Justice Is Not for Sale: Why Calls to Withdraw Mrs. Jonathan’s Criminal Complaint are Baseless and Illegal‎‎ By Barrister Joseph Obinna.

‎‎‎The Nigerian criminal justice system is built on the principle that crimes are not private wrongs but public offences prosecuted in the name of the State. Once a criminal complaint is lodged and a charge is before the court, the complainant ceases to be the “owner” of the case. Instead, the State takes over prosecution in the interest of justice. This distinction is often misunderstood, especially by commentators in the social media space who seek cheap popularity by misrepresenting the law.‎‎Recent calls by individuals such as Barrister Deji Adeyanju, a self-styled human rights activist, urging Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan, to withdraw a pending criminal case involving charges of conspiracy, stealing, and burglary, exemplify this mischief. Such demands are not only reckless but also betray a fundamental ignorance of criminal procedure. They amount to blackmail—attempting to push a complainant into an illegality that could expose her to liability for malicious prosecution or civil damages.‎‎The law is clear. Under Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), only the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) or his delegated officers have the constitutional power to discontinue a criminal case through the instrument of nolle prosequi. The complainant, in this case Mrs. Jonathan, has no legal power to “withdraw” a case once charges have been filed and the court is seized of jurisdiction. The complainant becomes, at best, a state witness. Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 obliges such a witness to give testimony as required, but it does not confer on them the discretion to terminate proceedings.‎‎To suggest otherwise, as Adeyanju and others have done, is to advocate for an “ex gratis” solution outside the law. Worse still, if a complainant were to attempt such a withdrawal, it would embolden the accused to bring an action for malicious prosecution or compensatory damages, arguing that they had been wrongfully remanded for years—since 2019 in this case. No serious lawyer would recommend such a reckless course of action.‎‎What then is the proper remedy? The defendants stand accused of bailable offences—conspiracy, stealing, and burglary. The Constitution itself under Section 35(4) guarantees the right to bail where trial is unduly delayed, as prolonged detention without conclusion of trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty. The appropriate intervention, therefore, is not to pressure the complainant into withdrawing the case, but for a competent lawyer—even on a pro bono basis—to pursue bail vigorously. This can be done at the trial court, the Court of Appeal, and if necessary, at the Supreme Court, under Section 6 of the Constitution which vests judicial powers broadly across all superior courts of record.‎‎It is high time that the public discourse recognizes the sanctity of criminal procedure. The complainant is not a bargaining chip; she is a witness whose duty is to assist the court in finding the truth. Those attempting to twist this narrative in the marketplace of social media are not defending human rights—they are trivializing justice and undermining the rule of law.‎‎Justice cannot be negotiated on Twitter. It must follow due process in court.