The Nation Newspaper

Tag: graft

  • How we can tame graft, by ex-AGF

    How we can tame graft, by ex-AGF

    Former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Kanu AgabI, has urged the government to act fast against corruption.

    He said the justice sector, law enforcement and anti-graft agencies were overwhelmed by the avalanche of criminal cases they handle.

    Agabi said the judiciary, police, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) can no longer cope with the volume of corruption allegations they receive.

    He listed six types of reforms the country must implement to solve the problem.

    These include quality and relevant education, ending governance founded on patronage, economic self-reliance, putting square pegs in square holes in appointments, and relaxing state boundaries.

    Read Also: FG grants ex-EFCC boss Bawa access to lawyers, family members

    Agabi said: “We should not hope to solve corruption as long as the education we offer our young ones does not equip them for life, as long as the government is founded on patronage, as long as the nation is not self-reliant, as long as people are appointed into high offices for which they are not qualified, as long as the boundaries of the states are rigid.”

    The eminent lawyer spoke during conferment of Commander of the Order of the Niger (CON) on a foremost anti-corruption prosecutor, Mr. Rotimi Jacobs in Lagos.

    The event also marked the 10th anniversary of Jacobs’ membership of the Inner Bar and launch of his book: Rotimi Jacobs on Criminal Procedure.

    Praising Jacobs’ record as a conscientious anti-graft jurist, Agabi decried the country’s slide to dangerous corruption levels.

    The former AGF noted but for relentless men like Jacobs, the situation would be more dire.

    Quoting copiously from the scripture and referencing parable of the prodigal son, the lawyer urged Nigeria to return to honesty and accountability.

    He said laws are not the country’s problem, adding law enforcement agencies are only as good as their personnel.

    Agabi said: “Let me start by saying the laws against corruption are not new. They have always been there. They are as old as the nation itself.

    “However good they are, they are not self-enforcing. They require good men and women to enforce them.

    “As important and as vital as the institutions that the nation has established to combat corruption and crime, they are limited institutions.

    “They are founded on the premise that crime will be limited. If crime becomes unlimited, these institutions cannot cope. That is what has happened.

    “With the advent of civil rule, the pendulum swung from one extreme of dictatorship to the extreme of liberalism. Corruption has permeated every department of the nation. The police cannot cope. The judiciary cannot cope. The EFCC and ICPC cannot cope.

    “Therefore, we must reexamine our approach to the fight against corruption…”

  • Graft: Lagos seeks effective, efficient public procurement process

    •Govt, customers, stakeholders parley

    Lagos State Deputy Governor Dr. Idiat Adebule has stressed the need for an effective and efficient public procurement process to strengthen anti-corruption efforts and curb excesses of public officials.

    Dr Adebule stated this yesterday in the keynote address she delivered at the engagement of Business Community in Procurement Process organised by the Lagos State Procurement Agency (LPA) at Airport Hotel, Ikeja, the state capital.

    The theme of the discussion was: The Role of Public Procurement in Ensuring Good Governance.

    The deputy governor, who was represented by the Special Adviser to the Governor on Urban Development, Mrs. Yetunde Onabule, noted that efficient public procurement processes are among the vital tools to achieve efficient management of public resources and delivery of infrastructure to the residents.

    She said these are the hallmarks of any responsible government.

    To the business community, Dr Adebule said: “Your role is significant to realise our objectives of doing more for our citizens with the scarce resources at our disposal. Ultimately, it helps to guarantee good governance anchored on transparency, accountability and probity.

    “The significance of our collective commitment to the procurement law and implementation will guarantee our ability to get more for less.”

    The deputy governor said the programme was organised for further enlightenment of stakeholders, particularly those interested in doing business with the state government “on the need to ensure compliance with relevant provisions of the procurement law, procurement guidelines, procurement manual and operational guidelines”.

    She said public procurement is central to better and quality government service delivery to the citizens.

    According to her, “a well-functioning public procurement system must seek value for money in meeting the needs of government agencies for goods and services to support public good”.

    Dr Adebule noted that good governance programmes require that public procurement reforms support essential concepts and values like: accountability, responsiveness, professionalism, transparency, competition and appeal rights.

    Read also: Three reasons most people get stuck in life

    LPA’s General Manager Idowu Onafowote said it is in the interest of the state government to create opportunities for businesses to increase their capacity, create jobs, sustain themselves, produce wealth as well as foster innovation and contribute to the Gross Development Product (GDP).

    He said the forum was meant to engage customers and other stakeholders on the new approaches to doing business with the state government in line with the established procurement law.

    The general manager said the government was planning to have an effective procurement methodology where high levels of governance and due diligence with a greater degree of automation will prevail.

     

  • Judiciary’s role in battle against graft

    Lagos lawyer WAHAB SHITTU, in this piece, highlights the 2018 achievements of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and points out the role of the judiciary in the battle against corrupt men.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission under the watch of its Acting Chairman, Mr. Ibrahim Magu, has been posting unprecedented record of achievements in terms of convictions of those who are standing trial over corruption related matters.

    Last year alone, as at December 31, 2018, the EFCC secured 312 convictions by various zones of the EFCC judging by records from different courts nationwide.

    It is instructive to note that the record of such convictions include high profile convictions significantly the celebrated convictions of the former Governors of Taraba and Plateau States, Rev. Jolly Nyame and Joshua Dariye respectively. The two ex-governors are now serving their prison terms in Kuje Prisons, Abuja.

    The conviction of the former Executive Chairman of Ogori Magongo, Mr. Gabriel Daudu affirmed by the Supreme Court early in the year has raised significant jurisprudential contribution which is the thrust of this paper.

    Remarkably, in the celebrated case of Gabriel Daudu vs FRN (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt.1626) 169, 183 E-F (2018) LPELR – 43637 (SC). The Supreme Court made the mother of all pronouncements on burden of proof in corruption cases. The apex court held:

    “The burden lies on an accused person to explain properties he acquired which are disproportionate to his KNOWN legitimate earnings.”

    The implication of this judgment is that once it is shown that you have much more than you should have had, then it is yours to explain the source of such wealth.  This is a major contribution by the judiciary particularly the Apex Court to the war against corruption. This is consistent with international standards and best practices including recent legislations in civilized jurisdictions around the world.

    The Supreme Court’s pronouncement is significant because Prosecution of proceeds of crime in Nigeria is a heavy burden mainly because of the requirement that criminal cases must be established beyond reasonable doubt.  Burdens and standards of proof in criminal proceedings in possession of unexplained property prosecutions particularly in the context of assets in excess of legitimate earnings is a heavier burden because of uncertainty of who bears what burden, for which facts the burden is applicable and the required standard of proof to deliver successful prosecutions.

    Against the background of the recent Supreme Court case in Gabriel Daudu v. FRN, there is the need to ask pertinent question- whether in the light of statutory provisions including Section 19(2) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004 legislating against possession of pecuniary resources which the defendant cannot satisfactorily account for and which is disproportionate to his known sources of income, the development can be said to have raised the bar higher in the fight against corruption by criminalizing assets in excess of legitimate earnings in Nigeria.

    The recent Supreme Court decision in Gabriel Daudu v. FRN has progressively impacted on burdens and standards of proof in money laundering cases particularly with respect to assets in excess of legitimate earnings.

    Honourable Justice Akaahs in GABRIEL DAUDU v. FEDERAL REPULIC OF NIGERIA highlighted the challenges of burdens and standard of proof in money laundering cases when His Lordship observed as follows:

    Proving Money Laundering cases is a herculean task because it requires a prior establishment of the predicate offence before the money laundering aspect can be established. To obviate this problem a remedy was introduced by statutorily inferring money laundering from not only the conduct of the defendant but his lifestyle which is similar to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 of the UK. Even though Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty, the proviso allows for shifting the burden of proof on the defendant. The Section provides thus:- “36(5) Every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty provided that nothing in this Section shall invalidate any law by reason only that the law imposes upon any person the burden of proving particular facts”.

    By Section 19(3) of the Money Laundering Act, if an accused person is in possession of pecuniary resources or property which is disproportionate to his known source of income, or he obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property, the burden of giving a satisfactory account of how he made the money or obtained the accretion shifts to him. The prosecution is relieved of the burden of having to prove that the money so found in his account or in his possession is proceeds from illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or of any illegal act. To explain the point further, where A is a fixed salary earner and suddenly his account is credited with an amount beyond his income or has property which his legitimate income cannot afford, the burden shifts to him to explain how he got the money with which he bought the property or the legitimate transaction he was engaged in for which the account was credited.” Per AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (Pp. 13-14, Paras. B-E)

    The implication of the judgment is that as a result, criminalization of illicit enrichment including assets in excess of legitimate earnings will ease the burden of proof on the prosecution in establishing such offences and facilitate criminal forfeiture of possession of unexplained property as a critical anti-corruption fighting tool.

    Significantly, the Supreme Court pronouncement is consistent with recent legislations emanating from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom (UK) has introduced a new law in tackling corruption.  The law – under the law called Unexplained Wealth Orders Regulations, it is now mandatory for the owner of property worth over £50,000 to explain beyond reasonable doubt the source of the property or risk its forfeiture.

    The development has now shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, rather than the old order of the defendant being presumed innocent until proved guilty. It is remarkable to state that the Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the high court and Court of Appeal on the conviction of Gabriel Daudu and insisted that those who acquire property and assets beyond their income must explain the source of such wealth or acquisition.

    Clearly, the Gabriel Daudu and FRN’s case may have given judicial approval to statutory provisions contained under Section 19(2) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004, Section 15(a)(b) of Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related offences Act 2006 and section 18(5) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment Act) 2004 respectively; It represents a bold restatement of the law on the element of burden of proof in money laundering cases, particularly the fact that the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to explain the source of funds in excess of legitimate earnings standing in his account.  This no doubt may have lessened the burden on the shoulders of prosecutors charged with the responsibility of prosecuting these cases.

    A direct implication of the Supreme Court pronouncement is that the burden of establishing that the funds/assets are in excess of the legitimate earnings of the defendant still remains with the prosecution and this must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Subsequently, having established the excess funds/assets beyond legitimate earnings of the defendant, the burden shifts to the defendant to explain the source of such earnings to the satisfaction of the court.

    In the words of Professor Adedeji Adekunle,  the significance of forfeiture in modern times, as a substantive penal measure is more noticeable in relation to its deterrent and destabilizing effect on criminals or crime organisations.  If in addition to conventional penal measures like imprisonment, punishment is able to strike at the motivating factor of the crime – the financial benefit – it is likely to discourage many persons from committing such crimes. Invariably crimes that are financially motivated involve a deliberate calculation of risks and benefits by the offender.  Where the risk of detection includes also the risk of losing the benefit, it is argued that this would sufficiently deter criminals.  Some jurisdictions have increased the stakes significantly by extending forfeiture to circumstances where criminal trial does not take place  and also to any asset which is not necessarily derived from the crime of conviction.  The justification for this obviously is that there is greater deterrence value in expanding the net of assets at risk of forfeiture in the event of detection.

    Secondly, beyond deterrence tool, forfeiture is of strategic importance in criminal law enforcement as a substantive weapon for tackling and weakening crime particularly where it occurs in an organized form.  The importance of money to organized criminal activities is graphically described thus:

    Just as money is the life blood of legitimate business and industry, so too, is it the life blood of all domestic and international organized crime groups regardless of the criminal activity giving rise to the proceeds.  It flow through the international banking system is what sustains the illicit operations by providing the criminal with the constant source of new capital needed to pay operating expenses and to buy goods and services.

    A deliberate systematic policy of seizing money and identified assets of criminals deprives organized criminal activity of crucial funds essential to its operations.

    READ ALSO: Army: our weapons superior to Boko Haram’s

    It can be argued that in Nigeria and on the strength of the recent Supreme Court judgment in Gabriel Daudu v. FRN assets acquired in excess of legitimate earnings will constitute a crime giving rise to the liability of criminal forfeiture depending on several variables.  First, the nature of the forfeiture proceedings is essential to such determination.  Forfeiture proceedings are in variety.  I. Non-conviction based asset proceedings are civil in nature being action in rem.  The penalty therefore in such proceedings is on the property and not the defendant.  This proceeding cannot be said to occasion criminal consequences on a defendant except on his/her property.  However in a sense forfeiture of the property of the defendant without trial and where the defendant is not available under non-conviction based forfeiture can be argued to amount to criminalizing of the property, the proceeds of crime.  Where the forfeiture relates to conviction based forfeiture proceedings, the result is criminalization of not only the defendant but the proceeds of the crime. Proceeds of crime in this sense including but not limited to perishable assets, and assets of diminishing value, petroleum products (PMS, Gasoline, hydrocarbon), vehicles, mechanically and electronically propelled vessels including conveyance by air, sea, road, rail and space, crops, livestock and foodstuffs, cash in hand, cash in a bank account, going concerns, real estates amongst others. Any of these assets in excess of legitimate earnings could be subject of either non-conviction based forfeiture or conviction based forfeiture.

    Adjunct to the above, there are sufficient justifications for criminalizing illicit enrichment including assets in excess of legitimate earnings.  One justification is that illicit enrichment has been defined in various international and regional anti-corruption instruments including UNCAC which defines it to mean ‘a significant increase of the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income’. It also explicitly included the requirement of intention (mens rea) for the crime to be committed.  Apart from UNCAC, no regional anti-corruption conventions as well as domestic laws require intention as an element of illicit enrichment. In addition, the scope of UNCAC seems restricted to the wealth of the public official while the AU Convention transcends such limitation by including the term ‘any other person’.  This term was incorporated because assets can be transferred easily to third parties who are affiliated with public officials in one way or another. It is also instructive as further justification that consistent with Section 19(2) of the Money Laundering Act disproportionate wealth and failure to justify the legitimacy of the source of the alleged wealth are the elements of the offence of illicit enrichment under the definitions.

    The other justification may have arisen from the fact that illicit enrichment is shrouded in secrecy, which creates difficulties for its detection and investigation. However, property in the hands of public officials and their families that are manifestly in excess of their legitimate income would be relatively easy to detect, investigate and prosecute.  The extreme difficulties in obtaining evidence to prove bribery and other related acts of corruption demand a consideration of the criminalization of a significant increase in the property of public officials. Therefore, the inclusion of the offence of illicit enrichment in the list of crimes of corruption is perceived to be an effective way of combating corruption.

    Based on the foregoing reasons, there is no doubt that it is absolutely necessary to criminalise illicit enrichment including but not limited to unexplained property and assets in excess of legitimate earnings. Criminalisation of such offences has advantages because it is associated with the standard of proof for conviction.  The prosecutor is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt the disproportionate assets in the hands of the defendant in relation to his legitimate income.  One advantage of this requirement is that the prosecutor is not required to prove bribery or any form of corruption to succeed in the case, the prosecutor only obligation being to show that the since the wealth is not proportionate to the legitimate income of a public official it is presumed to have originated from corruption unless the contrary is proved. This may have eased the burden of proof on the prosecution.

    The advantages of criminalizing illicit enrichment are associated with the standard of proof required for conviction. In prosecuting illicit enrichment as a crime of corruption, the prosecutor should prove beyond a reasonable doubt the disproportionate assets in the hands of the accused in relation to his legitimate income. In this respect, the prosecutor is not required to prove the fact that the accused has received a bribe or committed any other form of corruption. Wealth that is not proportionate to the legitimate income of a public official is presumed to have originated from corruption unless the contrary is proved.  In such circumstance, the burden of proof is eased and the prosecutor is not required to prove corruption as a source of the wealth in question.

    The reluctance to criminalize illicit enrichment may have arisen out of the debate on human rights issues raised by some writers.  It is my view however that the need combat corruption and stolen wealth by corrupt public officials makes such criminalization compelling subject to safeguards to preserve fundamental rights of the citizens.

    The point that is being made is that owing to the networks of intricacies involved in money laundering, the need to lower the standard of proof and compel the defendant to also explain sources of funds of doubtful and questionable origins is compelling.  This is not likely to be achieved by a strict adherence to the elements of presumption of innocence without shifting of burdens in cases of unexplained property. Any objection?

    The proposal above supports this writer’s perspective of the need for criminal forfeiture of assets in excess of legitimate earnings.

    It is also proposed that in shifting the burden of proof in money laundering cases, the proof of assets in excess of legitimate earnings in the proceedings must conform with constitutional provisions. Three fundamental steps of compliance with constitutional guarantee on criminal forfeiture include:

    • The ability to trace assets subject to forfeiture or proceeds of crime in whatever form;
    • The ability to restrain by judicial order, dealings on such assets; and
    • Statutory authorization of a judicial body to issue a final forfeiture order over assets that have been restrained or which have been traced.

    Based on the foregoing analysis particularly the record of conviction posted by EFCC under Magu’s watch and the recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Gabriel Daudu vs FRN, it can be said with sufficient justification that the EFCC and the judiciary in waging war against corruption in Nigeria.

    Significantly, the Supreme Court’s radical pronouncement in the case of Gabriel Daudu vs FRN is a major contribution by the apex court to the war against corruption and the judiciary ought to be applauded for handling down this judgment.

  • Oshiomhole queries competence of suit seeking his probe for graft

    •Court schedules hearing for Nov 19

    ALL Progressives Congress (APC’s)  National Chairman Adams Oshiomhole has queried the competence of a suit seeking his probe by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for corruption related conduct.

    Oshiomhole, who also questioned the plaintiff’s right under the law, to seek to compel the EFCC to probe his tenure as Edo State Governor, urged the court to dismiss the suit for being incompetent.

    The plaintiff, Bishop Osadolor Ochei, said he, on October 28, 2016, petitioned the EFCC, demanding that Oshiomhole be  investigated on some allegations he (Ochei) has made against the ex-Governor.

    The said his suit, filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja was as a result of the EFCC’s alleged failure to act on his petition.

    The plaintiff’s  lawyer West Idahosa said there were documents and electronic pictures of palatial houses credited to the former governor, whose earnings throughout his lifetime, according to the plaintiff, could not have been able to afford.

    Idahosa said, among other allegations, there was evidence that the ex-governor allegedly diverted Edo State’s funds. He claimed that there were also vouchers of exorbitant air fares that the former governor allegedly incurred.

    Oshiomhole, in a notice of preliminary objection filed by his lawyer, Damien Dodo (SAN), argued that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to bring the suit.

    In the objection, supported by 10 grounds, Oshiomhole argued that the suit has become a mere academic exercise since the plaintiff failed to file the suit for judicial review within three months of the occurrence of the subject of the case.

    He argued that the action or inaction of the EFCC being subjected to review by the proceedings occurred on December 13, 2016, while the plaintiff only institute the action for judicial review on June 13, 2018.

    The APC National Chairman noted that this came about 18 months after the occurrence of the alleged failure being complained about.

    He argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for failure of the plaintiff to begin the action within the time provided by extant rules of the court and for failure to disclose locus standi to file the action.

    The judge, Justice Anwuli Chikere, had on October 8, 2018, granted leave to the plaintiff to begin the suit for “judicial review”.

     

     

  • Executive, legislature, judiciary join forces against graft

    Executive, legislature, judiciary join forces against graft

    The executive, the legislature and the judiciary held a dialogue in Abuja last week on the justice sector’s reform and the anti-corruption campaign. The event, which had three sessions, featured no fewer than 22 speakers, including lawmakers, academics, judges, legal experts, technocrats and journalists. JOSEPH JIBUEZE highlights the key recommendations at the one-day event at the State House Abuja.

    The plan of the President Muhammadu Buhari administration when it took the saddle about three years ago was to use the instrumentality of government to fight corruption. But the battle is far from being won.

    Reason! The three arms of government, expected to unite against graft have not flown in the same direction

    Making the battle more herculean is the fact that the organs of government are not only undermining themselves but working at cross purposes and the trend has become worrisome to the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), which last week, organised a one-day “dialogue of organs of government on reform of justice sector and campaign against corruption.”

    The dialogue, organised in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Justice, was staged at the State House Banquet Hall in Abuja and was. It drew

    Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, Senate President Bukola Saraki, House of Representatives Speaker Yakubu Dogara, Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Walter Onnoghen and Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami, SAN.

    Represented by the Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, Mr. Ade Ipaye, Osinbajo, called for a harmonious relationship between the legislative, judiciary and executive arms of government, without which he foreclosed development.

    The vice president said: “Conflicts could arise from misunderstanding of constitutional responsibilities; inordinate foray or venture by one organ into the territory of another organ, inordinate ambition or domineering attitude by one over others, power struggle, greed or self-interest, hypocrisy; lack of patriotism and corruption.”

    According to him, unresolved conflicts slows down the pace of governance, creates suspicion and hostility, encourages bad governance, creates distraction and tension, encourages the culture of impunity and disregard for the rule of law among the political class, with attendant political instability that divides the populace.

    “In order to avoid these consequences and for a government to deliver development to the people, it is imperative for the three arms of government to constantly bury the hatchet and focus on collaborative efforts within their constitutional responsibilities to formulate and implement effective governance laws and policies,” he said.

    Dr. Saraki, who was represented by Senator David Omoru, spoke of the need to strengthen institutions and processes “so that we can fight the good fight without let or hindrance, and without any bias whatsoever.”

    Pledging the lawmakers’ commitment to the anti-graft war, the Senate President said: “Let me assure you that we as lawmakers in the Eighth National Assembly take very seriously the fight against corruption to sanitise our polity and instill greater probity, openness and accountability in the system.

    “That way, we would be better able to power the economic development of this country, rather than having up to 25 per cent of our annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product) disappear into private pockets,” he said.

    The AGF said the campaign against corruption can only succeed if it actively involves all stakeholders and enjoys ownership by all the arms of government.

    Malami said: “It is also significant to posit that the efficiency of the justice sector is critical to the speed at which the results of our collective efforts can become available to the public.

    “No matter our best intentions, no matter the urgency in our methods as an executive branch, the application of the rule of law by the judiciary and the expeditious consideration of supporting laws by the legislature are equally critical to the overall success we hope to achieve in order to promote greater prosperity and stability in our country.”

    Dogara, represented by Jide Akinloye, said the House would “go the whole hog to support any attempt to fight corruption”.

     

    Sagay: Corrupt judges rubbishing judiciary

    The PACAC Chairman, Prof Itse Sagay (SAN) said it was corrupt judges have been doing more damage to the judiciary, not those who point out its failing.

    According to him, judges must not be afraid to bring the full weight of the law on their corrupt colleagues.

    To the constitutional lawyer, all organs of government must be harsher in dealing with corrupt persons within their fold.

    He said judges must have zero tolerance for lawyers who try to compromise them, but should expose such lawyers and have them struck off the rolls.

    Sagay said: “Judges must be prepared to bring to justice any of their colleagues who accept or demand bribes.

    “These are the ones who rubbish the image of the judiciary, not the legitimate critics of such gross misconduct.

    “It takes only one apple to contaminate and make all the other apples in the barrel rotten also. So, self-criticism and firm punishment for culprits within a sector by colleagues is mandatory in order to establish zero tolerance for corruption in that sector.”

    He urged judges to strictly apply provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 in order to enhance speedy and fair justice.

    “Some judges are currently carrying on as if the ACJA does not exist,” he noted.

    According to him, there must be no espiri de corp between a clean member and a corrupt member in any arm of government.

    Sagay said those who are known to be corrupt have no moral right to pontificate on the fight.

    The PACAC chief said: “There is a lot of lip service by various high profile public servants in the anti-corruption war.

    “When a person who is known by the Nigerian public as an irredeemably corrupt person begins to wax lyrical about the devastating effects of corruption, it sounds very ill in his mouth and it ridicules and belittles the fight against corruption.

    “Public figures that are already notorious for their penchant for corruption are doing disservice to the anti-corruption struggle by pretending to hate corruption. Let such people remain silent rather than ridiculing the war against corruption.”

    Urging lawmakers to fight budget padding and unjust remuneration and to pass pending anti-corruption bills, Sagay advised agencies of the executive, such as Customs, not to demand bribes to do their jobs.

    He said: “If they deserve higher remuneration, they should demand it. In fact, we should allow Customs, Inland Revenue Department, EFCC and ICPC to retain a small portion of the assets recovered or collected by them in order to promote internal integrity in those services.

    “We must tackle the following matters with all seriousness: prevention of corruption; speedy, effective and efficient trials; recovery of looted assets, and discouragement and deterrence of bribery, corruption and economic financial crimes in the public and private sectors.”

     

    Falana, others speak

    The event had three sessions, with the sub-themes: Campaign against corruption and justice sector reform: Journey so far; strengthening justice sector institutions/law enforcement agencies for improved sanctions and enforcement; and preventing corruption and sustaining justice sector reforms.

    Speakers and contributors include: Justice A. D. Yahaya of the Court of Appeal, Senator Chukwuka Utazi, Prof Larry Chukwu, a lawmaker Jimi Benson, Justice T. Akomolafe Benson, Justice E. Agim, Justice Chinyere Ani, activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), a professor of law Ayo Atsenuwa, a journalist Mr. Lanre Arogundade, former Nigerian Law School Director-General Lanre Onadeko (SAN), The Nation’s Managing Editor, Northern Operations Yusuf Alli, Executive Director at the Access to Justice (A2J) Mr. Joseph Otteh and Dr. Fatima Waziri-Azi of PACAC, among others.

    Falana urged Attorneys-General to do more in the fight against corruption under their jurisdiction. The activist-lawyer noted that impunity has continued because some of them abuse the power of nolle-prosequi.

    “The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) cannot go to a state to prosecute without the fiat of the Attorney-General in many of the cases. What are they doing in pursuing cases of corruption in their state?” he asked.

    On sentencing, Falana wondered why someone who stole billions of naira would be jailed for a mere 10 years or less. To him, it was a class issue that must be addressed.

    He said an armed robbery suspect who robbed only one person may be sentenced to death, and no one would raise an eyebrow.

    Falana said: “But, the man who has stolen money meant for building a road – and because that road is not built, people are dying, or the one who diverted money meant for building a hospital – are only asked to plea bargain.

    “The worst case of fraud that has been recorded was that of a bank executive who was alleged to have returned through plea bargain N191.4 billion in money and other assets. He was sentenced for six months in a highbrow hospital in Lagos. Whereas, in Osun State, a young man was sentenced to 50 years for stealing a handset worth N7, 000.

    “For us not to expose the law to ridicule, there would be the need on the part of PACAC perhaps to organise a seminar on sentencing, because people out there are laughing.”

    Falana accused anti-corruption agencies of not applying Section 10 of the Recovery of Public Property Special Provisions Act.

    The section, the lawyer noted, provides that if a person fails to declare assets worth over N1 million, the person is liable to life imprisonment.

    “That law is there, but nobody applies it,” Falana said.

    The SAN said workers emoluments, health insurance and other benefits are given high priority in countries where corruption is genuinely fought.

    According to him, people are likely to be tempted to steal if they know they would retire into penury.

    “How do we create an enabling environment for us to live good lives so that we’ll not be tempted to want to loot the treasury?” Falana wondered.

    Justice Ani said corruption results in poverty, high level of unemployment, infrastructural deficit and lack of foreign investments, among other ills.

    She regretted that some high profile cases were badly investigated, which makes it difficult to prove the essential ingredients of a crime.

    On the part of judges, she said there was “entrenched” lack of know-how by some of them, adding that lack of enough budgetary provisions also hampers the anti-graft war.

    Justice Ani recommended the equipment of courts for efficiency, as most of the court use manual recording systems; improvement in inter-agency collaboration, as well as an amendment of the section of the ACJA on video recording of suspects during interrogation to replace the word “May” with “Shall.’

    Alli said there was too much political interference in the anti-graft war, even as there was lack of manpower among anti-graft agencies.

    According to him, investigators must have insurance policy and very good welfare package to keep them motivated.

    On the way forward, Alli said there should be less politics in the anti-graft war, adding that it should not been seen as a political tool.

    To him, the office of the AGF should be separated from the Minister of Justice, while anti-graft agencies need to be sanitised.

    Alli said: “Anti-graft agencies must operate within the ambit of the law, and merit should take preeminence over any other thing,” he said.

    On the issue of media trial, Alli said the press does not go beyond filtered information given to them by anti-graft agencies.

    EFCC’s Head of Legal Department Gbolahan Latona said it was a miracle that anti-graft agencies were doing the much they do considering the low budget they operate with compared to their counterparts abroad.

    Onadeko decried the fact that corruption cases were lasting too long in courts. To him, corruption cannot be fought conventionally. New approaches must be adopted, he said.

    Prof Atsenuwa said the ACJA would not work unless it was properly funded.

    “I’m not aware of who has mapped the budgetary implication of ACJA’s implementation. There has to be an implementation framework for the ACJA,” she said.

    She added that in the investigation of cases, lawyers need to guide investigators on what to look out for.

    Justice Yahaya, who chaired one of the sessions, said there were enough laws; the problem was with their implementation.

    “The problem is the indiscipline that is in us. Without a committed and disciplined people, I don’t see us succeeding. Something is going to collapse unless we all address the challenges and face them,” he said.

    Otteh called for the introduction of a Financial Disclosures Rule which would limit the amount of physical cash that judicial officers can hold at any time.

    He said the rule that “he who alleges must prove” should be revised so that those founds with suspicious amounts of money could be called upon to explain how they came about them.

    Besides, he said the war against corruption would not be won when the courts are shut down on flimsy excuses, such as when all judges of a court are attending a burial or seminar.

    PACAC member Prof Femi Odekunle cited the example of South Korea where the elite got together and fought corruption to save the country. He said the elite must agree to kill corruption if the fight must be won.

    “Like the President said, if we don’t kill corruption, it will kill us. He appears to be the only one saying so. It has not been bought by the elite collectively. If the elite in the three major organs of government get together and fight corruption, it will filter down the other agencies,” he said.

    Prof Odekunle said the three arms of government have more to do. For instance, he said the National Assembly had punished its members who tried to expose corruption by suspending them, and has not been transparent about lawmakers’ allowances. According to him, “any of them who breaks out of the code of silence” gets punished.

    He faulted the executive for recalling a man who was suspended over allegations of corruption, adding that the judiciary appears to condone corruption among its members.

    Odekunle said: “I said about two years ago that you have to sacrifice the blood of two judges and two SANs to cleanse and do libation to be able to liberate the legal profession from corruption.

    “If the executive had gone along, there’d be no Maina case, no Babachir case and the NIA case.

    “I agree there should be separation of powers, but there should be no separation of the core values, the ethos, the philosophy of social organisation.

    “I think the elite must get together and say: ‘Corruption will kill us if we don’t kill it’. They must lead the way.

    “To me, it’s a matter of a visionary leadership, but all the elites must agree; otherwise I don’t think we’ll make progress.”

  • ‘Nigeria can fight graft with free education’

    A Former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), has said free education at all levels will help government win its fight against corruption.

    He suggested that for any government to nip corruption in the bud, should give the citizens free education at all levels and provide jobs for the youth.

    The eminent lawyer said two of the least corrupt countries in the world – Sweden and Singapore – adopted the model, which helped in providing for the needs of the people and in discouraging them from corrupt practices.

    Olanipekun spoke at the weekend at the presentation of scholarships to hundreds of pupils, under the aegis of 21st Wole Olanipekun Scholarship Scheme (WOSS) at his hometown, Ikere-Ekiti in Ekiti State.

    Pupils who got cheques with varying amounts to finance their education cut across secondary schools.

    Students od universities and the Nigerian Law School from the 16 local government areas of Ekiti State and other states also benefitted from the scholarships.

    In an address delivered by the Chairman of WOSS Board of Trustees (BoT), Mr. Stephen Omoyeni, the eminent lawyer regretted a situation in which PhD holders applied for a N50,000 job.

    Olanipekun described the situation as “a great impediment to the anti-graft war”.

    He added: “In my humble view, the first thing any government should do to nip corruption in the bud or reduce it to a minimal level is to give citizens free education at all levels and strive to provide jobs for the youths.

    “These are the things the least corrupt countries, like Sweden and Singapore, are doing for their citizens. These countries are providing certainty for people in their old age and they are ensuring that they will not die unattended to, particularly in the areas of their welfare.

    “In my mind, rather than sloganeering and offering rhetoric on the fight against corruption, what we should do is to provide the means by which our youths can enjoy free education from primary to the university level and provide gainful jobs after schools.”

    A former Deputy Vice Chancellor of the Ekiti State University (EKSU), Prof. Joel Adegun, who delivered the WOSS 21st anniversary lecture suggested that the scheme must transform into a foundation for it to outlive its founder and make better contributions to scholarship.

    In the lecture, titled: Philanthropy and Education Debacle in Nigeria, Adegun advised wealthy Nigerians to imbibe the culture of contributions to education as obtainable in United States of America, Britain and other advanced countries of the world.

  • Falana seeks strong institutions to tackle graft

    Falana seeks strong institutions to tackle graft

    Lagos lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) has called for strong institutions to win the war against corruption.

    Falana spoke at the weekend at the Obafemi Adewale Colloquium and Law dinner organised by the Ado Ekiti branch of Young Lawyers’ Forum of Nigeria Bar Association (NBA).

    The eminent lawyer stressed the need for restructuring of the economy as a necessity for solving the myriads of challenges facing the nation.

    The forum was organised on the 60th birthday of a former General Secretary of NBA, Obafemi Adewale, who is also a one-time attorney general and commissioner for Justice in Ekiti State.

    Falana, who is a former president of the West African Bar Association (WABA), spoke on the theme: The Nation Nigeria: Restructuring, Secession or Status Quo – the Way Forward.

    The frontline lawyer noted that the fight against corruption was only at the surface level.

    He urged the Federal Government to tackle corruption by putting in place a strong framework and address basic necessities as well as social security to discourage graft.

    According to him, countries that have significantly reduced corruption have in place effective health care delivery system, health insurance, mortgage and public transportation.

    Falana said: “When you address basic necessities of life, you don’t have to preach against corruption. Those who engage in corruption will be seen as mad when basic needs are met.”

    Noting that lawyers have important roles to play in the restructuring of the country, the eminent lawyer said the issue goes beyond the transfer of power to regions but the reduction of power at the centre and the cost of governance.

  • Aso (graft) Clinic

    For some unfathomable reason, the Aso Rock Clinic saga would only elicit morbid emotions in Hardball. He was therefore minded to title this piece, The Aso Morbid Clinic but for the obvious contentious connotation it might trigger. But morbidity is the name of the game where cold undertakers are at work. And no other appellation best suits the perpetrators of this heist than pallbearers and morbid anatomists.

    Let us go to the point lest one asphyxiates on his emotions. Is there any Nigerian who has never heard that delectable voice of the wife of the president, Mrs. Aisha Buhari crying in the desert of Aso Rock, Presidential Villa? Well, in her latest wailing(?) last week, she told Nigerians how she was recently ill and asked to visit the State House Medical Centre (Aso Rock Clinic) and she was advised to go abroad instead.

    Hear her: “I called Aso Rock Clinic to find out if they have an X-Ray machine they said it’s not working.

    “In the end I had to go to a hospital owned and operated by foreigners 100 per cent.

    “There is budget for the hospital and you go there now you will see a number of constructions going on but they don’t have a single syringe there. What is the purpose of the buildings if there is no equipment there to work with?”

    A few days earlier her daughter had also publicly lashed at the management of the clinic, particularly the Permanent Secretary, Jalil Arabi for his inability to provide nary paracetamol in the facility despite a budget of N3 billion.

    It is true and must be stated that there is always a gap between budget figures and actual disbursal, but nobody has denied, and indeed, would dare say that funding was the reason why modest clinical services cannot be maintained in a health facility servicing the number one office in the land.

    Again, though Nigerians are howling and even members of the National Assembly are screaming, what manner of budgeting allows funds to be allocated blindly year-on-year with no question as to how it is disbursed?

    Question again, which budgeting system votes more funds to one clinic than 16 federal teaching hospitals put together?

    Even more question: this utter madness has gone on year-on-year for the past three years at least with none raising eye eyebrow until these two women spoke up. This suggests that there are no checks, no reviews and no audit in the system.

    Yet this administration is fighting graft while graft apparently lives in Villa… right there under the president’s nose. This is indeed a mortifying experience to dwell upon and it is liable to damage both body and soul.

  • Osinbajo stops two ICPC nominees over graft probe

    Osinbajo stops two ICPC nominees over graft probe

    Acting President Yemi Osinbajo has withdrawn the appointment of two nominees for the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC).

    The government, in a statement last Tuesday by the Director (Press) in the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Bolaji Adebiyi, appointed 14 members and chairman for ICPC.

    But, a message on the Twitter handle of the Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Laolu Akande, said yesterday the appointments of the two nominees, which was subject to confirmation of the Senate, have been withdrawn due to allegations and petitions against them.

    The message, however, did not mention the names of the two nominees.

    The postings reads: “We are stepping down two of the new ICPC board nominees, who have ongoing investigation issues with the commission as this presents a conflict.

    “While existence of allegations or petitions against someone shouldn’t necessarily disqualify them from considerations for appointments, this case presents a peculiarity as we have confirmed that the agency in which they are to serve is indeed investigating the two of them.”

    The names of the nominees released on Tuesday are Prof. Bolaji Owasanoye as chairman. Members include Dr. Grace N. Chinda, Okolo Titus M, Obiora Igwedebia, Mrs. Olubukola Balogun, Group Captain Sam Ewang (rtd).

    Other members are Justice Adamu Bello, Hannatu Mohammed, Abdullahi Maikano Saidu, Dr. Sa’ad Alanamu, Yahaya Umar Dauda, Khamis Ahmed Mailantarki and Maimuna Aliyu.

    Prof. Musa Usman Abubakar was to serve as secretary in the ICPC.

  • Amaechi…How graft can fight back

    Since after President Buhari’s visit to the United Kingdom for the anti-corruption summit, the media has been flooded with several kinds of commentaries. Many of them were filled with disingenuous insinuations while others blatantly promoted disorderly falsehood to get underserved public attention. I attended that summit and was delighted with the respect and warm reception that was accorded to the Nigerian leader. He gave the organisers a dose of his no-nonsense style when he arrived for the event at about 7.00 am, before everyone else including the Secretary General of Commonwealth. I arrived the Marlborough House a few minutes after the Nigerian President and witnessed with delight, the commotion among journalists who were struggling to either get a glimpse of him or get him to say a word.

    Few days later the UK Daily mail led the lot in a short but widely publicised piece published on 14th of May where they attempted unsuccessfully to link the President and his Minister of Transportation with imaginary corruption charges. Nothing can be more misleading than such article filled with shallow fabrications. I was shocked that many respected media organisations and columnists jumped into the fray without investigating the veracity of the information contained in the Daily Mail piece. Let me say without any equivocation that the said report was filled with various forms of factual in-correctness. I will expect any serious media outfit to try to double-check the facts before running with any story alleging issues of corruption – at least from the little I know about ethical journalism. One may decide to overlook some of the fringe media outfits who jumped into the fray and featured the article. But I cannot say the same for the mention by Aljazeera.

    I am aware that both President Buhari and Minister Amaechi have handlers whose duty it is to supply accurate information to halt concocted stories like those spread by Daily Mail. However, as a citizen I am concerned that such extra-ordinary claims not backed with adequate evidence should be subjected to scrutiny to expose that the UK media outfit is merely on a predetermined and probably procured hatchet job. Such untidy piece of journalism is reprehensible and potentially libellous to say the least. For instance, contrary to that report, Mr. Amaechi did not attend the summit and was not part of the Presidential delegation. The video of the event is in the public domain for all to see. That Daily Mail could not notice his absence clearly shows that such a media outfit should not be taken seriously.

    In addition, the whole issue of Mr. Amaechi’s donations to the Buhari’s campaign remains an old fable whose promoters have continuously failed to substantiate. It remains in the imagination of those bandying it around. For many knowledgeable observers, a majority of the campaign funds spent during Buhari’s Presidential campaigns were raised from ordinary Nigerians like me who made out of pocket donations here and there because we were tired of the ‘lootocracy’ under former President Jonathan. I remember that the donations were pouring in billions until the PDP government at that time got the Nigerian Communications Commission to block the scheme. They even attempted to trap the funds in the bank. Now how does the fact that someone acted as the Director General of the Campaign automatically make such a person as sole financier? Nothing can be farther from the truth.

    The ongoing probe of the National Security Adviser otherwise known as ‘Dasukigate’ is about tracing how funds originally meant to be used to fight Boko Haram insurgency were diverted. The attention generated by Dasukigate is partly because the funds were part of the recoveries from the monies repatriated from those stolen by the late dictator Sani Abacha. It is purely a security issue although the funds somehow ended up travelling through former President Jonathan’s campaigns to private pockets. However, Nigerians expect that anyone who is linked with the funds will be so prosecuted regardless of party affiliation.

    The second misleading part of the article under reference is the allusion that the British tax payers’ money might have been used to finance the campaigns. I know that the British Aid Agency, the Department for International Development has offices in Nigeria. One will guess they should clarify this. The expectation is for them to provide any evidence of direct financial contribution to Rivers State while Mr, Amaechi served as governor or to the Buhari’s campaign organisation. That is the only way to validate the claim made by Daily Mail in this regard.

    Now looking at the article written by Abimbola Adelakun, one will notice that she understands the biased motive of the Daily Mail article which she described as a desperate move to get back at President Buhari, an outdated propaganda which according to her, that had nothing new to say. I concur with her description of the comments of Prime Minister Cameron as a colonial condescension. However, I noticed that while she tried to pretend to be neutral, she betrayed her one sidedness especially on issues relating to the former governor of Rivers State, Rotimi Amaechi. Those who do not know Abimbola could assume from the slant of her article that she had other intentions. For instance, as someone who is watching the Nigerian political scene closely, many readers expected Abimbola to know that tarring the former governor with fictional corruption charges has been the preoccupation of the Rivers State government under the incumbent governor, Nyesom Wike, for the past one year. They expected the columnist to have full knowledge of the story of the elections that produced that governor which was described as one of the most shambolic elections in the history of Nigeria. It is in the news that more than one hundred persons have been killed or beheaded before, during or since after that election under the murderous reign of the former Minister for education.

    One of Mr. Wike’s major political credentials is that of someone who has mastery in sponsoring unguarded verbal missiles at his political enemies.  Hanging corruption charges on the neck of Mr. Amaechi seems to be the only way Mr. Wike wants to pay back the defeated former President Jonathan and his wife who imposed him on the People’s Democratic Party(PDP) in the state. Immediately after he was declared winner of that flawed election, it is a well-known fact that Wike quickly put together a judicial commission which concluded its investigations without giving Mr. Amaechi any right of fair hearing. Even while the report of the commission is still being contested in court, Daily Mail apparently lifted figures from it and even amplified it to 500 million pounds. How can anyone depend on such a report to canvass a position and not be guilty of prejudice? How bizarre?

    I suggest that those who have impeccable and verifiable evidence of corruption against either President Buhari or Mr. Amaechi should bring it forward and head to court. For many informed Nigerians, Nyesom Wike’s government cannot be the source of any credible information about Buhari and Amaechi’s wrongdoings.  They know that he is on a mission of political persecution and has constantly failed to prove his allegations beyond any reasonable doubt.  The grand plan is to use every means possible to derail President Buhari’s anti-corruption efforts and make political capital out of it. Any keen observer must understand that corruption is a potent political tool in Nigeria and any leader who attempts to fight it must expect a resistance from the beneficiaries of the status quo such as Wike and his co-travellers. This must not surprise anyone. What is indeed surprising is that outfits like Daily Mail and Aljazeera could rest on such lies to try to mislead the unsuspecting public.

    • Igwe, a public commentator, is based in the UK.