The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA)

  • Court issues Bench warrant for ex-NIA DG Oke, wife

    The Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday ordered the arrest of former National Intelligence Agency (NIA) Director-General Ambassador Ayodele Oke and his wife Folasade.

    Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke issued a bench warrant for the couple’s arrest and detention following an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to that effect.

    Prosecuting counsel Rotimi Oyedepo told Justice Aneke that the defendants could not be found so as to be served with a money laundering charge filed against them.

    He said the couple also refused to answer phone calls from EFCC operatives.

    Moving the application, Oyedepo also urged the court to declare the defendants wanted.

    He said: “The defendants are not in court and not represented. They are yet to be served with the charge.

    “In the course of investigation, they provided an address in their statements. We have gone to that address but we didn’t find them. Their security confirmed they live there.

    “We also made repeated calls to their numbers, but they chose not to pick our calls.

    “In view of these, I urge your lordship to grant us a warrant of arrest of the defendants for the purpose of compelling their attendance in court.

    “Section 114 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) empowers your lordship to do so. We’re ready to produce them if we obtain the order.”

    Oyedepo said the suspects, who had no legal representation, could not claim ignorant of the charge as the case had been in the news since it was initiated.

    Read Also: We have warrant to arrest Melaye- Police

    “We pray for an additional order declaring them wanted,” the lawyer prayed.

    Ruling, Justice Aneke held that the application was meritorious in view of the prosecutions explanations.

    “Consequent upon the difficulties encountered by the prosecution in having them appear before the honourable court to stand their trial, I am convinced that the application is not without merit.

    “In the circumstances, I hereby accordingly issue an order of warrant of arrest against the first defendant in accordance with Section 114 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.”

    Justice Aneke, however, refused the prayer to declare them wanted.

    He said they would only be declared wanted if EFCC does not succeed in executing the bench warrant after trying.

    Oke and his wife were charged in connection with the $43, 449, 947, 000 found in Flat 7B, No. 16 Osborne Road, Osborne Towers in Ikoyi Lagos.

    Justice Muslim Hassan had on June 6, 2017, granted a final forfeiture order of the funds.

    EFCC said the Okes, on or about April 12, 2017 in Lagos, concealed $43, 449, 947, 000, property of the Federal Government in Flat 7B, No. 16 Osborne Road, Osborne Towers, Ikoyi, Lagos.

    It said they reasonably ought to have known that the sum formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: criminal breach of trust.

    The commission said the couple, between August 25 and September 2, 2015 in Lagos, indirectly used $1, 658, 000, property of the Federal Government, to acquire the flat.

    They were also accused of directly retaining $160, 777, 136.85, property of the Federal Government, between August 25 and September 2, 2015 in Lagos.

    EFCC said they “reasonably ought to have known” that the sum “formed part of proceeds of an unlawful act to wit: criminal breach of trust”.

    In the fourth and final count, the prosecution said Oke and his wife, within the same period, “directly converted $160, 777, 136.85, property of the Federal Government of Nigeria to your own use”.

    The alleged offence in all the counts, EFCC said, are contrary to Section 15 (2) (a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act 2012 and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.

    Justice Aneke adjourned until March 18 for report of compliance.

  • Amnesty for looters legal, says SAN

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Ahmed Raji on Thursday said Atiku Abubakar’s promise to grant looters who return stolen funds amnesty has a basis in law.

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Presidential candidate spoke during an interview session on a television programme: The Candidates.

    Some critics had faulted the suggestion, describing it as outrageous but Raji said amnesty to looters accords with the law on plea bargaining.

    He added plea bargaining was acceptable globally as it saves the state valuable resources and time that would have been wasted on prosecution.

    “I don’t think it’s a wrong idea. Even the new Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) promotes plea bargaining.

    “The world is moving towards non-custodial sentencing. If someone has atoned for his sins, why waste time? If they return the stolen funds in full, why not grant them amnesty?

    “Instead of taking them to the already overstretched prisons where the state will feed and house them, I don’t think the idea of amnesty or plea bargain is bad. This is without supporting the thieves,” Raji said.

    Read Also: Sanwo-Olu ‘gets new campaign strategy’

    But the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) said looters should be held to account.

    It believes that Atiku’s proposal would only encouraging more looting of the state treasury.

    SERAP tweeted: “Dear @Atiku, granting amnesty for corrupt persons will exacerbate impunity for corruption in Nigeria.

    “SERAPNigeria will challenge any such amnesty if it’s ever adopted as a policy should you be elected into the office.

    “The corrupt must be held to account and not escape justice.”

  • CJN frowns at rising case of police detention, extortion

    …Orders inspection of detention facilities

     

    The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen has frowned at the rising cases of unlawful detention, extortion and related acts by security agencies, particularly the police.

    To address the development, the CJN has directed states’ Chief Judges, including that of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to detail Chief Magistrates to henceforth, conduct inspection of police stations or other places of detention, other than prisons.

    The directive, the CJN said, is in line with the provision of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), particularly in Section 34 (1) and (2).

    Onnoghen also directed Chief Judges to set up appropriate mechanisms to ensure compliance with the stated provisions of the ACJA on police brutality and inordinate arrests among others.

    The CJN’s Media Aide, Awassam Bassey said, in a statement on Thursday, that the directive is contained in “a Practice Direction issued on June 20 June, 2018 on the role of magistrates in curbing police brutality under the ACJA.”

    Read Also:Killings: Police boss tasks operatives on Vigilance

    Part of the Practice Direction reads: “I have observed, and received several complaints of the horrific incidents of Police brutality, inordinate arrest, detention and extortion of innocent Nigerians by Officers across the country.

    “These incidents have assumed frightening proportions in recent times. The Magistrate Courts are currently overwhelmed with cases of such brutality, inordinate arrests and detention of Citizens.

    “As we approach election year, it is imperative that we curb these excesses through the instrumentality of the statutory powers of the courts.”

    Also Thursday, Onnoghen advocated increased application of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR) by courts.

    He spoke while commissioning the Court of Appeal’s Mediation Center in Abuja,.

    The CJN said it was now necessary the judiciary to deploy multi-modal justice delivery system to ensure speedy determination of cases.

    He added: “It is hoped that this initiative will see the center grow to become a veritable alternative to the rigours of courts.”

    President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, discribed the Court of Appeal Mediation Centre as first of its kind in the entire West African region.

    Bulkachuwa said: “The Court of Appeal’s Mediation Centre would provide a platform that will encourage disputing parties in reaching an expeditious resolution of their disputes in good faith; and in a fair and efficient manner.

    “The Centre will improve access to justice, user confidence in the court system, lighten the Court’s docket and invariably afford the conventional Court ample time for such matters or issues that are best solved through litigation.

    “This is a giant stride in the right direction as Appellate Courts in countries like America, Canada, Australia, India, Singapore, and Mauritius have already achieved phenomenal successes in that regard.

    “I wish to humbly appeal to members of the Bar to give appellate mediation in this court their maximum cooperation. We must bear in mind that our primary objective as officers in the Temple of justice is to do justice; and that justice delayed is justice denied”.

  • Bagudu urges NBA to lead in freeing Nigeria from corruption

    Gov. Atiku Bagudu of Kebbi on Monday urged the Nigeria Bar Association ( NBA ) to ensure speedy dispensation of justice and equity to free the country from pervasive corruption.

    Bagudu said at the 2018 Law Week organised by the state branch of NBA in Birnin Kebbi on Monday that in spite of efforts to stem corruption, it is still being regarded as part of the norm.

    The theme of the Law Week is `Promoting a Corrupt-Free Society.’

    “I task you to find ways of ensuring speedy dispensation of justice and equity to free our society from all forms of corruption.

    “The society still takes corruption as part of life especially in the public sector, as such our legal institution must do something to address the trend,” he said.

    He commended the association for organising the event, describing it as historic and timely.

    Read Also: NBA fixes July 27, 28 for election

    In his remarks, the state NBA Chairman, Mr Ebenezer Oguelina urged the state government to adopt the Administration of Criminal Justice Act ( ACJA ) to enhance quick access to justice.

    “The act was introduced for the benefit of victims, the court and society in the administration of criminal justice.

    “Many states have already adopted same and we cannot afford to be the odd one out,” he said.

    He also called for proper remuneration for workers including lawyers, adding that “If a worker is poorly paid, you cannot justly expect optimal performance from him.

    “Our members are poorly paid and there is no better forum than this to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

    NAN

  • Medication preventing me from following proceedings, Metuh tells court

    A former National Publicity Secretary of the PDP, Olisa Metuh, on Friday told the Federal High Court in Abuja that a medication he was taking was preventing him from following court proceedings.

    Metuh is standing trial for allegedly receiving N400 million from the office of the former National Security Adviser, retired Col. Sambo Dasuki.

    Metuh had on March 14, for the third time, asked the court to order the release of his international passport to enable him travel for medical treatment.

    At the resumed trial on Friday, Mr Emeka Etiaba ( SAN ), Counsel to Metuh, told court that due to the sedative influence of the medication Metuh was receiving, he was unable to follow proceedings in court.

    “Yesterday, after the court session, I had a discussion with my client and I realised that even though he was physically present in court, he did not have the presence of mind to appreciate what went on in court.

    “This is because he is on pain killers which cause him to be sleepy or sleep in court otherwise he is under severe pain.

    “Section 266 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act ( ACJA ) provides that a defendant has to be present in court all though his trial, not only physically but must also be able to follow through the proceedings in court.”

    Etiaba claimed that Metuh was unable to follow proceedings in court on account of the drugs he was taking without which he would be in pain.

    He prayed the court for an adjournment to enable Metuh to get palliative medication.

    “We ask for a short adjournment to enable him access some palliative medical procedure, pending when the court will rule on his application to travel for medical treatment abroad.

    Etiaba argued that Section 278 had nothing to do with Metuh’s application as Metuh was not of unsound mind or lacked mental capacity.

    According to him, Metuh is in excruciating pain and the medication he is on to relieve the pain makes him sleep in court and unable to follow his trial.

    However, the Prosecuting Counsel, Mr Sylvanus Tahir, objected to the application for an adjournment to enable Metuh to receive palliative medical treatment.

    Referring the court to Section 278 of ACJA, Tahir said that what the law provided in such circumstances was for the court to order a medical investigation to ascertain the mental capacity or soundness of mind of the defendant.

    According to him, where the court is satisfied that the defendant standing trial lacks the mental capacity to do so, the court will order that he be remanded in an asylum and treated while there.

    The Judge, Justice Okon Abang, in his ruling noted that it was at the discretion of the court to grant an adjournment.

    He, however, stated that noting had been placed before the court to enable it exercise its discretion in favour of Metuh.

    “It is my view that there is no material placed by the defendant before the court to enable the court exercise its discretion in his favour and grant the application.

    “There is nothing placed before the court to show that the defendant is in excruciating pain. The defendant is in court and the application for adjournment lacks merit and is refused.

    Abang said that he might deliver ruling on Metuh’s application seeking the release of his international passport to enable him travel abroad for medical treatment on April 20.

    He adjourned the matter until April 19 and April 20.

    NAN

  • CCT halts Saraki’s trial to await Supreme Court’s decision

    CCT halts Saraki’s trial to await Supreme Court’s decision

    The Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) Thursday halted further proceedings in the false assets declaration trial of Senate President, Bukola Saraki to await the decision of the Supreme Court in pending appeals relating to the case.

    CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar announced an indefinite adjournment in the trial yesterday, which was earlier scheduled for parties to adopt their final written addresses.

    The CCT had earlier ended the trial abruptly when on June 14, 2017; it upheld the no-case submission made by Saraki, to the effect that the prosecution was unable to establish its case against him.

    Upon an appeal by the prosecution, the Court of Appeal, Abuja, in a judgment on December 12, 2017, partially set aside the CCT’s decision on Saraki’s no-case submission.

    The Court of Appeal upheld the CCT’s decision in respect of 15 out of the 18 counts contained in the charge against Saraki, on the grounds that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant the defendant to be called to enter his defence in relation to the 15 counts.

    In relation to the remaining three counts, the Court of Appeal held that the prosecution led sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against Saraki, and ordered him to enter his defence on the three counts.

    Saraki later appealed, at the Supreme Court, that portion of the Court of Appeal judgment ordering him to enter defence in relation to the three counts. He prayed the Supreme Court to restore the CCT decision, upholding his no-case submission.

    The prosecution cross-appealed, at the Supreme Court, the portion of the Court of Appeal judgment which voided 15 of the 18 counts in the charge against Saraki. It urged the Supreme Court to restore all the 18 counts and order Saraki to enter defence in respect of all the counts.

    Despite the appeals by parties, the CCT ordered the recommencement of Saraki’s trial on February 6 this year, during which the Senate President called his only witness and closed his case, following which the tribunal adjourned to February 27 for the adoption of final written addresses.

    The adoption failed to hold on February 27 because the defence, led by Kanu Agabi (SAN) prayed for time to file a response to the prosecution’s final address, which he said was served on his team late. The tribunal the adjourned to February 7.

    When parties got to the tribunal yesterday, Umar sought parties’ opinion on whether the tribunal could proceed with the trial in view of their appeals pending before the Supreme Court.

    In reaction, lead prosecution lawyer, Rotimi Jacobs (SAN), objected to the postponement of proceedings “in view of the position of the law today”.

    Citing Section of 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), Jacobs said the provision enjoins the court not to entertain any application for stay of proceedings in a criminal trial.

    He noted that the Supreme Court has equally interpreted and upheld that provision of the ACJA in the case of Metuh and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Jacobs argued that Section 305 of the ACJA, which the tribunal Chairman referred to, had to do with reference of an issue to a higher court.

    He noted that the appeals pending before the Supreme Court do not amount to referral.

    Jacobs added: “Assuming it has to do with reference, that section allows your lordship to go on.”

    He also drew the tribunal’s attention to a letter dated January 19, 2018, which Saraki wrote to the CCT asking for the trial to be suspended pending the determination of the appeals pending at the Supreme Court.

    On the letter, Jacobs argued that since the defence chose to proceed with the trial by calling its only witness on February 6, it was too late in the day for them to pursue the prayers contained in their letter dated January 19 and sent to the CCT.

    In a counter argument, Agabi noted that the question about the necessity of an adjournment pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the appeals by parties was the initiative of the tribunal and not the defence’s.

    Agabi noted that since both parties have pending appeals at the Supreme Court that relate to the trial, it was better to await the decision of the apex court on the matter.

    He also said the Supreme Court had on Wednesday invited parties to appear for the hearing of the appeals next Thursday, March 15.

    Agabi siad:”We must be mindful of the dignity of the Supreme Court.”

    On why the defence, chose to proceed on February 6 rather that pursue its earlier request for the suspension of the trial pending the Supreme Court’s decision, Agabi said: “You (the tribunal) summoned us here and we came here”. Since you said we should proceed we proceeded.”

    Agabi stressed the need to halt further proceedings in the trial in order not to jeopardise the appeals before the Supreme Court. He added:  “A right of appeal ought not to be unduly fettered.”

    Ruling, Umar noted that each of the parties has an appeal pending before the Supreme Court in relation to the trial.

    The CCT Chair in view of the right to fair hearing and the right of appeal, from lower court to appellate court, there was the need for the tribunal “to tarry awhile so that the integrity of the Supreme Court will not be played with.”

    He subsequently adjourned to await the outcome of the pending appeals at the Supreme Court.

    Read Also: CCT trial: Saraki closes case after calling a witness

  • Sagay: I did not threaten judges

    Sagay: I did not threaten judges

    Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC) chairman Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) has denied a report that he threatened judges, saying his views were misrepresented.

    The report (not by The Nation) had the headline:  Sagay threatens judges who ignore provisions of ACJA.

    He said in a statement: “I want to deny emphatically that I issued any threat to judges.  What I said was that some judges still adjourn corruption cases for more than the maximum of 14 days stipulated by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA).

    “I also said there have been cases in which judges have adjourned to give rulings in interlocutory applications instead of waiting for the Day of Judgment on the substantive matter to read both ruling on the interlocutory application and judgment on the substantive issue of corruption.

    “I then added that in my view, such lapses constituted gross misconduct deserving of sanctions by the National Judicial Council (NJC).

    “Thus, the use of the term ‘Sagay threatens judges’ is inflammatory sensationalism.  I appreciate that newspapers have to make sales in order to survive.  But that should not give rise to undue sensationalism and offensive terms at the expense of accuracy and the true message of the person interviewed.

    “I am very open to interviews because I believe that the press is a critical institution in the fight against corruption. This cooperation and openness will be destroyed by the publication of inaccurate, self-serving and misleading statements in the guise of interview reports.”

    Read Also:Sagay: Obasanjo’s comments insulting, inappropriate

  • Court refuses to stop Dasuki’s trial 

    Court refuses to stop Dasuki’s trial 

    A Federal High Court in Abuja Wednesday rejected the request by former National Security Adviser (NSA), Mohammed Dasuki for an indefinite adjournment in his trial for alleged illegal possession of firearms and money laundering.

    Dasuki had filed a motion, seeking an indefinite adjournment in his trial pending the determination of an appeal he filed before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which he said was a referral of a question of law to the appellate for determination.

    Justice Ahmed Mohammed, in a ruling yesterday, said Dasuki’s motion was misconceived and lacked merit because it was hinged on a non-existing question of law purportedly referred to the appellate court.

    Justice Mohammed said the procedure for referring a constitutional question to the Court of Appeal, under section 295(2) of the Constitution, required that such referral should be made by the trial court, but not by a party in the trial filing an appeal.

    The judge said: “In the procedure stated in section 295(2) of the Constitution, it is the trial court, and in this case, this court that will form the opinion that a question as to the interpretation or the application of the Constitution has arisen in the proceedings before it.

    “After forming such opinion it is the court that will also refer the question that has arisen to the Court of Appeal. There is nothing in section 295(2) of the Constitution conferring those functions on any of the parties in the proceedings.

    “The only role a party can play is to make a request to the trial court for the reference of any such questions, on the interpretation or application of the Constitution, to the Court of Appeal

    “In this case, I cannot remember when the court had come to the conclusion or formed any opinion that a question as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution had arisen in these proceedings let alone making any reference of such questions to the Court of Appeal for consideration.

    “I can also not remember when any of the parties in this case had made a request for the reference of any question as to the interpretation of the Constitution to the Court of Appeal to warrant any such reference in accordance with the provisions of section 295(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    “In all sincerity, the procedure adopted by the defendant to challenge the ruling of the court delivered on June 15, 2017 cannot be described as reference of a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution contemplated in section 305(1)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.”

    “What the defendant has done, as stated earlier, is a challenge of the ruling delivered on June 15, 2017, by way of an appeal.

    “It is therefore my humble view that it is only after the provision of section 305(1)(a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act  has been strictly adhered to regarding reference to the Court of Appeal of any question as to the interpretation of the Constitution that the defendant can avail himself of the right to bring an application for adjournment as provided in the section.

    “By the wording of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the Act has taken away the power of the court to even entertain an application to stay proceedings in a criminal matter before it

    “This, therefore means that any relief, however couched in an application that has the effect of staying proceedings in a criminal matter before a court will not be entertained,” Justice Mohammed said.

    He adjourned further proceedings in the case to January 17 next year.

    Dasuki’s lawyer, Ahmed Raji (SAN) had, while arguing the motion on October 17 this year, urged the court to adjourn the trial indefinitely pending the determination of his client’s motion for stay of proceedings filed before the Court of Appeal along with an appeal against the June 15 ruling of the court.

    Raji drew a distinction between his client’s motion filed under Section 305 of ACJA and the one prohibited under Section 306 of the Act.

    He said his client’s motion did not seek stay of proceedings prohibited under Section 306 of ACJA, but was brought under Section 305 of ACJA, which allows the court to adjourn a trial after a constitutional question, arising from the trial, has been referred to a higher court for determination.

    Raji argued that his client’s appeal filed against the ruling delivered by Justice Mohammed on June 15, 2017, permitting prosecution’s witnesses to testify behind screen, was a form of reference of a constitutional question to the Court of Appeal.

    He said since Dasuki has filed a motion before the appellate court for the stay of proceedings in the trial, and the appeal entered, it was the tradition that the lower court awaits the decision of the higher court.

    Lawyer to the prosecution, Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) said the motion amounted to an abuse of court process

    Okpeseyi argued that the motion was founded on a non-existing premise because no constitutional question had been referred by the court to the Court of Appeal, adding that what Dasuki merely filed was a notice of appeal against the ruling of the court.

    He said the appeal filed by Dasuki did not qualify as a referral which was the basis for the application.

    Okpeseyi contended that the motion was seeking an order of stay of proceedings, although Raji attempted to cover it up by using flowery words.

    He noted that the Supreme Court had ruled that an order of stay of proceedings in a criminal matter was ungrantable.

    Justice Mohammed’s ruling yesterday upheld Okpeseyi’s argument.

     

  • AGF justifies arrest of judges

    AGF justifies arrest of judges

    …Says no one immune to investigation

    The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami (SAN) Tuesday justified the arrest of some judges by the Department of State Services (DSS).

    Malami argued that what happened in relation to the affected judges was mere investigation of criminal allegations.

    He contended that no one is immune to investigation under the Nigerian law, noting that once allegation of criminality was raised, it was the duty of the relevant investigating agencies to carry out investigation.

    The AGF spoke in Abuja Tuesday shortly after inaugurating the “country expert review committee for the second cycle of the review of implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).”

    Malami, who was asked by journalists to comment on the arrest of judges, said: “The fundamental consideration is whether there is an allegation of the commission of a crime;  whether there is the need for investigation, and whether the relevant provisions of the law and indeed, all circumstances, as provided in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) are put into consideration in our conduct as regard the fight against corruption.

    “The bottom line is that we have a responsibility to fight corruption. Corruption is a crime and nobody, regardless of how highly placed, and is exempted as far as issues that border on crimes and criminalities are concerned.

    “The limited exceptions as we know constitutionally are the exceptions of immunity. And to the best of my knowledge those exceptions do not apply to investigation.

    “For those that are conferred with the immunity, the right to investigate has not been taken away constitutionally.

    “So, I think the framework and the circumstances within which we are operating are clearly whether there exists the right to investigate or not, and whether the action borders on criminality.

    “Once crimes and criminality are concerned, nobody is an exception. I think the undertone should be exclusively the consideration of the existence of a prima facie case; existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion of commission of a crime.

    “And if there are, no member of the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive can definitely be exempted from investigation. I think where we are now is the point of investigation and that is what is taking place,” Malami said.

    While inaugurating the committee, Malami expressed confidence in the ability of its members to execute their responsibilities.

    He said: “The extant review focusing on Chapter I I and V of the UNCAC, relating to preventive measures against corruption in public and private sectors and asset recovery, is both necessary and timely at this time in the annals of our country, when endemic cum systemic corruption has created a great discontent between our nation’s wealth and the quality of life of ordinary citizens.

    Malami, who noted that the objectives of UNCAC were in harmony with the conviction of the current Federal Government to curb corruption, said it was necessary for members of the committee to understand the important task of nation-building which is being committed to their hands.

    “Let me emphasise that the guiding principles of the review is non-adversarial, non-punitive and not aimed at ranking state parties.

    “Nevertheless, members of the expert committee should understand that those selected, appointed or nominated by my office or your various agencies are chosen based on skills, expertise and commitment.

    “It is therefore important to note that your performance in this assignment will be a step in the direction for us as a country and people to achieve the goals that we have set for ourselves – prevent corruption, recover, return and manage stolen assets,” Malami said.

    Members of the committee are drawn from 22 agencies of the federal government, including Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC), Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML), Technical Unit on Governance and Anti-corruption Reforms (TUGAR).