Ribadu’s promotion to AIG selective justice –Activist

Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the former Chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was charged to Code of Conduct Tribunal by the former Attorney General, Michael Aondoakaa on the allegation that he did not declare his assets upon assumption of office as required by law. The matter had gone very far before the immediate past […]

Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, the former Chairman of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was charged to Code of Conduct Tribunal by the former Attorney General, Michael Aondoakaa on the allegation that he did not declare his assets upon assumption of office as required by law. The matter had gone very far before the immediate past Attorney General, Adetokunbo Kayode decided to invoke section 174 of the 1999 Constitution to withdraw the case.

In as much as the Constitution empowers the attorney general to invoke section 174 to discontinue any matter that is pending in court, we don’t know why government decided to withdraw the case. We don’t know whether it was withdrawn because of public interest. But the way the federal government went about it has left a lot of questions unanswered. Why for instance, will the government withdraw the case when it has already spent so much money and time on the case? Government has to come clean regarding this Ribadu case. And the reason some Nigerians are even asking questions is because it is believed that the deal was struck between the time then Acting President Goodluck Jonathan visited America and was said to have held a meeting with Ribadu who is in exile. The question that Nigerians are asking is that if somebody has a case in court and his friend becomes the president of Nigeria, does it mean that the friend will now use his high office and withdraw a case that is pending in court? That is questionable. We are not drawing a conclusion that Ribadu was guilty but the government has not handled the case in a very transparent manner. You don’t withdraw a case because it involves your friend. The case would have been left with the Code of Conduct Tribunal to decide. More over, it has created doubt in the minds of Nigerians regarding the sincerity and the commitment of the current administration to prosecute the anti-corruption fight.

The irony is that the president now used to be the vice president to the late president Umaru Musa Yar’adua who disgraced Ribadu out of the EFCC.  How come that the same government that vilified Ribadu and took him to the CCT is now reversing its decision?

So you think Ribadu’s case at the tribunal should not have been withdrawn and he should not have been reinstated to the rank of AIG?

What we are saying is that the way and manner in which the government withdrew the case is questionable. We are not questioning the power of the federal attorney general. What we are questioning is the circumstances surrounding the exercise of that power. There is a proviso in that section 174 that says if the attorney general decides to terminate a pending matter,  he has to show evidence that the termination of that matter will serve public interest. What public interest will the withdrawal of Ribadu’s case serve? We are not saying that Ribadu is guilty; neither are we saying that he is not guilty. But we are saying that is an abuse of court process. If this kind of abuse continues people will begin to lose hope in the judicial process. People will begin to lose faith in the exercise of the authority of the attorney general. It is a very major issue that has to be addressed.

Then the most shocking aspect of this Ribadu drama is that about 139 other police officers that were said to have been wrongly promoted were demoted along with Ribadu who was promoted to the rank of Assistant Inspector General (AIG) of Police and the Police Service Commission demoted him to Deputy Commissioner of Police. Ribadu then went to court to challenge his demotion and the case was still in court when the PSC reverted its earlier decision and now confirmed the promotion of Ribadu to AIG and told Nigerians that he has been retired with effect from Novemebr last year. This is a very funny drama. Why would you now revert yourself and now retire Ribadu? Has he reached retirement age? It is wrong. Why didn’t the federal government wait for the case to be decided in court?

Some activists are calling on PSC to publicly give reasons why it has rescinded its decision to demote and eventually sack Ribadu. What is your own position on the matter?

That is a very good request. The PSC will have to come out clean otherwise the integrity and credibility of the commission will be questionable. What happens to the other officers that were demoted alongside Ribadu? What kind of selective justice is this? It is immoral, it’s illegal, it is unconstitutional. The independence of the commission is now in question. Is this commission really independent or is it just an appendage of the presidency? What kind of commission will reverse a decision based on mere sentiments? It is unfortunate.