EFCC and prosecution of ex-govt officials

Time and again, except in very few instances, the agency’s high-value suspects have escaped the appropriate punishments that fit their alleged criminal conduct. Indeed, even in such cases, the application of questionable parameters, like plea bargains, euphemism for political interference, has done much to portray the process in unflattering light.Nowhere are the failings of the […]

Time and again, except in very few instances, the agency’s high-value suspects have escaped the appropriate punishments that fit their alleged criminal conduct. Indeed, even in such cases, the application of questionable parameters, like plea bargains, euphemism for political interference, has done much to portray the process in unflattering light.
Nowhere are the failings of the EFCC more glaring as in the agency’s spotty record in prosecution of former office holders such as governors. Even political appointees like former cabinet members can purchase reprieve with the right political connections, until they run out of favour of their godfathers.
Since the return to civil rule, there has not been a successful prosecution of such class of public office holders, despite evidence that the EFCC officials often claim is in their dossiers.
Where cases involving such suspects are taken to court, the agency seems to be unable to stem the endless requests for endless adjournments and other subterfuges clearly aimed at scuttling the process. The guilt or innocence of such persons is thereby not established, and the public is left to wonder what it all really means in fight against economic crimes.
An example of such cases is the long-delayed one involving Dr Chimaroke Nnamani, the two-term governor of Enugu State..
Mr Nnamani was first arraigned in 2007, upon leaving office, on a 105-count charge of laundering 5 billion naira of the state government’s money.  Since that first court appearance, it has been one request for adjournment after another. Last week, the defence team again obtained yet another adjournment, further delaying the process.
As if these were not enough, the periodic absence of trial judges on the day that the cases would be due for mention causes additional delays.
The fact that most of the cases is still at the ‘mention’ stage suggests either complicity or inexcusable tardiness on the part of the legal arm of the EFCC.
It is simply beyond reason that with the iron-clad evidence that the EFCC officials claim to have on the Nnamani case, it would drag for this long, with no guarantee that it would ever come to the judgement stage.
There are many of such cases involving incumbent and former governors. The constitutional provisions confer immunity from prosecution on certain public office holders, including governors. That immunity is shed once they vacate office.
In the Nnamani case, the judge noted the need to fasten the trial, and adjourned further proceedings on it to June 17.
It a cardinal rule in the judiciary that time should not be sacrificed in the pursuit of justice, but it is ridiculous that cases of this nature should be subject to such prolonged adjournments, often on whimsical grounds.
The process also is not helped when suspects who in any case can afford it would approach the court for permission to travel abroad for medical check-ups, grounding the trial.
If the prosecution does not lend itself to be amenable to such unnecessary diversions, most of the cases should have been disposed of by now.
Judges should also be wary of their courts being used by politically powerful persons to subvert the judicial process and evade justice.
There should be some timelines for the start and end of every economic crime under the EFCC statutes; the National Judicial Council should ensure that such timelines are strictly maintained.
It is a travesty, and makes a mockery of the law that those accused of serious financial crimes would be allowed to freely influence the process, or even escape it completely.