By Amb. Anderson Osiebe<\/p>\n
The controversy surrounding the prosecution of Emenike Okorie and the involvement of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, raises important questions about justice, accountability, disability rights and the rule of law.<\/p>\n
My position is simple: Disability does not confer immunity from prosecution, just as public office does not deprive anyone of the right to seek justice.<\/p>\n
Does disability exempt anyone from prosecution?<\/p>\n
The answer is no. Being physically challenged does not automatically exempt anyone from criminal investigation or prosecution. Persons living with disabilities deserve dignity, equal protection, medical attention and reasonable accommodation within the justice system. However, these protections should not be confused with immunity from the law.<\/p>\n
We must distinguish physical disability from mental incapacity. One does not automatically imply the other. The law must protect everyone equally, regardless of physical condition, social status or political affiliation.<\/p>\n
Does the Deputy Speaker have the right to cry out?<\/p>\n
Absolutely! Rt. Hon. Benjamin Kalu may be the Deputy Speaker, but he remains a Nigerian citizen with fundamental rights. His position does not strip him of the right to protect his reputation, report alleged wrongdoing or seek legal redress. Public officials must be open to scrutiny and accountability.<\/p>\n
However, accountability must not become an excuse for making unsubstantiated criminal allegations against individuals. There is a difference between demanding explanations about public funds and publicly declaring someone a thief without credible evidence.<\/p>\n
If \u20a6348 million meant for a garri-processing plant in Umuhu Ezechi was allegedly diverted, the people deserve answers. They have every right to demand financial records, project documentation, audits and an independent investigation. But serious allegations require credible evidence.<\/p>\n
What does the charge sheet tell us?<\/p>\n
The charge sheet supplied identifies the Inspector-General of Police as the complainant and Emenike Okorie as the defendant in the Federal High Court, Abuja. It contains allegations relating to publications on the Umuhu Ezechi Development Union WhatsApp platform, including accusations against Kalu concerning the alleged diversion of \u20a6348 million.<\/p>\n
This distinction is important. It is misleading to automatically claim that the Deputy Speaker personally sent Okorie to prison when the charge sheet identifies the police as the complainant. However, the existence of a charge sheet does not establish guilt. Okorie remains presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The police must establish the ingredients of the offences charged, and the court must determine the matter based on evidence. Equally, the filing of charges should not automatically be described as political persecution.<\/p>\n
Where do we draw the line?<\/p>\n
The Bende 2027 quiz and accompanying WhatsApp exchanges raise another concern about the growing culture of political insinuations, insults and unverified allegations. Democracy permits criticism, satire and disagreement. Citizens have every right to question their representatives. However, we must learn to distinguish political criticism from allegations of criminal conduct. If anyone has evidence of corruption, let it be presented to the appropriate authorities. If public funds have been misappropriated, those responsible must be held accountable. But we cannot build a healthy democracy on social media accusations and character assassination. Due process must prevail, and this is where I believe Nigerians must exercise caution.<\/p>\n
If a community suspects that its funds have been diverted, there are established channels for demanding accountability. If an individual believes their reputation has been damaged, they have the right to seek legal redress. If an accused person believes their rights have been violated, they equally have the right to approach the courts. These principles are not contradictory.<\/p>\n
We cannot demand accountability from public officials while encouraging citizens to disregard due process. We cannot defend disability rights while suggesting that disability automatically exempts someone from answering allegations. And we cannot defend freedom of expression while ignoring the rights of others.<\/p>\n
As we approach the 2027 general elections, we must encourage issue-based political engagement rather than a culture of insults, intimidation and unsubstantiated allegations. My position is not about Benjamin Kalu or Emenike Okorie as individuals. It is about the principles that must guide our democracy.<\/p>\n
The Deputy Speaker has a right to seek justice. Emenike Okorie has a right to fair treatment, medical attention where necessary and a fair hearing. Let the police do their work, courts determine the facts, accused enjoy the full protection of the law, and public officials remain accountable to the people.<\/p>\n
God bless Nigeria.<\/p>\n
Amb. Anderson Osiebe, Executive Director, HallowMace Africa, Legislative Development Advocate, Public Policy Expert and an Administrator writes from Abuja – Nigeria.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Amb. Anderson Osiebe The controversy surrounding the prosecution of Emenike Okorie and the involvement of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, raises important questions about justice, accountability, disability rights and the rule of law. My position is simple: Disability does not confer immunity from prosecution, just as…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1143,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[44],"tags":[208,207],"class_list":["post-1142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general-news","tag-emenike-okorie","tag-hon-ben-kalu"],"yoast_head":"\n