Re-Thinking Evidential Requirements in Prosecution of Embezzlers of Public Fund: The Olabode George and John Yakubu Yusuf Sagas

Abstract

Between 2012 and 2013 the Judiciary in Nigeria would appear to have let down Nigerians in the fight against corruption, economic and financial crimes following the outcomes of the cases of the cases of Chief Olabode George v The Federal Republic of Nigeria and The Federal Republic of Nigeria v John Yakubu Yusuf. In the former case, the trial Court found the defendant guilty. The defendant promptly contested the decision and proceeded to the Court of Appeal but the Court dismissed it. Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal decision, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court which allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction albeit after serving the full two years jail sentence. It became an unpopular decision. John Yakubu Yusuf’s case involved the defendant’s stealing of a whooping sum from police pension fund yet he plea-bargained and was asked to pay some insignificant amount compared to the sum he admitted he stole. Who is to blame? The Court or the Legal system that practices adversarial system which provides that: 1. the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty; and 2. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. This paper seeks to appraise these legal requirements with a view to revealing the gap created by them in the criminal justice system and therefore come up with suggestions for reforms through a new evidential culture that aligns with the African customary law heritage, particularly for corrupt enrichment by government officials from public fund.