Allen-Briggs: Between Jonathan and Sankey

Comfort Obi

Dr. Yakubu Sankey, the Acting Director-General of the Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), likes controversy. Atimes, Sankey forgets he is a public servant, and dabbles into something he should not dabble into. He is obviously not used to answering questions from the press. So, he answers, always, every question with a long response. If you ask him: What is your name? Sankey will tell you. But he will continue by telling you the name of his parents, where he was born, and where they lived. Such people make good interview copies. But more often than not, they end up talking themselves into trouble.
It happened to Sankey penultimate week. And he was forced to eat his vomit. To do that, public funds were used in an advertisement to deny what he said, or did not say. For the records, this is not the first time Sankey would make controversial statements in an interview.
In the heat of the unnecessary controversy which followed the reduction of Nuhu Ribadu, former EFCC chairman, from an Assistant Inspector General of Police to his appropriate rank – a Deputy Commissioner of Police – Sankey dabbled into it. Speaking in a long interview with a national daily, Sankey condemned the Police Service Commission (PSC) for carrying out its constitutional responsibility. In a most perplexing and ignorant manner, he said the PSC had no right to do what it did. I never quite understood why he dabbled into it. Nobody told him Ribadu was going to be withdrawn from NIPSS. And even if that was the case, he would have had no say in it. He did not nominate Ribadu for a course in NIPSS. If those who sent him decided to remove him, he wouldn’t have stopped it. At the time, the temptation to reply him was strong. But the leadership of the PSC decided to watch him with amused tolerance as he wallowed in his ignorance. In the case at hand, which pitched him against the office of the Vice President, Sankey realised too late that he had chewed more than he can swallow. What was the case?
In June, Deinbo Allen-Briggs, an Assistant Director at NIPSS, and a participant in the Senior Executive Course (SEC) 30, went with his colleagues to China on a course tour. There, Allen-Briggs allegedly stole a camera and was caught. A national newspaper which broke the story had alleged that Allen-Briggs had stolen the camera where it was on display in a Chinese Hotel. This column, in The Source edition of June 30, had lamented the damage the alleged theft had done to Nigeria. But thanks to the Vice President’s office, there is a corrected version of the theft. It turned out that the camera allegedly stolen by him belonged to a course mate of his. So, you ask: What is the difference between 12 and a dozen? A theft is a theft. So what did Sankey do wrong?
On hearing about the scandalous alleged theft which put a tar on NIPSS and Nigeria, he did what I honestly think he should do. He set up an investigation panel which indicted Allen-Briggs. And then did what he should not have done. Based on the report of the panel, he suspended Allen-Briggs from work, placed him on half salary, withdrew him from the course, before sending the report to the Vice President under whose supervision NIPSS falls. Sankey did two things wrong.
First, he should not have suspended Allen-Briggs from office, or withdrawn him from his course before sending the report to Vice President Goodluck Jonathan’s office. Second, it is not his job to pronounce Allen-Briggs guilty, the indictment by the panel notwithstanding. Theft is a criminal offence. It is the job of the police to arrest Allen-Briggs, investigate him, and prosecute him in a law court. Only a court of law can pronounce him guilty. But I digress. I was talking about how Sankey entered into trouble.
Sensing real trouble, Allen-Briggs wrote a petition to the Vice President, crying victimisation. He denied the allegation against him. I will come to the substance of his denial shortly. He said Sankey had already condemned him. The Vice President, after getting a legal opinion, including that of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, ordered a return to status quo. That must have irked Sankey, who in an interview with a national weekly, gave the impression that the VP's 'meddling' into the Allen-Briggs affair encourages indiscipline at NIPSS. Embarrassed, the VP's office sought to set the record straight in a press statement. My opinion is: Sankey didn't deserve a public statement. He should have been invited and chastised strongly. And he would still have swallowed his vomit in an advert like he did now.
I have read Allen-Briggs' defence as stated in his petition to the VP. He said he picked the camera on the floor, and had the intention of giving it back to the owner. So, why did he not do that? He tells a story that would make one spank a baby.
He says he has a well-known history of memory loss! Meaning: He forgot all about the camera because of his "illness." And you ask: When the camera was being looked for, why didn’t that jolt his memory to remember. He had to wait until he was caught! But let us agree with him that he suffers from memory loss. The questions then are: With such a 'bad' case of memory loss, what is he doing at NIPSS? How does he remember his schedule of duties? And he is a course participant in a Senior Executive Course? How does he understand what he is being taught, and how does he remember what he is reading? This guy is a joker.
The truth, even from his own petition, is that he is guilty of the allegation against him. He “picked” a camera which is not his, and he kept it. If that is not a case of theft, I don’t know what is. Problem, however, is, that Sankey mishandled it by taking actions against him without calling the police in. It is not late however. The VP ordered a return to status quo based on legal advice. Fine. The thing to do now is to hand the case over to the police for a thorough investigation and action. The incident, from which- ever way one looks at it, stinks to high heavens.