A court in Peru sentenced former President Ollanta Humala and his wife, Nadine Heredia, to 15 years in prison for
laundering $3m received from a Brazilian construction firm Odebrecht and $200,000 from the government of then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Peru, a Latin American nation, known for rich tourism sites on that continent has had a fair share of convicted presidents.
Humala, 62, was taken into custody after the verdict was convicted alongside his 48-year-old wife, Heredia who requested asylum at the Brazilian embassy in Lima.
She was granted safe passage to travel to Brazil with her youngest son.
During his trial, which lasted three years following an investigation which kicked off in 2016, Humala decried the charges as political persecution. Prosecutors alleged Humala received the illicit funds in his 2011 campaign against Keiko Fujimori, the other former president’s daughter, through Humala’s Nationalist Party.
Humala, a retired military officer who led the Andean nation from 2011 to 2016, will likely carry out his sentence on a police base built specially to house Peru’s jailed leaders.
Former presidents Alejandro Toledo and Pedro Castillo are currently jailed at the site, while the late Alberto Fujimori stayed there for 16 months until his release in 2023.
Toledo, in power from 2001 to 2006, was sentenced last year to more than 20 years in prison for accepting $35m in bribes in exchange for government contracts.
Former President Pedro Castillo is also being detained as he faces charges of “rebellion” after a failed attempt to dissolve congress in 2022.
In 2019, former President Alan Garcia killed himself by gunshot wound as police descended on his home to arrest him for alleged corruption related to Odebrecht.
From Peru’s contemporary history, the country is no safe haven for its thieving leaders who find public office alluring for their criminal tendencies. Most of their offences border on money laundering. This is evident in the fact that at least three of his predecessors have also been handed sentences for heist and related offences while exploiting their high offices.
Curiously, despite Humala’s loaded credentials as an ex-military general who later transformed as a civilian president, he was not shielded from the long arms of the laws even with the passage of time.
Following the verdict on Humala recently, it opened a flurry of discourse among many in very unlikely places, including audiences of relatively unlearned Nigerians. Their verdict; “This can not happen in Nigeria”.
The highlight of some of these discussions is the submission that apart from the days of the draconian era of the military, civilian leaders do not likely get punished for similar offences.
Notwithstanding the efforts of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, which has a handful of ex-governors as its convicts, not much can be credited to the anti-graft agency as proactive in that regard. We recall that there were so many high profile corruption cases which began on a promising note but swept under the carpet following political maneuverings, including cross-carpeting to suit the caprices of the powers that be.
In our clime, some high profile political office holders are above the law while in office as they are glorified by an immunity clause and even become ‘untouchable’ after leaving office for obvious reasons. They have become too powerful as political godfathers who have installed stooges after them or have compromised the various organs in the criminal justice system, CJS, who turn a blind eye to any ill-doing while in office.
Our national moral fiber is fast losing its relevance to greed where the highest payer takes the day. This can be amplified with the scenario where even local government chairmen accused of heist can get away unhindered after dubious tenures.
We advocate a stronger judiciary whose independence should be truly unalloyed, devoid of political interference. As it is today, appointments into high judicial offices at both the federal and state levels do have the blessings of the executive.
Immunity clause should no longer covers leaders as soon as they leave office no matter their charisma and dogmatic posturing as long as they are found to have breached the laws while in office.
We have enough to deal with various offences in our statutes but the will power to invoke them is what is lacking.
