Is inter-agency fighting derailing anti-graft war?

By John Chuks Azu Concerns that the various anti-corruption agencies are at loggerheads have been severally denied by the agencies concerned. But the perceived loss of steam in the anti-graft war, and recent events between the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) and the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission […]

By John Chuks Azu

Concerns that the various anti-corruption agencies are at loggerheads have been severally denied by the agencies concerned. But the perceived loss of steam in the anti-graft war, and recent events between the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) and the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu, have confirmed the rumour.

Revelation by the AGF’s spokesman, Salihu Othman Isa, on August 23 castigating the EFCC for its part in the de-listing of Nigeria among the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Unit, a global network for sharing of criminal intelligence and financial information bothering on money laundering, terrorism financing, proliferation of arms, corruption, financial crimes, economic crimes, brought this face-off to the fore.

Isah claimed that the committee on the Nigerian Financial Intelligent Unit (NFIU) set up by then Acting President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, to reposition and help restore Nigeria in the Egmont Group and to prepare the country for the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)’s visit to Nigeria in November, 2017, were part of moves at damage control.

He said the EFCC frustrated move by Malami to get two executive bills – Proceed of Crime Bill and Nigeria Financial Intelligence Centre Bill, 2015 – to be passed by the National Assembly after he sent a memo number HAGF/SH/2016/Vol.1/2 to President Muhammadu Buhari dated 5th January, 2016 titled, ‘Request to Transmit Two (2) Bills to the National Assembly’. He said this was possible because the NFIU has been under the EFCC as provided under Section 1(2) (C) of the EFCC Act.

“As we all know many agencies of government, like the DSS, Nigeria Police Force, the Nigeria Customs Service, the ICPC, the EFCC, the Nigeria Immigration Service, NAPTIP, NDLEA, DMI, NIA, Federal Ministry of Justice, Finance and Interior, the Federal Inland Revenue Service and other financial regulators such as the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Securities and Exchange  Commission, National Insurance Commission (NAICOM), and many others, including the facilitation of the oversight responsibilities of the National Assembly depend on the activities of the NFIU and its membership of the group for many of their activities,” he said.

Prior to this, analysts had cited the snub of the letter from the AGF dated August 1, 2017 to the EFCC acting chairman requesting him to forward an update on cases and recommendations in line with Section 10 (1) of the EFCC (Enforcement) Regulations 2010, which mandates the commission to forward ‘serious or complex’ cases, as having been interpreted as a sign of serious rift among the agencies.

On July 25, the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, Okoi Obono-Obla, during an event in Lagos, accused both the EFCC acting chairman and the then boss of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), Ekpo Nta, of insubordination to the AGF over their alleged refusal to submit the returns of about 35 high profile corruption cases, which involved former governors and senators. He equally threatened sanctions against them.

Obla’s contention is that Section 150 (1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 empowers the AGF to give directives and advice to all law enforcement agencies in any matter created by an Act of the National Assembly.

While Obla was in Lagos hitting at the anti-corruption agencies, the Senate in Abuja moved speedily to pass the bill seeking to excise the NFIU from EFCC control. The lawmakers, who have been at loggerheads with the executive over the confirmation of Magu, also voted to refuse the clamour to split the office of the Attorney General of the Federation from that of the Minister for Justice.

Perhaps determined to stamp its constitutional powers on confirmation of appointments from the executive, especially on the issue of the anti-corruption czar, the Senate had on two occasions refused to confirm Magu to substantive capacity. Ironically, while the verdict was hinged on two indicting reports received from the Department of State Services (DSS) against Magu, President Muhammadu Buhari, as confirmed by then Acting President, Yemi Osinbajo while on an official visit to Kaduna in July, had stuck to his gun not to replace Magu.

Although many Nigerians believe the non-confirmation of Magu had to do with the fact that some senators were facing prosecution by the anti-graft agency, Malami had after the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting of July 5 appeared to have debunked Osinbajo’s assertion by saying that the issue was never discussed at the meeting.

These developments have continued to cause serious concern as to the direction of the anti-corruption fight. Analysts believe that now that President Buhari is back from his medical vacation, he should re-energise the anti-corruption machinery, being one of the cardinal principles of his administration.