and-roll Sarkozy type arrived the Presidential Palace, and now replaced by a somewhat bland Francois Hollande.
When Chirac was charged for corruption in 2011, it was like the matter wouldn’t go anywhere. The case was divided into two parts: The first count involved embezzlement and breach of trust in relation to 21 bogus jobs; the second was related to a charge of illegal conflict of interest concerning seven jobs while Chirac was the Mayor of Paris. He was found guilty of both and was given a suspended prison sentence. “Jacques Chirac has breached the duty of probity required for public officials, to the detriment of the public interest of Parisians,” the tribunal judge had announced. So, when one of Chirac’s rivals for the presidency in 2002 described the verdict as, “A ray of sunshine in the black sky of scandals”, it’s apt in French politics where corruption is rampant but only the not-so-smart gets caught. Nevertheless, the case had dragged for 17 years, a pointer to how difficult it could be to get convictions in such matters. The opposition had expressed its view then, crying political intimidation, the masses expressed their sentiments in favour of a beloved leader, but the judicial system had rolled on, reached a conclusion and had Chirac sentenced accordingly. Now, Sarkozy is in the boiling pot.
This matter directs one’s attention to the internal workings of any nation’s judicial system as well as that nation’s role on the international stage. France is one of the nations that collaborate with others to bring leaders in other countries to justice as, for instance, events at the International Criminal Court have shown. Had it not been able to bring its own leaders to justice both for corruption and crimes, this should be a moral dilemma. One finds it amusing when some dismiss the ICC as just another instrument of Western countries to hunt African leaders. One should think there’s something narrow, one-dimensional, about that view. For one, the ICC only calls for people to be brought forward when there are charges against them and the judicial system in their nations is either incapable or unwilling to try such cases. It’s under these circumstances that looters of public treasury known to be protected by political authorities in African countries have had foreign nations cooperating to have such individuals passed to one another until their courts send the looters to where they belong in the first place. In the Chirac and Sarkozy matters, it’s significant to point out that France has demonstrated at home what it supports others to carry out on the international stage.
Nevertheless, accusations trail how the Sarkozy’s case is handled, a pointer to the ever-present political angle in any clime. As it is, the ex-president has said the French justice system is trying to “humiliate” him, after he was charged for allegedly taking €50 million in illegal campaign funds from Libya’s late dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. After he had spent some 15 hours in detention answering questions on the sources of funding for his 2007 presidential campaign, Sarkozy said he was “profoundly shocked”. Then, he asked: “Is it normal that I should be in custody for so long?” Only an-ex-president would ask that kind of question. For ordinary citizens, it’s nothing that the state calls you in and asks questions without an end in sight, another pointer to how treacherously difficult it is to get a Sarkozy nailed in any system. Yet, the French system has proved on several occasions that however difficult, anyone, including ex-presidents could be made to answer questions.
As things stand, Sarkozy has yet to stand trial, he has not been declared to have questions to answer in court, and in the end he may be told to go home a free man. Yet, in cases involving public figures such as Sarkozy, it’s less the fact of the eventual conviction that’s of importance, but the image bringing them in to respond to questions sends to the public – both citizens and the international community. This is important because there must be nations that show others the way to go on the international stage. Without them, what will the international system look like, and where will nations with poor records of making leaders account for their misdeeds copy from?
No comments:
Post a Comment