At the twilight of the last administration, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) began probe of several sitting governors and their deputies. But by stroke of luck or political twist, the EFCC Chairman is now in custody while all his suspects are freemen and in the new administration in various capacities. So much for the anti-graft war, AMEH OCHOJILA reports.
Since the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo, the pattern of the EFCC chairpersons’ removal has been enmeshed in controversies and often around allegations of corruption.
But none of the sacked heads has ever been put on trial over any wrongdoing, indicating that those removals were a way of the monster of corruption fighting back to weaken the strength of the Agency.
The Agency, which was established to combat the menace of financial crimes and public corruption usually has its heads turned to the case of a hunter becoming the hunted.
Since its inception, EFCC has had four substantive chairpersons, and in-between, four acting chairpersons. From the pioneer chairman of the Agency, Nuhu Ribadu to Farida Waziri, Ibrahim Lamorde, Ibrahim Magu and now Mr Abdulrasheed Bawa, who has been in custody of the State Security Services (SSS) for undisclosed charges, none of the substantive chairpersons lived out the lifespan of his tenure.
Section 3(2) of the EFCC Act provides that, “The president may at any time remove either the chairman or any member of the commission for reason of incapacity to exercise the functions of that office, arising from infirmity of mind or for misconduct, or if the president is satisfied that it is not in the interest of the commission, or in the interest of the country for such an officer to continue to retain his office.”
But the removal and use of these powers by the president has raised concerns over its implications on the stability of the Agency and its ability to truly fight corruption without fear of political backlash.
While some lawyers have argued that with an entrenched culture of removal of the head of the anti-graft agency by politicians, it may affect professionalism and independent mindedness, others argued that as long as it is within the ambit of the law, there is nothing wrong with such removals.
Considering the prevailing situation, the ninth National Assembly had contemplated and initiated a bill seeking to whittle down the power of the President on the termination of the appointment of the chairman of the EFCC. The bill passed the second reading in the Senate.
The piece of legislation was titled, “Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act Amendment Bill and for other Matters Connected Therewith 2022”, sponsored by the Senate Minority Whip, Senator Chukwuka Utazi (PDP, Enugu North). It also seeks the restriction of appointment into the office from EFCC staff.
Senator Utazi, who led the debate on the bill, said in ensuring the security of tenure for the EFCC chairman, the Senate should approve the removal of any chairman on the firing line of the president as it does in the appointment.
He held: “One of the thrusts of this amendment is the issue of security of tenure for the executive chairman of the commission.
“For other anti-graft agencies created through the legislative instrumentality, before and later, that is, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC and Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), the National Assembly ensured that the headship had security of tenure by ensuring that their appointments and removal, as the case may be, were subject to the confirmation of the Senate.
“That was not the case with the EFCC. Therefore, in this proposed amendment, it is intended to bring the EFCC in conformity with the other two anti-graft agencies of government. This will engender optimal performance by the commission of the very important mandate assigned to it.”
Senator Utazi added that the other thrust of the amendment required law to restrict such appointments to EFCC staff as being sought by the bill.
“As a new commission, it was understandable that its headship was appointed from outside of the commission, for obvious reasons,” he said, adding that what is required of the Parliament is to amend the EFCC Establishment Act to restrict non-trained EFCC staff from the headship of the commission, going forward. This, he assured, will enhance professionalism in the service.
Many senators, who contributed to the debate, had supported the argument of seeking approval of the Senate before the termination of the appointment of any EFCC chairman by the President, but differed on restricting the appointment of the commission’s chairman to insiders.
The bill which was accordingly forwarded to the Senate Committee on Anti-Corruption and Financial Crimes for more legislative inputs did not see the light of the day.
Instead, another bill linked to the former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), titled: ‘An Act to Repeal the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 (act no. 1 of 2004) and Enact the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act Which Establishes a More Effective and Efficient Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to Conduct Enquiries and Investigate All Economic and Financial Crimes and Related Offences and for other Related Matters,” was also launched.
The bill, according to reports, was initiated by Abubakar Malami (SAN), on behalf of the Federal Government for onward transmission to the National Assembly.
The proposed law was initiated barely weeks after the suspended acting Chairman of the EFCC, Mr Magu, accused Malami of frustrating the anti-corruption war.
According to the proposed law, the Commission will have a Director-General, who will be appointed by the President based on the recommendation of the AGF and subject to confirmation by the Senate.
The Director-General, and not the chairman, will be in charge of the running of the daily affairs of the Commission.
Section 8 of the bill reads in part, “There shall be for the commission, a Director-General who shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Attorney General subject to the confirmation by the Senate.
“Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, the Director-General shall be a retired or serving member of any government institution, including any security or law enforcement agency not below the rank of a director or its equivalent or a person from the private sector.
“A person shall not be appointed as a Director-General unless he is of proven integrity and has 15 years cognate experience in security, forensic or financial crimes investigation; forensic accounting or auditing; or law practice or enforcement relating to economic and financial crimes or anti-corruption.”
The Director-General, according to the proposed law, shall hold office for a period of four years subject to reappointment by the President for a further term of four years and no more.
The bill states that the chairman of the EFCC shall be the head of the EFCC board. Other members of the board shall include the Director-General, a representative of the Federal Ministry of Justice, a representative of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Director of Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit, two other Nigerians with 15 years cognate experience in legal, finance, banking or forensic auditing and the Director of Administration who shall be the secretary of the board, among other.
According to industry observers, the proposed bill came as a mere ego battle and struggles to dominate, which could not see the light of the day.
Paul Mgbeoma, a Lagos based lawyer reiterated that in the history of EFCC, there is hardly any of its Chairman that has not been alleged to have committed an infraction or another.
According to him it may be as a result of lack of a transparent and functional institutional framework where the system does not allow for any room for compromise or suspicion.
“Nigeria, by always removing the Chairman of EFCC in controversial circumstances, would keep giving members of the international community, international donors and other anti-corruption agencies across the globe a bad impression of our seriousness about fighting corruption.
Again, the rule of law, he said, should also be respected in relation to the current travails of the now suspended EFCC Chairman.
He said the regular and indiscriminate removal of EFCC heads in the middle of their tenure in office is very likely to affect the fight against corruption because some very committed officers may become demoralised by the way the Commission’s leadership is always humiliated out of office.
For Mathew Echo, an Abuja-based lawyer, the leadership crisis in the EFCC undermines the fight against graft generally.
According to him, what it portends is that the heads of the anti-graft agency are at the whims and caprices of the President, and thus do not have the independence to investigate and prosecute whoever, except with the blessing of the President.
“To worsen the situation, this has become a trend starting from Ribadu, to Waziri, Lamorde, Magu and Bawa, where they were all removed upon a new President assuming office.
“This also greatly impacts the will power of the officers of the anti-graft agencies as they can no longer do their work professionally and independently, knowing full well that their action may be called to question by a politician who becomes the highest political office holder tomorrow,” Echo argued.
A senior lawyer, Jibril Okutepa (SAN), expressed doubt about the genuineness of Nigeria’s commitment to fight corruption.
The SAN said: “In the fight against corruption, the government only pontificates to make gullible Nigerians feel that it is fighting corruption. But in reality, we have no liver to fight corruption.”
According to Okutepa, EFCC is not an independent corruption fighting institution. This, he said, is because every government has interfered in the fight against corruption to the prejudices of Nigerians and in favour of few the powerful, who have held the Nigerian State in the jugular.
He said: “So, I don’t see how suspension of EFCC chairman will add or reduce the fight against corruption. I also do not see what the moral pedestrian of this government is in the fight against corruption.”
Another lawyer, Jacob Itodo, however, thinks differently. He believes that the controversial removals won’t impact on the capacity of the Commission to fight financial crimes.
According to him, there is nothing wrong with the abrupt termination of EFCC chairman’s job, if the President found out that they are deficient in their duties.
He explained that the problem is that individuals who head Nigerian institutions are stronger than the institutions.
According to him, the EFCC chairman is not the structure of the institution and so, if the agency is well structured, the removal of the chairman would not affect its functions and the delivery of its mandate.
He noted that it has been a persistent problem with Nigeria’s establishments, where individuals become larger than the institutions they supervise, adding that building strong institutions will definitely check perceived deficiencies such removals may generate.