The conviction of a former Minister of Water Resources, Sarah Ochekpe, former acting chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Plateau State, Raymond Dabo, and Evangelist Sunday Jitong, former campaign coordinator for ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, for receiving N450 million bribe from former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke, and their sentencing to three months imprisonment with an option of N1 million fine, by Justice Musa Kurya, of the Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, has naturally elicited mixed reactions.

The convicts were tried on charges bordering on conspiracy and money laundering. The controversial fund, according to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) did not pass through a financial institution. Moreover, the fund exceeded the amount authorised by the law. So, the convicts committed an offence contrary to the provision of sections 18 (a) and 16 (1), (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2012 (as amended) and punishable under Section 16 (2), (b) of the same law.

For us, while the conviction is a merited comeuppance for the criminal abuse of public trust, the punishment meted out by the court is a travesty. We are concerned that such a slap on the wrist does not serve as a deterrent to other public officers who may be seeing public funds as a free-for-all game. The punishment is too light, when under our laws the punishment for stealing anything capable of being stolen, is seven years imprisonment.

So, we wonder what is wrong with our criminal justice system. Is it that the laws under which those who stole from our common patrimony are charged are different from that for other criminals who get longer sentences for what may be less impactful crimes? Or is it the case as stated by former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, and echoed by former President Jonathan, that corruption is not stealing, which we consider a double-speak to protect the political class.

Perhaps, the redefinition of taking what belongs to all citizens – which is stealing, as money laundering and similar pseudo-charges, is a deliberate act by the political elite to save their skin and remove the stain of being called a thief, upon conviction for such crime. In the instant case and similar others like it, we are disagreeable that after fiddling with such a huge amount, those found guilty should receive a mere three months jail term, with an option of a paltry N1 million fine.

Interestingly, and as if to further rub salt on our collective injury, the former minister has vowed to appeal the judgment. Her counsel, S. Oyawole, said based on the fact that the money was paid through a financial institution, the ruling would not stand. According to Oyawole, “The said money was paid through a financial institution. And the branch operations manager brought in by the EFCC as a witness admitted under cross-examination that the bank was a financial institution and he dealt with our clients in his official capacity as a banker”. He added: “To say that the accused did not go through a financial institution is a contradiction. Definitely, the judgment will be challenged.”

While we agree that anyone dissatisfied with a court judgment has the right to appeal, we do not think it is in a seemingly glaring matter like this.

If Justice Kurya deliberately chose the sentencing, relevant authorities like the National Judicial Council (NJC) should investigate if there is an ill-motive, but if that is the provision of the law, then the law needs to be amended to reflect the damage done to the society by such act. Like many Nigerians, we are also concerned that while those who received the bribe of N450 million bribe have been convicted and sentenced, Mrs Madueke, who offered the bribe has consistently evaded arrest and trial.

Unfortunately, in spite of the efforts of the EFCC, Diezani-Madueke is peacefully ensconced in a foreign country, though a fugitive from the law. While we do not recommend extra-judicial measures to ferry her back to the country, we demand that more efforts be made to bring her back, so that in the public eye, the trial and conviction of the receiver without the corresponding giver, does not look like a charade.

We urge the elite to understand that while the criminal law serves to punish for a crime, it also serves as a deterrent measure. And it can only do so if the provision for similar crimes are seen as equitable and deterring across board. If, for instance, in the same country, one person could be sentenced to seven years jail term upon conviction for stealing a goat, and another, three months for partaking in sharing hundreds of millions of naira taken from the common patrimony, the philosophical underpinning of criminal law is defeated.

So, the National Assembly and state assemblies should look more closely at our laws, and ensure there is harmony between the expectation of the society and the provisions of the law. It is not appropriate to have different laws for different classes of citizens, or make it look so in the public eye. Such a situation breeds acrimony amongst the citizens and the consequence is social dislocation. If the lower class see themselves as unduly done-in by the upper class, the result is friction and upheavals.

Such disequilibrium could manifest in different forms; from increase in crime by the lower class in an attempt to join the upper class, or deliberate fleecing of the common patrimony by the upper class since the punishment is not deterring enough.

Again, the resulting animosity between social classes may be a contributory factor to the incessant riots, mayhem, banditry and unfathomable criminality that have become the bane of our society. The malicious destruction of public property during the #EndSARS protest readily comes to mind.

In our view, those who have stolen from the public till should face more severe consequences or at least similar punishment as those who steal from private persons. We doubt if the punishment meted to those convicted for conspiracy and money laundering met that threshold.

What the judgment did was not to punishment but to justify the former minister of petroleum.