Sad development at EFCC

By Tonnie Iredia

The story some weeks back that Abubakar Malami, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Ibrahim Magu, the acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) were at loggerheads, was denied by both parties. Addressing newsmen in Abuja in preparation for the first national summit on Justice, Malami dismissed the story. On the part of the EFCC, its spokesman, Wilson Uwajaren issued a well crafted establishment statement suggesting that the story of the Malami/Magu friction was the imagination of evil doers.

As if to ensure that the EFCC version was well circulated, Wilson reiterated his assurances of ‘all is well’ on national television. Indeed, this column at a different forum commended him for being so prompt and eloquent. We almost believed him because even if it was not the truth, the message was well delivered. Our only misgiving was that government hardly tells the truth on any matter which explains why everything negative about government is believed while any positive story about her is usually doubted.

Our instinctive caution about the official version of the rift paid off in the last few days with many reports in the media that the Attorney General imagines that Magu was perhaps a minus to fight against corruption. So, at last the story of fiction between the critical actors in Buhari’s war against corruption is true after all. The story now is that the AGF has formally requested the EFCC Chairman to handover serious and complex corruption cases to his office. Many analysts have sought to comment on the issue with different groups falling behind each of the combatants.

We wonder if people know the full implication of the rift. Of course, the issue is beyond Malami and Magu. It is President Muhammadu Buhari and his ruling All Progressive Congress (APC) that are on trial. This is because the hope that the fight against corruption would be vigorously pursued was one of the major factors that garnered votes for the President in the 2015 Presidential election in Nigeria. Thus, the development that there is some rift between Malami and Magu is a sad one.

Unfortunately, the EFCC has not enjoyed peace since the Magu era. First, the Senate refused to clear the man for the office. Senators rejected him again when he was re-nominated. What do they have against him? When I confronted a former colleague now a senator, with the rumour that the law makers were scared of Magu because he allegedly has a dossier on many of them, he explained that anyone including Mr. President would withdraw support for Magu whenever the televised disastrous proceedings of his clearance interview is relayed. The second point he made which is more relevant to today’s piece is the argument that it is irrational to clear a nominee for an office in the face of a security information that he is not a fit and proper person to hold the office. The connectedness of this second point to the Malami/Magu rift is that it draws attention to a trend whereby officials in the executive arm of government are seen by the public as being in disarray.

Magu’s indictment was said to be the handiwork of the Department of State Services DSS which is itself an agency of the executive branch of government. Why did the branch not do an in-house survey before nominating a person that one of its bodies could indict? Does the executive not have a clearing house for its actions? Besides, when the Presidency re-nominated Magu, which should show to all that the man is favoured by the branch, the same DSS reportedly wrote again to deal a heavy blow on the subject. Yet, the DSS was not known to have been reprimanded by the Presidency. Could it be that some people in high places know that there is some truth in the indictment? If so why was Magu re-nominated? What this suggests is that perhaps the conduct of officials of the executive branch is not coordinated. Can we therefore assume that the current rift between the Attorney General and Magu will also be a free for all fight?

Painfully, the alleged cause of the rift looks funny to those of us outside government because there is no basis for it. If in truth the Attorney General has asked the EFCC to hand-over serious and complex cases to his office, the anti-graft agency has no option but to obey because Malami is only exercising his constitutional mandate, which empowers him to start, stop or continue any criminal case whatsoever. Whereas that does not stop EFCC from prosecuting a case, any such action by the EFCC subsists only if the AGF allows it.

Again, what constitutes serious and complex matters are also legally defined. If the EFCC thinks that the Attorney General’s directive is not in the public interest, to disobey the directive is not the way out as the AGF is better positioned than the EFCC to define the interest of justice. Accordingly, the rift is ill-advisable. It is at best a distraction more so as Section 10 of the EFCC Act 2010 directs the agency to forward the outcome of investigation of serious and complex cases to the AGF.

President Buhari must at this point step into the latest EFCC distraction and resolve it once and for all by revamping the agency. In doing so, he must look beyond the traditional yardsticks that have put the war against corruption below where it should be. It is irrational for instance to stereotype recruitment to certain positions simply because that is how it has always been done. There are basic questions the President must ask and answer for good decision making.

To start with, since it is the duty of the Police to enforce law and prevent crime why did we create the EFCC? The likely answer would be that the Police by its nature and performance did not in the opinion of people show it could do well.  If so, after establishing EFCC that we imagined can do well, why have we been sending Police officers to head it? In fact, why has EFCC being using police personnel and methods to do its work? It is a traditional yardstick that needs to be remodeled.

 

The post Sad development at EFCC appeared first on Vanguard News.