Ekiti verdict: Clipping the wings of impunity

Prior to the ascension of former President Olusegun Obasanjo to the Presidency in 1999, Nigeria was a pariah among the comity of nations due to her deplorable track records in human rights abuses as epitomized by the Late Sani Abacha government and unassailable corruption index. The fact that we are still recovering Abacha loots starched […]

Prior to the ascension of former President Olusegun Obasanjo to the Presidency in 1999, Nigeria was a pariah among the comity of nations due to her deplorable track records in human rights abuses as epitomized by the Late Sani Abacha government and unassailable corruption index. The fact that we are still recovering Abacha loots starched across some western countries even almost 20 years after his death goes to show how endemic and deep-rooted sleazy lifestyle had become.

The second intrusion of the military into our political space was justified as the behest to rid the nation of endemic corruption. This was the chief pretext offered by the Muhammadu Buhari-led coupists that toppled Sheu Shagari government in December 1983. In a partial response to the pressure from the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), which named Nigeria as one of 23 countries non-cooperative in the international community’s efforts to fight money laundering, Obasanjo administration was spurred to establish the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, in 2003 with Nuhu Ribadu as pioneer chairman. 

I believe EFCC is welcome development as a veritable tool to curtail corruption in our system. Its assignments are clear. It has needed legal backing and enticing perquisites for its operatives. The fear of the EFCC has been the beginning of wisdom in some official quarters. Thus far, it has sanitized our financial sector to a reasonable extent. Illicit funds transfers locally and internationally have been reduced drastically. This is a significant achievement of the commission. 

The commission, according to Justice Minister and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, had recovered over $2 trillion (Two trillion dollars) within a period of 12 years while more than N500 billions loots were recovered under Buhari administration alone. More are still been recovered. This is a great feat, I must say; and it is commendable. I guess this amount included the “re-looted funds” said to have been missing in the custody of the commission. Inadvertently, the commission is fast becoming a cesspit of corruption going by allegations of bribery, stealing and diversion of recovered loots.

However, EFCC has been operating, in many instances, beyond the limits of the law. Common act of the EFCC’s assumed qualified privilege was unrestrained access to state governments’ books. And basking on the unquestionable euphoria of presidential nods, it had bulldozed its way into places that were not part of its call of duty.

It has also become an attacking dog for the sitting President to hunt his perceived political foes and critics. Obasanjo used the commission to intimidate his political enemies and recalcitrant associates in a game of show of strength. It also used it to earn forceful submission by those who dared to have the minds of their own or those who would not kowtow to his sinister agenda even when they belong to the same camp. The likes of Late S. M. Afolabi and Vincent Ogbulafor are good examples. I won’t be surprised to see some APC chieftains who won’t subscribe to Buhari’s second term becoming guests of the commission in months to come.

In recent times, interdicting Governor Ayo Fayose’s bank account was a violation of his immunity as a sitting governor. He could only be investigated and not prosecuted; therefore, placing an embargo on his account was tantamount to implementing the punitive measure meted out to individuals not enjoying immunity. Conflicting legal opinions on this issue was largely tinted by political leanings of the debating lawyers.

The commission is also reputed for scandalizing people at will through media trials. Many of such cases often end up as charades. The case of Prof. Lucy Ogbadu, who was cleared of alleged diversion of N23 million after many months of investigation was a valid example. Ogbadu is the Director-General of National Bio-technology Development Agency, NABDA. Similarly, former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, Prof. Charles Soludo, was cleared of Currency Notes fraud allegation in 2015 after his image had been vilified in the public space

Let me acknowledge that investigating suspected sleazy deals and inviting suspects for interrogations are within the norms of best practices; but disparaging people’s names in the media before diligent investigations are concluded left much to be desired. Because many Nigerians are wary of prolonged litigations and they choose to allow divine recompense in their cases are the reasons some of the innocent people already maligned would rather accept to live with the scars for a very long time than seek redress in the court of law. 

The recent verdict by the Federal High Court, Ado Ekiti against the EFCC is grand and technically sound.  The judgment was delivered in a suit filed by Ekiti State Government against the EFCC, the Inspector General of Police, the Speaker, Ekiti State House of Assembly, the Clerk and 13 others. Ekiti Attorney General filed the suit after the commission sent letters of invitation to some government officials seeking details over some financial transactions of the state. The EFCC also sent letters to the banks seeking financial books of the state in their custody.

Justice Taiwo O. Taiwo held that the financial institutions are not entitled to release to or disclose to any person, body or agency, including the EFCC and IG, or any other investigating body, any document, financial records etc. The court held that the EFCC cannot usurp the oversight functions vested in state assembly under Sections 128 and 129 of the 1999 Constitution to initiate a probe or criminal proceedings against a state official.

“I can’t by any stretch of imagination see how the statutory functions of the (EFCC) can extend to a state in a federation under any guise to the extent that the eight to 18 defendants (banks) will be directed to submit bank details. Yes, the first defendant can investigate any person or corporate organisation, what it can’t do is to usurp the powers of the assembly. The Federal Government cannot impose its statutory duties on a state in flagrant disobedient of the constitution. The prosecution should not ride roughshod of the constitution. It is the duty of judges to ensure they don’t listen to sentiments of the public. I resolve all issues in favour of the plaintiff. I grant all reliefs sought by the plaintiff in view of the fact they are live issues.”

By this landmark judgment, the court has made it clear that the EFCC should not be a rampaging federal agent that monitors state finances. It means the commission has been operating illegally over the years by scrutinizing state governments’ accounts and harassing banks to submit details of the states’ financial transactions. Apparently, the EFCC’s wings of impunity have been clipped. Henceforth, the commission should be humble enough to employ due legal process in the discharge of its statutory duties and avoid being accused of flagrant abuse of judicial process.

 

Michael West, a media consultant, writes via [email protected]