As lawyers rally support for repeal of EFCC Act

The assets, which included lump sum of monies and net worth of properties, were given to the federal government courtesy of court order Alamieyeseigha, who has since been granted presidential pardon, was not the only one who had had his properties transferred to the federal government through this means. Many public officials  who had soiled […]

The assets, which included lump sum of monies and net worth of properties, were given to the federal government courtesy of court order Alamieyeseigha, who has since been granted presidential pardon, was not the only one who had had his properties transferred to the federal government through this means. Many public officials  who had soiled their hand in the nation’s treasury had also negotiated the proceeds they realized from graft to the federal government.
There are heightened concerns that the transfer of the assets of the corrupt public officials to the federal government purse through  Section 30 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)Act has not made any economic meanings to the citizens who are the direct victims of the theft.
Commentators also said most of the assets seized from the corrupt officials end up in stolen hands or miraculously disappeared after some days’ announcement in the mass media.
Mr Taiwo Adebayo, a Lagos-based public affairs commentator reasoned that it was right for the government to wholly take possession of confiscated items from corrupt officials, while  same has never accounted for the items in public glare.
According to him, the so-called law which empowered a tier of government to take direct possession of the confiscated items from corrupt public officials takes no    cognizance of the federating structure of the country and the plight of the people who were cheated by the thieving officials.
“I really cannot fathom the impact of the seizure of stolen properties of corrupt officials by the federal government. I’ve   heard of confiscation of stolen assets of late Sani Abacha, Alamieyeseigha and several others but I can’t explain whether same has translated to improved economic condition for Nigerians, who have continued to wallow in abject poverty. One wonders why it is so hard for the federal government to consider supporting the nation’s ailing industries with the seized funds or  using same to create small scale jobs for the people,’’ he said.
Besides, some legal practitioners in the country have begun advocacy for the repeal of    Section 30 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act so that such proceeds could be legally restituted to the victim instead of being paid into the Federation Account.
A judge in the Lagos State judiciary, Justice Lateef Lawal-Akapo, said last week at a workshop organised by the Continuous Legal Education Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja in Lagos that  the law on forfeiture was a welcome development to arrest criminal conducts by individuals in the society. He however said that in the case of Section 30, there should be an amendment that restitution should be to the injured party.
Mr Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), a private prosecutor with the EFCC, said it’s a misnomer the statute  providing that assets seized from convicted individuals should be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.
He cited the case of former Bayelsa governor, Dieprieye Alamieyeseigha, where the funds recovered from him was paid to the federal government instead of the state, which was the victim of the crime.
The lawyer therefore called on the National Assembly to  immediately embark on the amendment of the EFCC Act and other relevant laws to the benefit to the victims of the crime. Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Ade Ipaye, said  emphasis of restitution should be  based on the victims who were owners of the property stolen by the convict.
He cautioned that the rights of Nigerians should not be trampled under the guise of fighting corruption.
“The person whose assets have been forfeited through an interim forfeiture order should be given a reasonable access to the funds, especially for making payments to his lawyers,” Ipaye said.
A Lagos-based Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, also said forfeiting the proceeds of crime to the federal government instead of the victim was “an unjust enrichment of the government.”
Human rights lawyer, Barrister Femi Aborishade told our correspondent that proceeds of crime, which rightly belong to an individual person, natural or artificial, normally go to the individual victims.
He said similarly, proceeds of crime traceable to public institutions can only go to such public institutions, adding that it cannot be otherwise.
He however said a critical legal reform which is being advocated internationally today is that our criminal justice system should abandon the retributive system and adopt the restorative criminal justice system.