When Justice Becomes Selective: Examining the Ibadan Stampede Case, Government Accountability, and the Exercise of the Attorney General’s Power to Discontinue a Matter
Introduction
The recent dismissal of the case involving the tragic December 2024 Ibadan stampede, which claimed the lives of 35 children, raises serious concerns about justice, accountability, and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion under the Nigerian law. The Oyo State High Court struck out the case against Queen Naomi Silekunolami, broadcaster Oriyomi Hamzat, and Islamic High School Principal Abdullahi Fasasi.
The Oyo State Attorney-General (AG), Abiodun Aikomo, justified withdrawing the charges by stating that the defendants had shown “empathy” and had “assuaged the feelings of the affected parties.” However, this reasoning does not align with the principles of the Nigerian criminal justice law, particularly under Section 211 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (As Amended), which governs the Attorney General’s prosecutorial powers.
The One-Sided Prosecution: Why Was the Oyo State Government Not Held Accountable?
A fundamental flaw in the handling of this case was the selective prosecution of only the event organizers while completely excluding the Oyo State Government, which had approved and authorized the funfair. If criminal liability is to be assigned, why were only the private organizers charged, while the state who had approved the event and had the duty to regulate and ensure safety shielded?
In cases of mass casualties arising from gross negligence, accountability should extend to all parties responsible for ensuring safety, including public institutions that failed in their regulatory role.
- Government Approval and Oversight: If the Oyo State Government sanctioned the event, what measures were taken to enforce safety regulations, ensure proper crowd control, and provide emergency response plans
- Precedent for Future Events: By failing to hold the government accountable, the legal system creates a precedent where government institutions can authorize events without assuming responsibility for safety failures.
In any well-functioning legal system, accountability should be shared, especially when a government body is directly involved in an incident leading to loss of lives.
Examining the Attorney-General’s Discretion Under Section 211 of the Constitution
The AG has broad prosecutorial powers under Section 211(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which states that:
The Attorney General of a state shall have power:
(a) To institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria…
(b) To take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person; and
(c) To discontinue at any stage before judgment is delivered any such criminal proceedings instituted or undertaken by him or any other authority or person.
However, Section 211(3) places a restriction on this power:
“In exercising his powers under this section, the Attorney-General of a state shall have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice, and the need to prevent abuse of legal process.”
Did the AG’s Decision Align with These Legal Principles?
The AG argued that the defendants “showed empathy” and “assuaged the feelings of the affected families,” as justification for discontinuing the case. However, this raises serious legal and ethical concerns:
- Criminal Prosecution is Not a Private Affair: A criminal case is not a civil dispute that can be settled privately. The deaths of 35 children affect not just their families but the public at large. Justice is meant to serve society, not just individual victims.
- Public Interest Consideration: Dropping charges because the accused expressed remorse does not serve public interest. The purpose of prosecution is deterrence, accountability, and ensuring similar tragedies do not happen again.
- Interest of Justice: The key question is: Was negligence proven? If the accused were truly innocent, the case should have been dismissed on merit, not on sentimental grounds.
- Preventing Abuse of Legal Process: Selectively prosecuting some parties while sparing the state government raises questions of bias and selective justice.
The AG’s justification for withdrawing the charges contradicts the legal principles guiding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Criminal law does not allow cases to be abandoned based on emotions or private settlements.
Can Victims Decide to Discontinue Criminal Prosecution?
In criminal law, victims and their families do not have the power to decide whether prosecution continues or stops. Unlike civil cases where parties can settle, criminal offenses, especially those involving wrongful deaths, are offenses against the state, not just individual victims.
The AG’s claim that the families of the victims had been “assuaged” implies an informal settlement, which, while possible in civil matters, should not interfere with criminal liability. If this becomes a norm, then individuals responsible for serious offenses could simply compensate victims privately and escape criminal responsibility, a dangerous precedent for justice.
What Happens to the Families of the Victims?
The failure to properly prosecute this case leaves the families of the 35 deceased children without closure. Some key concerns include:
- Were the families consulted before the case was withdrawn?
- What compensation or support have they received?
- Would the case have been handled the same way if the victims were from elite backgrounds?
In a system where justice often favors the powerful, this case raises troubling questions about whether the economic and social status of victims influences prosecutorial decisions.
Legal and Social Implications of the Case Dismissal
The dismissal of this case sets a troubling precedent for future legal accountability:
- Encouraging Government Negligence: By failing to prosecute the Oyo State Government, the legal system creates a loophole where state institutions can evade responsibility while shifting blame to private individuals.
- Weakening Deterrence for Safety Violations: If humanitarian efforts can be used as an excuse for dismissing negligence-related deaths, organizers of public events may take safety regulations less seriously in the future.
- Erosion of Public Trust in Justice: The perception that justice is selective and favors the powerful erodes public confidence in the legal system.
Conclusion:
Justice should not be selective or influenced by social status, political connections, or private settlements. The tragic deaths of 35 children deserved a fair, thorough, and impartial prosecution, one that examined the full scope of liability, including the role of the Oyo State Government. While the AG has the constitutional power to discontinue cases, this power must be exercised with strict adherence to public interest, the interest of justice, and the prevention of legal abuse.
