By Solomon Odeniyi
Trial of the sacked Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) lecturer involved in sex-for-mark scandal, Professor Richard Akindele has caused division among lawyers over claim of double jeopardy meted to him having been relieved of his job by the university.
While some lawyers argued that losing his job was good enough a punishment, others opined that the professor got what he deserved.
Barrister Yomi Obaditan said an offender cannot be punished twice for the same offence he committed.
He explained that the lecturer committed a sexual assault but has been sacked by his employer and he is now being charged to court again for the same offence which he believed amounted to losing everything.
Obaditan added that, “The reason is that the man has been punished and the institution should not sue him again, however, if it is the state that has taken it up, because every crime committed to an individual is committed to the state, it can see to how an individual pays for his crime in order to serve as a deterrent. I cannot condemn the state, but if it were to be the institution, it is a double jeopardy’’.
A lawyer, who spoke in confidence because of his involvement in the case, said those who are claiming double jeopardy are only sounding moral, noting that, “They are not talking of the law, the law is straight, the law is positive, direct, conclusive and predetermined so that no one would run foul of it provision, the provision of the law has been pre written so that if anyone crosses the line, ignorance of the law is not an excuse”.
According to the lawyer, the fact that he lost his job was not enough but if his innocence was established, he could initiate proceedings against the university and reclaim his job, salaries and entitlements within the period he was thrown out of work.
The lawyer added that his sack was not a punishment stipulated by the law for an offence of that nature, noting that such offence have penal provisions.
He noted that Akindele’s former employer terminated his appointment as a result of administrative procedure during which he was investigated and found liable and according to the lawyer, it was the best the institution could have done at that point in time.
Explaining what must be at play before he could be pronounced guilty or innocent, the lawyer said, “Section 36(5) states that the man be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. There is a need to look at the proof of evidence with the prosecuting authorities. Will the prosecuting authority be able to use evidence both oral and written to establish the charge against the lecturer? What line of defence is available for the lecturer, does he has convincing contrary evidence?”.
A right advocate, Kayode Adebisi said he does not share in the believe that the lecturer was suffering a double jeopardy neither was the punishment meted to him was grievous considering the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed.
He added that considering the rate of the crime in the higher institution of learning in the country, it would serve as deterrent to those perpetrating such the act as well as those who might be nursing such ambition.
He explained that it is not the court of law that must first convict an employee before he could be sacked, adding that the university had the power to hire and fire any lecturer.
