The Nation Newspaper

Tag: EFCC

  • Ex-Abia commissioner faults nine-year probe by EFCC

    Ex-Abia commissioner faults nine-year probe by EFCC

    • Former finance chief decries year-end invites to Abuja

    A former Commissioner for Finance and Economic Development in Abia State, Dr. Philip Nto, has expressed frustration over what he called “unending harassment” by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    He accused the anti-graft agency of issuing incessant end-of-the year invitations that have not resulted in a formal charge n the past nine years.

    Nto, who currently lectures at the Michael Okpara University of Agriculture at Umudike, urged the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to review his case file and clarify the nature of the accusations against him.

    He sought to know why the EFCC had continued to investigate him without charging him to court since the investigation began nine years ago.

    The former commissioner, who served under ex-Governor Theodore Orji from 2013 to 2015, said he recently received another invitation through a text message from the EFCC, giving him less than a day to report to its Abuja office to address an unspecified “grey areas”.

    Read Also: Emefiele: Court okays EFCC’s request to present witnesses virtually 

    Nto expressed frustration over EFCC’s repeated demands for him to travel to Abuja, especially towards the end of each year.

    The former commissioner said he had requested the commission to give him a week to prepare and report to its Enugu office instead.

    He said his request was denied and EFCC officers continued to threaten him with arrest.

    Nto challenged the EFCC to either charge him to court, if it has a valid case against him or conclude the investigation.

  • Fayose: EFCC witness acknowledges signed documents in court

    Fayose: EFCC witness acknowledges signed documents in court

    The Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Thursday, October 17, heard the testimony of the 15th witness for the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Joseph Machleb, in the ongoing trial of former Ekiti State governor Ayodele Fayose.

    Fayose is facing prosecution by the EFCC for alleged fraud amounting to N6.9 billion and charges of money laundering.

    He was first arraigned on October 22, 2018, before Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, alongside his company, Spotless Investment Ltd, on 11 counts related to fraud and money laundering. He pleaded not guilty and was granted bail on October 24, 2018, set at N50 million with sureties of equal value.

    Subsequently, Fayose was re-arraigned before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke on July 2, 2019, after the case was reassigned from Justice Olatoregun at the EFCC’s request.

    He again pleaded not guilty and was allowed to continue on his previous bail as the trial was adjourned.

    The EFCC has opened its case before Justice Aneke and is currently presenting witnesses. Mr. Machleb was examined by the prosecutor, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs (SAN).

    A mechanic with Samchase Nig. Ltd, Machleb testified about his company’s involvement with a third party, Azeez Michelle, in managing contracts, while denying any knowledge of property transactions related to Fayose’s case.

    During his testimony, Machleb, who is not fluent in English, stated that he resides in Akure, Ondo State, and works as a mechanic for Samchase Nig. Ltd.

    When asked about a company called JJ Technical Services Ltd, he confirmed his involvement, noting that he and his older brother co-founded the company.

    He added that they had entrusted it to Azeez Michelle for contract solicitation.

    However, when questioned about the company’s involvement in property acquisitions, he replied, “I don’t know anything about that.”

    “I don’t authorize Michelle to buy property; I only told him to look for contracts for the company”.

    During cross-examination by defence counsel Mr. Olalekan Ojo (SAN), the witness told the court that he did not authorize in writing, one Azeez Michelle to execute any transaction for the company, J.J Technical Services.

    Ojo then asked: ‘If I give you any document that shows you authorized same will you remember”

    The witness replied “Maybe I will”

    Ojo then applied that a document dated Nov. 20, 2013, be shown to the witness for purposes of refreshing his memory pursuant to the provisions of section 239 of the Evidence Act.

    The prosecutor did not object.

    When shown the document, the witness identified his signature and admitted signing the same.

    Defence counsel then tendered the evidence before the court and it was admitted and marked as exhibit A20.

    On further cross-examination by Ojo, the witness told the court that JJ Technical Services authorized the said Azeez Michelle to sign and execute documents, letters, and instructions on behalf of the company.

    When asked if he knew whether, on the strength of exhibit A20, Michelle executed many transactions on behalf of the company, the witness replied: ‘ No, I don’t know”

    Defence counsel then called for exhibits MM1 and 2 and asked the witness if it was the first time he had seen the documents.

    The witness replied: “After these issues come up.”

    He added that he did not receive any document, adding that his brother only called to inform him that there was a problem in the company.

    Ojo then asked: “When your brother told you that there was a problem in the company, you were worried and wanted your company to be out of any problem”?

    The witness replied: “of course”.

    The witness also confirmed to the court as suggested by defence counsel, that his company legitimately executes its businesses or duties.

    He also told the court that his company never wrote any letter or memo to the said Michelle to find out if he knew anything about the documents MM1 and 2.

    Ojo then asked the witness to look at the first defendant in the dock and tell the court if he had seen him before.

    The witness replied: “Yes, I see him on TV”.

    He also confirmed knowing Fayose was a former governor of Ekiti.

    Defence counsel then asked: “I suggest to you that both you and your company had no business with him during his tenure as governor.”

    The witness replied: “No, I never, J J never”

    When asked if the defendant had ever visited his family in Lebanon, the witness replied “I don’t know”.

    When asked if Michelle had been reporting to him about activities carried out concerning the document, the witness replied “he has not”

    The witness also denied knowing one Biodun Agbele or having any transaction with him.

    Ojo then asked the witness if he recalled going to the EFCC and he replied Yes.

    When asked if the commission had shown him any document in respect of any transaction between his company and the first defendant, or his company and Biodun Agbele, the witness said: “They just show me one agreement.”

    During cross-examination by the first defence counsel, Mr. Uchenna Njoku (SAN), the witness confirmed that his company had affirmed Michelle to act for it, based on trust and confidence.

    He told the court that to date he had not found any reason to doubt Michelle’s integrity in acting for the company.

    Justice Aneke adjourned until Oct. 18 for the continuation of the trial.

    According to the charge, on June 17, 2014, Fayose and one Abiodun Agbele were said to have taken possession of the sum of N1.2 billion, for purposes of funding his gubernatorial election campaign in Ekiti, which sum they reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.

    Fayose was alleged to have received a cash payment of the sum of five million dollars, from the then Minister of State for Defence, Sen. Musiliu Obanikoro, without going through any financial institution.

    Read Also: Otunba Fayose to host grand celebration for mum’s 85th birthday

    He was also alleged to have retained the sum of N300 million in his account and took control of the aggregate sums of about N622 million which sum he reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.

    Fayose was alleged to have procured De Privateer Ltd and Still Earth Ltd,  to retain the aggregate sums of N851 million which they reasonably ought to have known formed part of crime proceeds.

    Besides, the defendant was alleged to have used the aggregate sums of about N1.6 billion to acquire properties in Lagos and Abuja, which sums he reasonably ought to have known formed part of the crime proceeds.

    He was also alleged to have used the sum of N200 million, to acquire a property in Abuja, in the name of his elder sister Moji Oladeji, which sum he ought to know also forms crime proceeds.

    The offences contravene the provisions of sections 15(1), 15 (2), 15 (3), 16(2)(b), 16 (d),  and 18 (c)  of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2011.

  • EFCC an unlawful organisation, Agbakoba writes National Assembly

    EFCC an unlawful organisation, Agbakoba writes National Assembly

    Legal luminary, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), has described the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as an “unlawful organisation” that was “unconstitutionally established.”

    Agbakoba made this claim in October 14 letters to the Deputy Senate President, Barau Jibrin and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu.

    They are the Chairmen of the Adhoc Committee on the review of the Constitution in both chambers of the National Assembly.

    In his letter titled: “Re: Urgent legislative constitutional reforms relating to law enforcement agencies and anti-corruption efforts,” Agbakoba drew the attention of the National Assembly to constitutional issues related to law enforcement agencies and factors inhibiting the government’s objective of abolishing corruption as stated in Section 13 of the Constitution.

    He said: “I very strongly believe the EFCC is unconstitutionally established.

    Read Also; Tunji-Ojo, Correctional Service and global standard

    “The powers under which it was established go beyond the powers of the National Assembly.

    “The EFCC is an unlawful organisation.”

    Agbakoba, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, said he was delighted to note that many states had finally taken it upon themselves to challenge the constitutionality of the EFCC.

    “This will put to rest the question relating to the validity of the EFCC.”

    The letter to the Deputy Senate President, reads in part: “I write to draw attention to certain constitutional issues on matters related to law enforcement agencies. As you are obviously aware, the fundamental objective of the government is to abolish corruption.

    “But from my observation, there is no harmony amongst law enforcement agencies on corruption. They all appear to be working at cross purposes.

    “This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in so many cases. The Supreme Court has consistently sanctioned the EFCC for its conduct and questioned if the EFCC can in fact validly do what it does.

    “I will go further to say that I very strongly believe the EFCC is unconstitutionally established.

    “The powers under which it was established go beyond the powers of the National Assembly. The EFCC is an unlawful organisation.

    “I am very delighted to note that many states have finally taken it upon themselves to challenge the constitutionality of the EFCC.”

    “This will put to rest the question relating to the validity of the EFCC.

    “Whilst we await the decision of the Supreme Court as the final court on the matter, I respectfully request that the Senate convene a public hearing to consider these constitutional issues.

    “Such a hearing would provide an invaluable platform for stakeholders to discuss the reforms needed to strengthen Nigeria’s legal and institutional frameworks for law enforcement and anti-corruption, which will meet the stated and laudable objective of the government to abolish corruption as stated in Section 13 of the Constitution.

    “I trust that, under your capable leadership, the Senate Constitution Review Committee will give these matters urgent attention in the interest of our nation’s development.”

  • Oil magnate sues EFCC for unlawfully declaring him wanted

    Oil magnate sues EFCC for unlawfully declaring him wanted

    Chairman/CEO of Global Signature Hotel and Total Grace Group Limited, Dr. Henry Mobolaji Akinduro, has filed a N5 billion lawsuit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for allegedly declaring him wanted unlawfully.

    In the suit filed yesterday at the Federal High Court, Lagos, Akinduro submitted that the EFCC declared him wanted without any form of judicial intervention, recourse to constitutional safeguards or order of court.

    The EFCC on Friday, October 11, 2024 about 7.20pm on its official twitter handle, also known as ‘X’ declared the oil magnate ‘Wanted’. The businessman is praying the court to order the EFCC to remove his name from the wanted list published on the commission’s official website or any other related platform including Twitter (X).

    Akinduro is seeking N5 billion as “general damages”.

    Read Also; Now that NNPCL is out of the radar

    On Monday, the businessman, via his counsel, Olalekan Ojo (SAN) had petitioned the Chairman of the EFCC over the unconstitutional violation of his fundamental human rights to personal liberty and human dignity by the publication of his name on the list of wanted persons on the EFCC’s website.

    Ojo averred in the petition that at all times preceding the said publication, there was no order of any court of competent jurisdiction authorising the said publication and no charge had been preferred against our client before any court.

    According to Akinduro’s lawyer, the Commission had allegedly made the said illegal or unlawful publication declaring him wanted upon the prompting or instigation of one Mr. Femi Olushakin who had earlier written a petition against the oil magnate in respect of a N240 million contractual dispute between them —Messrs Olushakin and Akinduro.

    He affirmed that disputes had arisen from the investment agreement entered into between the two men leading to Olushakin petitioning EFCC.

    “Our Client (Akinduro) was invited by the Commission on 4th June, 2024 and he immediately responded via letter dated 5th June, 2024 notifying the Commission of his unavailability due to medical reasons. In the said letter, it was stated therein that our Client was out of the Country receiving medical attention. He subsequently provided assurances that he would be present at the Commission as soon as he was medically cleared to travel. It is pertinent at this juncture to chronicle the genesis of the subject matter which led to the declaration of our Client Wanted by the Commission,” Ojo stated.

    The Counsel disclosed that there was a business transaction between Akinduro and Olushakin which was backed by a viable collateral which included Akinduro’s Global Signature Hotel worth N500 million, three (3) 60-Seater Yutong buses valued at over N240 million and a Toyota 4Runner SUV.

    Ojo claimed that Olushakin has sold the three 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently drives around the city in the Toyota 4Runner SUV which were used as collateral by Akinduro.

    “It is clear from the above that this is a purely civil business transaction with no element of criminality embedded in it. Mr. Femi Olushakin maliciously petitioned the Commission after selling the 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently using the Toyota 4runner SUV for his personal use,” he stated.

    The senior lawyer added that despite Akinduro’s medical condition overseas, he has maintained close communication with the Commission.

    He said: “Our Client regularly sends his Legal Officer to the Commission, affirming his willingness and desire to appear before the Commission upon due confirmation of his being fit to travel by his doctors. There was no further request by the Commission inviting our Client before the unlawful publication.

    “It is to be further noted that on 11 October, 2024, our Client’s Legal Officer was physically present at the office of the Commission around noon to submit a correspondence to the Commission and he also reassured the Operatives of the Commission of our Client’s desire and willingness to cooperate with the investigation by the Commission upon his arrival in Nigeria.

    “It is regrettable that despite the repeated reassurances of our Client to cooperate with the investigation upon his arrival in Nigeria, the Commission proceeded to declare our Client ‘Wanted’ later that same day at about 7.20pm without an order of Court and in the absence of a valid charge in a Court of law.

    “The Commission published our Client’s name and photograph depicting our Client as a fugitive from the law and branded him “WANTED” without any evidence of evading investigation. This action of the Commission has not only defamed our Client but also violated our Client’s right to freedom of movement without the order of the Courts.

    “The Commission has also by the unlawful publication subjected our Client to public humiliation and ridicule thus causing our Client loss of personal and business relationships as well as reputational damage. It is our instruction that since the publication, our Client has been inundated with calls, Whatsapp messages from his business associates all over the world who had read the post expressing their disgust and dismay at the defamatory publication, and the said publication has also caused our Client emotional trauma and distress.”

    Akinduro, through his lawyer, said he considered it imperatively necessary to put the records straight with a view to showing that the fraud allegations are trumped-up allegations aimed at causing incalculable damage to his hard earned but richly deserved reputation.

    “It is pertinent to state that the petition against Dr. Henry Akinduro was an ignoble attempt to criminalize purely contractual disputes that had arisen from the investment agreement between Dr. Henry Akinduro and the Petitioner, Mr. Femi Olushakin.”

    Ojo stated that the commercial or contractual disputes had earlier been referred to the competent Court by the parties before Olushakin resorted to lodging the fraud allegations against the oil magnate for reasons best known to him.

  • Court restrains EFCC from arresting former defence Minister Batagarawa

    Court restrains EFCC from arresting former defence Minister Batagarawa

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama High Court has restrained the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from arresting or detaining a former Minister of Defence, Lawal Batagarawa in relation to a land dispute.

    Justice Yusuf Halilu issued the order in a ruling on October 14 in which he also barred the EFCC and its agent from inviting, harassing, intimidating, or otherwise threatening Batagarawa pending the determination of a substantive suit filed by the ex-Defence Minister.

    Batagarawa had, in a motion on notice for an interim injunction, claimed that EFCC officials had subjected him to undue harassment.

    Justice Halilu equally issued an order for substituted service of the originating process and other legal documents to the EFCC and the other respondents, to be delivered at the commission’s office located at Plot 301/302, Institution and Research Cadastral District, Jabi, Abuja.

    Read Also: Alleged N1.6b fraud: EFCC, ex-acting Accountant-General enter plea bargain deal

    The case, marked CV/4123/2024, lists the EFCC, Sanusi Mohammed (Head, Bank Fraud Section), Umar Imran (Investigating Police Officer), Patrick Ineke, and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) as the 1st to 5th respondents, respectively.

    Batagarawa, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Jerry Aondo, initiated the application citing a series of actions by the EFCC that amounted to harassment and intimidation over a disputed plot of land.

    In an affidavit dated September 20, 2024, Batagarawa detailed various instances of harassment, including his detention at the EFCC’s office on August 19 and 20, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., before being released on administrative bail.

    He also alleged that he had been subjected to repeated summons and harassing phone calls from EFCC agents.

    According to Batagarawa, the EFCC’s actions were based on false allegations orchestrated by the 4th respondent, Patrick Ineke, and his legal representatives, who claimed ownership of the disputed plot of land.

    The claim was allegedly based on a supposed transaction between Ineke, a deceased Mrs. Allah, and one Wilson Osuagwu, who had served as Batagarawa’s orderly in 2001 during his tenure as Minister of Defence.

    In his affidavit, Batagarawa faults the claims, stating that the land in question had been allocated to his company, Lamda Beta Investment Limited, by the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) in 2001.

    He exhibited documents evidencing the payments made for the right of occupancy and other fees, amounting to N3,050,683.33, through Intercity Bank PLC on June 16, 2001.

    The case has been adjourned till October 31, 2024, for the hearing of the substantive suit.

  • Alleged N1.6b fraud: EFCC, ex-acting Accountant-General enter plea bargain deal

    Alleged N1.6b fraud: EFCC, ex-acting Accountant-General enter plea bargain deal

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has rescheduled hearing for December 2 to enable the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), a former acting Accountant-General of the Federation (AcGF), Anamekwe Nwabuoku, and his co-defendant, Felix Nweke, conclude their ongoing process for a plea bargain arrangement.

    The EFCC had, on July 10, brought Nwabuoku and Nweke, a former Deputy Director in the Ministry of Defence, before the court.

    The planned arraignment was postponed when they appealed to the court to give them more time to refund what they were accused of stealing.

    The defendants prayed the court to postpone their arraignment till another date to enable them make the refund.

    The EFCC had filed an 11-count charge bordering on alleged laundering of N1.6 billion against the defendants.

    They were alleged to have committed the offence when Nwabuoku served as the Director of Finance and Accounts in the Ministry of Defence between 2019 and 2021.

    Nwabuoku was appointed acting AG-F on May 20, 2022 under ex-President Muhammadu Buhari after Ahmed Idris was suspended as AG-F over alleged N80 billion fraud.

    Read Also: Alleged N1.6bn fraud: EFCC, former AGF to finalise plea bargain agreement

    He was removed in July 2022, few weeks after he assumed office.

    Sylva Okolieaboh, a Director at the Treasury Single Account (TSA) Department, was subsequently appointed to replace Nwabuoku as acting AG-F.

    At the mention of the case yesterday, prosecuting lawyer Ogechi Ujam told the court that the parties were in the process of finalising a plea bargain arrangement between them.

    Ujam said on the last adjourned date, Nwabuoku and Nweke submitted a proposal for such a settlement.

    She said parties had agreed and the agreement had been submitted to EFCC Chairman Olanipekun Olukoyede for approval.

    The prosecuting lawyer prayed the court to grant an adjournment that would enable the parties to bring the agreement and an amended charge before the court.

    Defence lawyers – Isidal Udenko (for Nwabuoku) and Emeka Onyeaka (for Nweke) – confirmed what Ujam said.

    Ruling, Justice James Omotosho adjourned till December 2 for the adoption of the plea bargain agreement.

  • BDC operator sues EFCC for N1.2b over alleged illegal detention

    BDC operator sues EFCC for N1.2b over alleged illegal detention

    A Bureau De Change (BDC) operator, Suleiman Babangida Sani, has sued the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for alleged arrest, torture, and illegal detention without trial.

    The applicant, through his lawyer, Edwin Anikwem (SAN), is praying for an order mandating the EFCC to pay him N200 million as general damages, and N1 billion as exemplary damages for flagrant violation of his fundamental rights.

    The applicant is also asking the court for an order compelling the EFCC to tender an unreserved public apology for the infringement on his fundamental rights.

    In a 33-paragraph affidavit sworn to by Olalekan Joseph Bayode, the deponent stated that the applicant had been at the EFCC detention centre at Okotie Eboh Street in Ikoyi, Lagos, since June 1 when he was arrested.

    Anikwem averred that the applicant had been carrying on his business since 1993 as a BDC operator.

    The deponent said the EFCC invited the applicant through a telephone call on June 1 to report to their office at 15A, Awolowo Road in Ikoyi, Lagos, adding that as a responsible and law-abiding citizen, he complied with the invitation.

    According to the deponent, upon arrival, the applicant was asked about certain transactions concerning his BDC business, which he provided.

    Anikwem averred that the officers informed him that the answers he provided were unsatisfactory and thus prevented him from leaving their office, thereby arresting and detaining him.

    The lawyer said the applicant was not given any information about the nature of the offence he was arrested and detained for.

    He added: “The applicant has not been charged with any criminal offence nor has he been informed of what his offence is since his arrest and detention on the 1st of June, 2024.

    “Because of the poor sanitary condition of the cell, the applicant developed an extremely painful abscess on his fingertips while he was in detention.”

    Anikwem averred that the applicant was not treated for the ailment despite complaining officially to be taken to the hospital, and as a result of the said untreated painful abscess on the fingertips, the applicant developed high blood pressure.

    “When the applicant complained to officers of the EFCC about his health condition, he was ignored as there was no medical facility to cater for his deteriorating health.

    Read Also: EFCC, NFIU, ICPC and the Kogi red herring

    “As a result of the applicant’s arrest and detention without trial, the applicant’s business has been closed for more than 150 days, leading to substantial financial loss in the business.

    “The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family which comprises a housewife, eight children, and an ailing aged mother of 105 years.

    “As a result of the applicant’s arrest and detention, the applicant’s children have been out of school due to their inability to pay their school fees and other incidental expenses.

    “As a result of the applicant’s arrest and continued detention, the applicant’s mother has resorted to praying for death as she does not want to be the one to bury her son.”

    Anikwem averred that it would be in the interest of justice for the application to be urgently and expeditiously determined as the applicant has been languishing in detention.

    The applicant is praying for a declaration that the continued detention of the applicant by the EFCC without charging him to court flagrantly violates his fundamental rights to life, respect for the dignity of his person, liberty and movement as guaranteed by Sections 33, 34, 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and is therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void.

    He prayed for: “An order enforcing the Applicant’s fundamental rights by ordering his release from unlawful detention currently imposed on him by the Respondents.

    “An order compelling the respondents to tender an unreserved public apology to the applicant for the infringement on his fundamental rights.

    “An order mandating the respondents to pay to the applicant general damages of N200,000,000.00 (two hundred million Naira) only for harassment, torture, arrest and unlawful detention of the applicant’s person without trial.

    “An order mandating the respondents to pay to the applicant the sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One billion Naira) only as exemplary damages for the flagrant violation of his fundamental rights to wit: unlawful arrest and detention without trial.

    “And such further order or orders as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

  • Alleged N1.6bn fraud: EFCC, former AGF to finalise plea bargain agreement

    Alleged N1.6bn fraud: EFCC, former AGF to finalise plea bargain agreement

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has rescheduled hearing for December 2 to enable the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), a former acting Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF), Anamekwe Nwabuoku and his co-defendant, Felix Nweke conclude their ongoing process for a plea bargain arrangement.

    The EFCC had, on July 10, brought Nwabuoku and Nweke, a former Deputy Director in the Ministry of Defence, before the court.

    The plannned arraignment was postponed when they appealed to the court to give them more time to refund what they were accused of stealing.

    They prayed the court to postpone their arraignment till another date to enable them make the refund.

    The EFCC had filed an 11-count charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/240/24 against them, in which they are accused of laundering N1.6 billion fraud. 

    They were alleged to have committed the offence when Nwabuoku served as the Director of Finance and Accounts at the Ministry of Defence between 2019 and 2021.

    Nwabuoku was appointed acting AG-F on May 20, 2022 under ex-President Muhammadu Buhari after Ahmed Idris was suspended as AGF over alleged N80 billion fraud.

    He was, however, removed in July 2022, few weeks after he assumed office.

    Sylva Okolieaboh, a Director at the Treasury Single Account (TSA) Department, was subsequently appointed to replace Nwabuoku as acting AG-F.

    At the mention of the case on Monday, prosecuting lawyer, Ogechi Ujam told the court that parties were in the process of finalising a plea bargain arrangement between them.

    Read Also: EFCC, NFIU, ICPC and the Kogi red herring

    Ujam said on the last adjourned date, Nwabuoku and Nweke submitted proposal for settlement.

    She said  parties have agreed and  the agreement has been submitted to the EFCC’s Chairman, Olanipekun Olukoyede, for approval.

    The prosecuting lawyer then prayed that court to grant an adjournment to enable parties bring the agreement and an amended charge before the court.

    Defence lawyers – Isidal Udenko (forNwabuoku) and Emeka Onyeaka (for Nweke) – confirmed what Ujam said.

    Ruling, Justice James Omotosho adjourned till December 2 for the  adoption of plea bargain agreement.

  • 16 states vs. EFCC

    16 states vs. EFCC

    •How come some governors are just realising that EFCC should not operate in states?

    It is important that Nigerians see through the subterfuge artfully packaged in altruistic colours by the 16 state governments currently lined up at the apex court to challenge the legality of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The suit, instituted by the Kogi State government, has 15 other states of Ondo, Edo, Oyo, Ogun, Nasarawa, Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto, Jigawa, Enugu, Benue, Anambra, Plateau, Cross River and Niger joining.

    The main plank of their argument is that the Supreme Court had in Dr. Joseph Nwobike Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria held that it was a United Nations Convention against corruption that was reduced into the EFCC Establishment Act and that in enacting the law in 2004, the provision of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, was not strictly followed. They thus argue that the law, as enacted, going by the provisions of the constitution, could not be applied to states that never approved of it.

    Seeking judicial interpretation of the EFCC and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) statutes, at least to the extent that their operations affect the states would ordinarily be seen as perfectly legitimate. This time around, unfortunately, we are neither persuaded nor convinced that the issues that drove the suit are motivated by any concerns with the niceties of constitutionalism or any lofty concerns with the delicate balance of powers among the nation’s federating entities.

    So much for the conceitedness of those behind the suit; it is apparent that they are still living in the past. Had it not been so, they ought to have known that whereas corruption may have grown in cancerous proportions in the country, so have the pressures towards open government and transparency been just as relentless and demanding. EFCC/NFIU or not, these state operatives ought to know that the era in which some public finances could be operated in secrecy belong in the past. And that those crimes, for which they now seek the ousting of the powers of the anti-graft bodies in their domains, are no less federal crimes for which ample provisions already exist in the statutes for restitution, and that the EFCC and NFIU are merely implementing them.

    Read Also: Two million needy Nigerians to benefit from N500m fund to combat hunger, hardship

    The fact of course is that Section 15 of the constitution grants the National Assembly powers to make laws to curb corruption. In any case, the law in question didn’t just come into operation. It has been with us in the last two decades. The question is – why is the challenge only now coming? 

    Are the states saying that the Federal Government cannot pass a law relating to criminal acts of state operatives – and by this we mean the governors in particular?

    We cannot agree more with the elder statesman, Robert Clarke, SAN when he says: “They cannot challenge the Federal Government for implementing an existing law. They cannot challenge the police or any other agency of government that is executing an existing law. This law they are trying to challenge is a law that was created at the start of our laws as of today.”

    It is unfortunate that some of our governors have tended to act like local sovereigns, neither answerable to their parliament nor subject to the strictures of their bureaucracies with their financial regulations. All too often, we have seen a number of them deploy state funds as they wished, with supine legislators acting more like appointees as opposed to providing effective checks against the governors’ excesses. And because the constitution vests them with impunity and so their actions cannot be questioned while in office, they think little of foisting another layer of protection for themselves. Of course, that is the purport of the suit which seeks to keep their financial activities beyond the purview of the federal anti-graft bodies.

    This, in our view, is injurious to public policy and global best practices. In fact, this utterly selfish, unpatriotic and licentious move by the tiny elite whose understanding of stewardship and public service is dangerously warped must be roundly condemned by all.

    Warts and all, the EFCC has certainly served as a force for the good of the country than a few Nigerians are willing to give it credit for. While it may not have been perfect, and its activities have sometimes appeared controversial, it has largely provided a measure of deterrence to fraudulent activities. Over all, it has certainly acquired substantial capacity in tracking and bringing to book financial and other public sector crimes such that the move to restrict its powers as the 16 states are wont to do would pose greater dangers far more than the interests being championed by the governors. Nigerians surely cannot be fooled; to the extent that this country is greater than the sum of its disparate parts, they have no reason to doubt that the Supreme Court will side with the people to stanch the culture of impunity in high places.

  • EFCC, NFIU, ICPC and the Kogi red herring

    EFCC, NFIU, ICPC and the Kogi red herring

    Later this month, the Supreme Court will be hearing a suit filed by 16 states challenging the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU). Kogi State, unsurprisingly, belled the cat by filing the suit. Fifteen states have joined the legal action. They hope to prove that because the statutes establishing these three institutions appear to have their grounding in certain United Nations conventions, it would require processes other than the ones adopted by the drafters of the constitution to legalise their existence.

    It undoubtedly advances the cause of democracy when states or individuals challenge legal conventions and everything the public had taken for granted. Such peaceful challenges promote democracy and advance the cause of the rule of law. The Supreme Court is in short being called upon to determine one way or the other whether the aforementioned agencies were properly set up or not in line with the constitution. The top court is unlikely to fish for extraneous matters regarding the litigants altruism. The states wish to promote the cause of democracy. But given the identity of the litigant, particularly Kogi State whose former governor Yahaya Bello is embroiled in a rancorous battle with the EFCC, there is nothing to suggest altruism is involved. But on the surface – and this is what the court will probably concern itself with – this litigation is a good cause in the service of democracy. It stands little chance of succeeding, but at least the matter is being tested in the appropriate place, in a court that is perhaps unintentionally but fortuitously becoming a constitutional and policy court.

    Read Also: EFCC declares businessman Akinduro wanted over alleged fraud

    Nigeria’s 36 states lack checks and balances. Until the Supreme Court acted in defence of the local governments, on the prompting of the executive branch, the third tier was being suffocated. The state Houses of Assembly have also been castrated and turned into mannequins. It is institutions like the EFCC, ICPC and NFIU that still exercise some modicum of restraint on the wayward state administrations. Now, states consider that little restraint a yoke they wish to throw off. No one should let them, lest they all turn into the remorseless tyrants Rivers State is contending with.