By Owei Lakemfa
I have a soft
spot for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, mainly
because I was present at its birth. Nigeria had transited from long years of
unaccountable military regimes that made little distinction between the
national purse and private pockets. So corruption was rampant when the civilian
administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo came into office in 1999.
EFCC Following local and international pressures, the administration
sought to fight corruption with specialised agencies. To set these up,
stakeholders were invited to meetings which I attended as the
representative of the Nigeria Labour Congress, NLC.
However, the EFCC
was a rascal using uncomely methods like breaking down doors, finding
suspects guilty by media trials, disregarding court orders and making
outlandish claims like stating before the Senate that 31 of the serving
36 governors were corrupt, but having little to show after the men
left office and no longer had immunity. Worse still, the body swarm
comfortably in political waters; engineering the removal of political office
holders including elected governors. The worst case, was using six Plateau State legislators it had captured, to
impeach Governor Joshua Dariye when the constitutional number required
was a minimum sixteen. The EFCC began operating like a weather
forecast station issuing intermittent statements about people
arrested, stages of investigation or even its intentions. It chairmen who
ordinarily were public servants; in fact, serving police officers – except Mrs.
Farida Mzamber Waziri, a retired police officer – became Czars.
The agency has been
severally accused of doing the bidding of whoever is in power and restricting
its investigative prowess to those in opposition. While there is a lot of truth
in this, personally, I think it is good for the country; if even a few looters
are brought to book, that will send a strong message that people will be
held to account even after leaving public office. I must also admit that the
EFCC has brought some bite into the anti-corruption war; we have witnessed
governors, bank chief executives and even an Inspector General of Police
prosecuted and convicted. But this is no excuse to fight criminality with
illegality. I believe public agencies like the EFCC and Directorate of State
Security,DSS, can be effective even if they employ legal and civilised
procedures.
This will be in line
with the EFCC’s vision of being “An agency operating to best international
standards…” Unfortunately, at 13, the EFCC has not shed its toga of rascality
and know-it-all attitude. Nothing typifies this better than its
uncultured response to the inaugural speech by the President of the Nigeria Bar
Association, NBA, Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud. I had known Mahmoud in the early
‘80s as a quiet, soft-spoken gentleman who tries to convince on the basis
of logic rather than be pedantic and flamboyant like some of his
colleagues. He and many of us in our generation had
admiration for the late Alao Aka-Bashorun the principled NBA President
who brought activism to the Bar. Aka-Bashorun believed that law must serve the
people and that service to the citizenry is the basis of legitimacy for
any government.
I was not surprised
that Mahmoud in his inaugural speech emphasised some of these themes such
as “A clean judiciary that will deliver consistent and predictable
outcomes” and “No to corruption, whether in the Executive, Legislative or
Judicial branch of government” He warned that “for the legal
profession in Nigerian, it can no longer be business as usual” and that “there
cannot be rich lawyers in a poor country.”
His message that
“the fight against corruption can only be achieved if we do so within the frame
work of the rule of law and by strong institutions” did not seem
appealing to the EFCC, a body which he commended for its modest achievements.
His suggestion that the EFCC be reformed by limiting it to an
investigative agency while “the conduct of the prosecution must be by an
independent highly resourced prosecution agency” infuriated the
EFCC. Rather than respond to Mahmoud’s arguments, the Agency
resorted to insults.
In its usual
style of making outlandish and unsubstantiated claims, the Commission claimed
to have “recorded more convictions in the last one year than all the states and
federal ministries of justices combined.” The EFCC concluded that the
NBA’s “ current campaign appears to be self-serving (and) intended
to create a cabal of untouchables who can be investigated but may never be
prosecuted.” The arrogance of the EFCC knows no bounds; it sees itself as a
religion; if you disagree with it, you must be a sinner deserving to be
publicly chastised with scorpions. For it, suggestions that it be reformed can
only be made by ‘rogues’ and “vultures”. Yet, it is a public institution funded
by the people; so how can it seek to outlaw debates?
The EFCC might have
thought that it will get away with its usual rascality; it might not have
bargained for the reaction of Mahmoud, the NBA and the general public who see
nothing wrong in a debate on the status of a public institution. And the EFCC
is not faring well in the ensuing debate. Mahmoud’s suggestion reminds me of
the 1975 case of then Head of State, General Murtala Mohammed who was accused
of corruption by University of Lagos Law lecturer, Dr. Obarogie Ohonbamu.
Understandably, Mohammed, his government and security agencies were livid
and thought Ohonbamu must be jailed. But the then Director of Public
Prosecution in Lagos State, Akintola Olufemi Ejiwunmi, later of the Supreme
Court, thought there should be no prosecution.
A shocked Murtala sent
for Ejiwunmi, who explained that in case of prosecution, Ohonbamu’s lawyer will
ask him to a come to court where he will have no immunity against a potentially
unfriendly cross-examination. As a journalist, I believe that even the best
writers need an editor; a brilliant EFCC needs an independent agency to decide
whether based on the facts before it, prosecution is necessary. I rest my case.
No comments:
Post a Comment