The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Magu

  • Court dismisses suit challenging Magu’s position as EFCC chief

    A Federal High Court on Monday in Lagos struck out a suit challenging the position of Mr. Ibrahim Magu as Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    A rights activist, Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, had filed the suit, seeking an order to restrain Magu from holding the office in acting capacity.

    Adegboruwa is also asking the Senate not to entertain any further request for the confirmation of Magu as chairman of EFCC.

    The defendants in the suit are the Senate, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the EFCC and Magu.

    At the resumed hearing Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, struck out the suit, following Adegboruwa’s application to withdraw the suit.

    A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and counsel to the applicant, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, while addressing the court, said his client had decided to discontinue with the case.

    Oyetibo said that soon after he took over the case, he had to convince the applicant on the need to withdraw the case to encourage Magu in his current war against corruption

    “There is need to give Magu the opportunity to continue the anti-corruption campaign of the present administration and since this case may affect his confirmation, it is better to discontinue it,” he stated.

    Confirming Oyetibo’s application, Adegboruwa maintained that he was persuaded by his counsel, to withdraw the suit on the grounds that Magu would do a good job in his approach to the anti-corruption drive of the administration.

    The defence counsel, Mr. Wahab Shittu, who did not oppose the application for withdrawal, argued that the move would boost the anti-corruption war.

  • Court strikes out suit challenging Magu’s position

    Court strikes out suit challenging Magu’s position

    A Federal High Court on Monday in Lagos struck out a suit challenging the position of Mr Ibrahim Magu as Acting Chairman of the EFFC.
    A rights activist, Mr Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, had filed the suit, seeking an order to restrain Magu from holding the office in acting capacity.

    Adegboruwa is also asking the senate not to entertain any further request for the confirmation of Magu as chairman.

    The defendants in the suit are the senate, the attorney-general of the federation, the EFCC and Magu.

    At the resumed hearing Justice Mojisola Olatoregun, struck out the suit, following Adegboruwa’s application to withdraw the suit.

    Mr Tayo Oyetibo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and Counsel to the applicant, while addressing the court, explained that his client had decided to discontinue with the case.

    Oyetibo said that soon after he took over the case, he had to convince the applicant on the need to withdraw the case to encourage Magu in his current war against corruption

    “There is need to give Magu the opportunity to continue the anti-corruption campaign of the present administration and since this case may affect his confirmation, it is better to discontinue it,” he stated.

    Confirming Oyetibo’s application, Adegboruwa maintained that he was persuaded by his counsel, to withdraw the suit on the grounds that Magu would do a good job in his approach to the anti-corruption drive of the administration.

    The Defence Counsel, Mr Wahab Shittu, who did not oppose the application for withdrawal, argued that the move would boost the anti-corruption war.

    Olatoregun accordingly struck out the suit as prayed.

    Adegboruwa in his 39-paragraphs affidavit in support of his earlier application for dismissal of Magu, traced his appointment back to Nov. 9, 2015.

    The applicant argued that Magu had been functioning in acting capacity as EFCC Chairman, beyond the six months allowed by law.

    Adegboruwa had argued that since the Senate had refused to confirm Magu as substantive chairman of the EFCC, it remained an illegality for him to continue to function in acting capacity.

    Citing the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the EFCC Act, Adegboruwa argued that the section made confirmation by the senate a condition precedent to the appointment of the EFCC chairman.

    He had argued that since the provision of Section 2 (3) of the EFCC Act was activated by forwarding the nomination of Magu to the Senate, he could not defy the decision of the Senate, which rejected him for the substantive appointment.

    Adegboruwa also stated that in defiance of the decision of the senate not to confirm Magu, he had continued to parade himself in office as EFCC chairman.

    He said that an example of such an act was when he met with representatives of the U.S. embassy on Jan. 6 this year, clearly defying the decision of the senate.

    Adegboruwa had, therefore, asked the court to restrain the EFCC and all other authorities from recognising, treating or in any other manner, dealing with Magu as the Chairman of EFCC, either in acting or substantive capacity.

    He had also sought a declaration that given his conduct in office so far, he was not a fit and proper person to function in office as chairman of the EFCC.

    Consequently, Adegboruwa had asked the court to give an order forthwith, directing Magu to vacate and relinquish his office as EFCC Chairman, whether in acting or substantive capacity.

    The applicants had also sought a court order, declaring void, all actions taken by the EFCC under the tenure of Magu, especially charges and information preferred in court. (NAN)

  • Magu: Plot to block Senate confirmation thickens

    Magu: Plot to block Senate confirmation thickens

    EFCC boss’ opponents set to move battle to the courts

    •Litigation on the cards 

     

    FORCES against the Senate confirmation of Mr. Ibrahim Magu as substantive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) appear to be unwilling to back down, The Nation can now reveal.
    They are even contemplating heading to the courts to ensure that Magu does not get the job.
    His initial nomination was shot down last December by the Senate citing a security report by the Department of State Security (DSS).
    The Senate in a 14-paragraph confidential report Magu had failed the integrity test and that if confirmed, he could constitute a liability to the anti-corruption drive of the administration.
    An unperturbed President Muhammadu Buhari represented Magu’s name to the Senate for confirmation only for some governors to join the gang-up to stop Magu.
    Sources said their anger with the anti-corruption chief stemmed from EFCC’s probe of the handling of the bailout funds released to 35 states as refunds of deductions on the London-Paris Club loans.
    A total of N388.304billion was released to the states mainly to settle arrears of workers’ salaries.
    A substantial part of the money has ended up in wrong quarters,it was gathered.
    About $10million of the amount is believed to have been cornered by a Southsouth governor who handed it over to his US-based mistress for laundering abroad.
    The woman however played a fast one on the governor and diverted the money to her own use.
    Investigation by The Nation revealed that those involved in the Stop Magu campaign have been holding consultations on a regular basis to ensure that they frustrate the confirmation process.
    A source in the Senate said:”They (anti-Magu forces) are even more enraged that the President ignored what they considered to be a damning verdict on Magu by the DSS, and represented his name to the Senate for consideration.
    “ Not a few are even angry at the insistence of the presidency to force the choice of Magu on the legislature.”

    THE PLOT
    For now,the objective of the Stop Magu campaigners is to ” paint the current situation as a face-off between the Presidency and the National Assembly.”
    “Efforts are being made to incite the lawmakers against the decision of President Buhari to re-present Magu’s name. Senators are being encouraged to see it as an affront on the legislature by the presidency,” the source said.
    “Now we are daily being told to go all out and protect the independence of the legislative arm of government against interference by the executive. We are even made to believe that the decision to send back Magu’s name after the Senators initial refusal to confirm him upon his appearance is an attempt to arm-twist the National Assembly to accept whatever the presidency desires.”
    The Nation also gathered that the Senate is in possession of fresh petitions detailing new allegations against the EFCC boss ahead of his re-appearance before the Red Chamber.
    It is all part of the effort to stop Magu,the source said,adding:”Let me say this, but with caution though. I say with caution because the appropriate office is yet to brief Senators officially.
    “But I am aware of talks of fresh petitions being received against the confirmation of Magu as EFCC boss. Aside the DSS report that nailed him the last time, it appears he will have some explanation to make whenever he appears before us.
    “From what I learnt, the new petitions contain weighty allegations. Of course, the Senate will be properly guided by the rules in handling the matter. It is not for me to say whether the allegations are true or false. But I can tell you that we will expect the nominee to painstakingly convince us of his innocence in all the matters raised against him.”
    Another source said: “Magu’s problem is beyond just the National Assembly.”
    “As we speak many prominent individuals even outside the National Assembly have joined the gang of those who are opposed to his confirmation. And these people are determined to stop him from becoming the substantive chairman of the commission,” the source, a Senator from Ogun State, said.
    “In the last few weeks, especially after the Presidency re-presented his name for the EFCC job, several meetings have been held and several text messages sent; this is one of such (showing our correspondent a text message on his handset which itemized some reasons why Magu must not be confirmed).”
    On the plan to go to court to challenge Magu’s nomination,the source said: “It may interest you to also know that plans are on by a group of anti-Magu forces to get the judiciary to stop the senate from confirming him.
    “In a matter of days, they will head to court to get an injunction restraining the National Assembly from confirming him. Their argument is that he has been indicted by the DSS report and as such, he is constitutionally unfit to hold such a position until he clears himself.
    “A fellow Senator who attended a parley in Abuja on Monday where the issue was discussed told me. He also said that some leading members of both arms of the National Assembly, as well as other notable Nigerians, are part of the plot to stop the confirmation of the EFCC acting chairman by the Senate.”

    HIS TRADUCERS
    While most of the anti-Magu Senators are from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP),some from the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) have also joined the fray.
    One of such is Senator Dino Melaye from Kogi State who vehemently opposed his confirmation the last time.
    “Senator Melaiye is still unrepentant in his opposition to Magu’s confirmation. And his argument is based on his conviction that for a man who will head an anti-corruption agency, Magu needs to clear himself of some allegations. He is not the only APC senator who feels that way. There are others too and it is important Magu is aware of that,” another source said.
    “Majority of our colleagues in the PDP caucus are opposed, not only to Magu’s confirmation, but also to the re-presentation of his name by the presidency and they are not hiding their feelings about this,” a Senator from Edo state said.
    A PDP senator from Ekiti state, speaking on phone with The Nation on Thursday, said there is no way the opposition senators will support Magu’s confirmation as substantive head of the anti-corruption agency. According to him, PDP legislators view the re-presentation of Magu’s name to the Senate by the Presidency with suspicion.
    “It is impossible for any right thinking PDP senator to support Magu,” he said.
    “This is because we see him as an agent of the ruling party in its mission to silence the opposition. Take a good look at his activities and you will agree with me that he is being used to witch-hunt opposition politicians. His fight against corruption is selective and we have said this severally long before now.
    “We are also wondering why his name was sent back to us after he was clearly rejected by the Senate. We are suspicious of the move by the presidency. Is Magu the only Nigerian who can do the job? It is as if the Presidency wants to confirm our claim that Magu is an agent of the APC. We will continue to oppose his confirmation.”
    It was also gathered that the anti-Magu campaign is being financed largely by ex-governors in the Senate.
    “Majority of the ex-governors here are working against his confirmation. And they rejoiced when he was not confirmed the last time,” a source said.
    “ Expectedly, they were deeply troubled when his name was resent to the Senate for consideration. Don’t forget that many of them are being investigated by the EFCC. A good number of them have openly accused Magu of victimizing them. Some are even in court against him and the EFCC.
    “Senators in this category cut across party lines. I can tell you some APC senators who are ex-governors are behind the fresh moves to stop Magu. Of course, the ex-PDP governors who are Senators have never hidden their aversion to Magu’s choice. More than ever before, these ex-governors are united in their bid to stop the confirmation of Magu.”
    Investigation revealed that EFCC’s probe of the governors’ handling of the Paris Club refund and budget support fund featured prominently at a recent meeting of the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) with many of them declining to support Magu’s confirmation.
    The source said:”If it is true that the Governors are angry with him over the alleged probe, then he will have many Senators to contend with when he comes for confirmation. This is because many of the senators are here on the goodwill of their home governors and will most likely do the bidding of the governors.
    “Should the body language of the state governors suggest that they do not want Magu to continue in office as EFCC chairman, it will be difficult from him to get the senators loyal to these governors to support his quest for confirmation,” another source added.

    HIS SUPPORTERS
    But Magu is not without some support in the Senate.
    In this group are the Senators from his home state of Borno, led by Senator Ali Ndume, the former Senate Leader.
    There are even suggestions that he may have lost his position because of his determination to see Magu confirmed.
    Ndume, sources claim, is still working hard behind the scene for the success of the EFCC boss.
    “Ndume is unrepentantly committed to seeing Magu confirmed. I don’t know whether this is largely on the strength of their coming from the same state or due to another yet to be identified reason. But what I can tell you is that Ndume and the other senators from Borno are among the people Magu can bank on as regards his quest for confirmation,” a senator said.
    The Nation also gathered that Senate President Bukola Saraki may not be against Magu’s contrary to earlier speculations. According to very reliable sources, Saraki may be willing to have Magu confirmed after all. His new stance, sources said, may not be unconnected with the new wind of peace within the ruling party.
    “Although he was obviously opposed to Magu before now, I think the Senate president is no longer hell bent on stopping the EFCC boss. This may not be unconnected with the quest for peace and harmony within our party. With the Presidency re-nominating Magu after the initial rejection by the Senate, the Senate president may have read the hand writing on the wall very clearly.
    “If I am to go by the current body language of Saraki and some other principal officers of the Senate, I will say Magu has no problem with the leadership of the Senate. If he is able to weather through the storm, the leadership is most unlikely to work against him even though they may not come out openly to offer him support.”
    Aside the open support he enjoys from the governor of his home state of Bornu, Kashim Shettima, Magu is also being assisted in his quest to be confirmed by two governors in the Northwest and the majority of President Buhari’s cabinet members. According to sources, these governors and ministers have been soliciting the support of Senators for Magu.
    “He is not without support. At least two governors from the Nnorthwest and his own governor from Bornu state are working for him. They are talking to the Senators to support his confirmation. The ministers too are all doing their best to curry support for him amongst senators. Don’t forget that some of them were Senators before they became ministers.
    “One of the two governors who was a member of the National Assembly before now is also using his contacts to help Magu’s cause. The other one is penetrating the Senate using the Senators from his state. Just as those working against him are plotting, those supporting him are also not sleeping.”

    MAGU’S CHANCES
    The DSS security report on Magu claimed,among other things, that he occupies a N20 million per year house , allegedly rented for him by someone under EFCC investigation; lives a flamboyant lifestyle and flouted the President’s order against public officers flying first class when he went on pilgrimage.
    And as he prepares to re-appear before the Senate to seek confirmation as the agency’s substantive boss, talks are rife about Magu’s chances of getting the Senate’s nod this time. While some are of the opinion that he stands a better chance than he did the last time, others believe he remains unfit for the job.
    Lagos lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, who has already instituted a court case against the process to confirm the EFCC boss says the initial refusal of the Senate to confirm the embattled EFCC boss was the best decision under the circumstance
    He praised the Senate and said its decision was a manifestation of the independence of the legislative arm of government, which is not bound to accept all proposals and nominations of the executive. He faulted the presidency for re-nominating the rejected candidate and averred that the Senate should still refuse to confirm him.
    His words:”It is wrong to build our institutions, especially the anti-corruption agencies, around individuals. We should strengthen the institutions, rather than the individuals. The issues plaguing the EFCC, like disregard for the rule of law, corruption and abuse of human rights, leading to constant, but avoidable deaths of citizens in its custody, obnoxious bail conditions as a means of keeping citizens in custody for longer periods of time, extortion and torture of suspects are some of the reasons why there is need for a new hand that can overhaul the agency.
    “The issues raised in the report of the DSS in relation to Magu cannot be overlooked, as in similar or less weighty circumstances. The EFCC, under Magu, has preferred criminal charges against such suspects, followed with media blitz. After all, the reason that Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia is in court, facing trial is for her inability to account for alleged her lavish possessions.
    “If an ex-policeman is living in a luxurious N40million apartment and cruising in private jets, he should be put in the dock, as he has done to others. Also, the EFCC is too sensitive to be headed by a rejected candidate. It would mean simply that its operations have become illegal, after December 14, when the senate rejected Magu, and it can no longer file charges in court or indeed arrest any citizen.”
    But Magu is not without some rays of hope. After his unsuccessful first appearance, some things working in his favor, have come to fore. In re-nominating him for confirmation, President Buhari took his time to explain why he wants Magu confiremd as the substantive boss of the anti graft agency in spite of the odds against him.
    Buhari noted that in undertaking the anti-graft campaign, his administration had been guided by the need for urgency, consolidation and improvement of the statutory framework for addressing corruption. He said the need to take the benefits of institutional memory and present capacity in taking the campaign forward was also recognized.
    Buhari said he had received adequate clarification in considering the matter relied upon by the Senate in arriving at its decision to reject Magu’s nomination.
    “It is in the above context you will agree with me that there’s a need to maintain a current momentum and capacity of the EFCC since May 29th, 2015,” the President said.
    Also, the DSS, whose report nailed Magu the last time, may have given him a lifeline following its presentation of another report which cleared the EFCC boss.
    According to reports, although the report still accused Magu of some infractions, it said the Senate could give Magu the benefit of the doubt.

  • Magu: Court urged to disqualify Saraki, Akpabio, others from confirmation hearing

    Magu: Court urged to disqualify Saraki, Akpabio, others from confirmation hearing

    The Federal High Court in Abuja has been urged to disqualify Senate President Bukola Saraki and 10 other Senators being prosecuted or investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from participating in the process leading to the confirmation of Ibarhim Magu as Chairman of the EFCC.
    The request is part of prayers in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/102/2017 filed in Abuja on Monday by a lawyer, Raji Rasheed Oyewumi.
    Other Senators named as defendants are: Godswill Akpabio, Jonah Jang, Aliyu Wammako, Stella Oduah, Theodore Orji, Rabiu Kwnkwaso, Ahmed Sani, Danjuma Goje, Joshua Dariye and Adamu Abdullahi.
    Also listed as defendants are the Clerk of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Attorney General of the Federation and Magu.
    The plaintiff’s contention is to the effect that, since the Senators are either being tried or investigated for economic and financial crimes in various courts and tribunals by the EFCC under the leadership of Magu, he (Magu) will not be afforded fair hearing by the Senate headed by Saraki.
    Oyewumi stated in a supporting affidavit, that Saraki exhibited bias against the confirmation of Magu when he (Saraki) failed to read the letter by Acting President Yemi Osinbajo, seeking the confirmation of Magu, on the floor of the Senate until July 14, 2016 even when he got the letter on June 17, 2016.
    He said, in further manifestation of their bias and conflicting interest in the nomination of the 15th defendant (Magu) the 1st defendant (Saraki) together with 2nd to 11 defendants (other named Senators) did not consider the 15th defendant’s nomination until December 15, 2016 when they rejected Magu’s nomination six months after the letter was read in the floor.
    The plaintiff said the Senators flouted the Senate Standing Orders when they acted on the letter by rejecting Magu’s nomination without first, referring Magu to the appropriate committee of the 13th defendant (Senate), an executive or closed session instead of an open session.
    He added that unlike when he recused himself from the proceedings leading to the passage of the Bill for the amendment of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act on October 27, 2016 because of his ongoing prosecution at the CCT, Saraki failed to recuse himself when the Senate was considering the confirmation of Magu.
    The plaintiff identified some of the cases against the Senators, which Magu and his EFCC are currently handling.
    “The1st defendant (Saraki) was investigated by the 15th defendant on allegation of false declaration of assets which culminated in the 1ts defendant’s arraingment and ongoing prosecution at the CCT in charge No: CCT/ABJ/01/2015, and a prime prosecution witness in the trial, Michael Wetkas is an officer of the EFCC.
    He said Akpabio was being investigated by the EFCC over allegation of abuse of office, diversion of public funds and embezzlement in relation to a petition by a lawyer, Leo Ekpeyong.
    The plaintiff said the 3rd defendant, (Jang) was being investigated by Magu’s EFCC for allegedly awarding various contracts running into several billions of naira without due process and allegedly diverting N2billion Small and medium Scale Enterprises loan gibven by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) during his tenure.
    The case is yet to be assigned to any judge for hearing.

  • Magu: All eyes on courts

    Magu: All eyes on courts

    The battle for the chairmanship of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has shifted to the court where parties are seeking to ascertain the status of Ibrahim Mustafa Magu as acting chairman. Eric Ikhilae examines the issues raised by parties in their suits before the Federal High Court, Abuja.

    Was the Senate right in rejecting a nomination made by President Muhammadu Buhari pursuant to his powers under Section 2(3) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act 2004? Is the Acting Chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Magu in breach of the Federal Civil Service Rules having served in acting capacity beyond six months?

    These, among others, are issues to be considered as a Federal High Court in Abuja opens hearing on March 9, this year, in two suits seeking opposing prayers, targeted solely at altering Magu’s fate.

    While one faults his re-nomination by the President and prays for a substitution, the other faults Senate’s rejection of his nomination and wants the court to deem Magu’s appointment as confirmed.

    The first, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1072/2016 was filed on December 29, 2016 by the incorporated trustees of two groups – Save Nigeria Group (SNG) and Kingdom Human Rights Foundation International (KHRFI). The second, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/59 was filed on January 24, this year by a lawyer, Oluwatoyin Ojaomo.

    Also, in the court’s Lagos division, activist-lawyer Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa is praying for an order stopping Magu from acting as EFCC chairman having been rejected by the Senate.

     

    The genesis

     

    The about-four-year tenure of Ibrahim Lamorde, as Chairman of the EFCC, ended abruptly on November 9, 2015 when the Federal Government made public his redeployment to the Nigeria Police Force. He assumed office November 28, 2011. And, in his place, Magu was appointed in acting capacity on November 11, 2015.

    In July 2016, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo wrote, on behalf of President Buhari, to the Senate, informing it about Magu’s appointment as EFCC Chairman, in accordance with the provision of the EFCC Act, and sought its confirmation of the appointment.

    The Senate, last December 15, announced its rejection of Magu’s nomination, hinging its decision on a report, said to have been written by the Department of State Services (DSS), querying Magu’s integrity and linking him with some acts of corruption.

     

    The legal dimension

     

    Exactly 14 days after the Senate’s decision, both SNG and KHRFI instituted their suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja on December 29, last year.

    Their core contention, as contained in an originating summons endorsed by their lawyer, Okere Nnamdi, is to the effect that Magu’s rejection by the Senate has automatically rendered vacant, the position he currently occupies.

    They argue that, since the Federal Civil Service Rules (FCSR) were applicable to the EFCC, Magu, having been appointed in acting capacity, “cannot act in such capacity for more than six months in view of Rules 010101, 020603 and 020604 of the FCSR 2008.”

    The plaintiffs are of the view that the Senate’s rejection of Magu as the substantive Chairman of the EFCC was a “a reasonable and lawful ground to warrant and compel the 1st defendant (President Buhari) to appoint/nominate another person as Chairman of the EFCC”.

    According to them, the four-year tenure provided for EFCC Chairman under Section 3 (1) of the EFCC Act, is only applicable to a substantive Chairman, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

    They contend that, having not been confirmed by the Senate that indeed, rejected his nomination by the President, Magu cannot be entitled to a four-year tenure.

    The plaintiffs argue that Magu’s continued occupation of the EFCC Chairman’s seat in acting capacity, beyond six months, was illegal, null and void “on the ground of non-recognition of an acting Chairman in the entire provisions of the EFCC Act.

    They want an order prohibiting the President from re-nominating Magu for confirmation for the same position, his earlier nomination having been rejected by the Senate. They also want the court to compel the President to urgently nominate another person following the rejection of Magu.

    In his suit, filed on January 24, 2017, Ojaomo is contending, in the main, that the Senate President (by extension, the Senate) is without the powers to reject a nomination made by the President under Section 2(3) of the EFCC Act 2004.

    Section 2(3) states: “The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall be appointed by the President and the appointment shall be subject to confirmation of the Senate.”

    Ojaomo, who said, in a supporting affidavit, that his suit is intended mainly to shed light on the actual role of the Senate in the confirmation of a person appointed by the President as EFCC Chairman, argued that the Senate exceeded its powers when it rejected Magu’s appointment.

    “The only ground on which the Senate can reject a person appearing before it is when the person is nominated and recommended to the Senate for screening, vetting and subsequent confirmation, like a Ministerial nominee.

    “In the instant case, the Senate is to confirm the qualification of the appointee as sent by the President. And, where the Senate is of the view that it requires additional information in accordance with the statutory requirements stipulated by the Act, with respect to the qualification of the appointee, it can refer to the President for further clarification, but not to reject a statutory appointment validly made by the President.

    “The role of the Senate in the confirmation of the appointment of a Chairman validly appointed by the President for the EFCC, according to the Act that created the commission, is to ensure that the requirements stipulated in Section 2(1)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Act are duly complied with by the President in making the appointment,” Ojaomo said.

    The Act, in Section 2(1)(a) (i)(ii)(iii), provides: (I) The Commission shall consist of the following members (a) a Chairman, who shall (i) be the chief executive and accounting officer of the Commission; (ii) be a serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement agency not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or equivalent; and (iii) possess not less than 15 years’ cognate experience.

    He argued that where the necessary requirements were complied with, “the Senate is statute barred from rejecting the nominee for the office of the Chairman of the EFCC in the said Act or any law.”

    The plaintiff said the Senate erred in law when it held a plenary session and decided to reject a valid nomination made by the President pursuant to his powers under a valid law. He added that it was only the President that could decide who to appoint as the EFCC Chairman and not the Senate.

    “He argued that, the President, having exercised his powers under the EFCC Act to appoint a qualified person for the office of the EFCC Chairman, in compliance with the provisions of in sections 2(1)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) and 2(3) of the Act, the Senate has no further say on the choice of a person so appointed.

    Ojaomo wants the court to declare that the Senate has confirmed Magu’s appointment in accordance with the provisions of the EFCC Act 2004. He also seeks a declaration that the Senate lacks the statutory power to reject Magu’s appointment as the EFCC Chairman.

    The plaintiff wants an order, activating its statutory powers for the interpretation of the provisions of sections 2(1)(a)(i)(ii)(iii) and 2(3) of the EFCC Act in relation to appointment of EFCC Chairman and Sebate’s confirmation of such appointment, within the dictates of the law.

     

    Awaiting legal fireworks

     

    Both cases came up for mention before Justice John Tsoho on February 8. Although lawyers to plaintiffs in both cases confirmed that all the defendants have been duly served with court documents, none of the defendants was in court or represented.

    Justice Tsoho, who confirmed that there was evidence in court’s file to confirm service, gave the defendants 14 days within which to respond to the cases. He ordered the issuance of hearing notices on them and adjourned to March 9 and 10 for hearing.

  • Corruption: Osinbajo meets Magu, Idris, DSS chief, others

    Corruption: Osinbajo meets Magu, Idris, DSS chief, others

    Acting President Yemi Osinbajo on Thursday night held a closed-door meeting with heads of security and anti-corruption agencies over fight against corruption in the country.

    Some top government officials also attended the meeting.

    The meeting, which lasted about two hours, ended around 8:00 p.m.

    Those at the meeting were the Minister of Information, Lai Mohammed, Inspector- General of Police, Ibrahim Idris,  Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, the Chairman of Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Ekpo Nta.

    Also at the meeting were the Director -General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Lawal Daura, Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu ‎and the Director-General of Nigeria Processing Zone Authority (NIPZA).

    Details of the meeting were unknown at the time of filing this report.‎

    Some heads of the anti-graft agencies had earlier met with the Chief of Staff to the President, Abba Kyari, before meeting with Osinbajo.‎

    Kyari had also separately met with the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), ‎Godwin Emefiele and the Minister of Trade and Investment, Okechukwu Enelamah.

    Speaking with State House correspondents after the meeting, Magu blamed corruption for the current recession in the country.

    He said “I’m asking all Nigerians to join in the fight against corruption. Adults, children, men, women and you journalists. Corruption is the greatest menace we are facing in the country.

    “Corruption is responsible for the recession we are witnessing today. So all Nigerians must join in the fight against graft.”

     

     

     

  • Magu: Senate and the element of fair hearing

    Magu: Senate and the element of fair hearing

    To Wahab Shittu, a law teacher at the University of Lagos (UNILAG), there is more to the rejection by Senators of Ibrahim Magu as the substantive Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Chairman than the Department of State Services (DSS) security report. The lawyer believes some members of the Red Chamber have foreclosed fair hearing for Magu to cover up their tracks as former public office holders.

    The proposed confirmation hearing of Mr Ibrahim Magu for the exalted position of substantive Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) understandably has generated uncommon controversy.

    In taking a position on the propriety or otherwise of the exercise, there are three perspectives. First, there are those who take the position that what is fundamental is the building of institutions and consequently, the emphasis on retention of Magu being just an individual in the equation is patently unnecessary. Secondly, there are those who insist on the retention of Magu on account of his sterling performance and accomplishments since he took the saddle in the EFCC, contending that strong individuals are central to building strong institutions and that it stands logic on its head to change a winning team. The third perspective are those who prefer to sit on the fence believing that it is immaterial whoever emerges as the EFCC chair so long as corruption is fought to a standstill in our country.

    This intervention does not favour a hardline position or the choice of sitting over the fence in the belief that revolutions of whatever kind is never fought miles away from the scene of action. The perspective favour constructive engagement around critical issues that some others may have chosen to sweep under the carpet.

    In taking this position, this writer is fortified by the sayings of Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of UNODC at a conference of the states parties to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption on 28 January 2008 in Nusa Dua Bali, Indonesia, to the effect that:

    “Corruption hurts us all…Fighting it is a shared responsibility.”

    The choice of the occupant of the exalted office of the EFCC chairman is critical to the potency of the war against corruption and this is the only motivation for this intervention.

    Let me start by declaring my interest in the subject matter. First, I don’t think it bears any further proof that I remain a retained private counsel of the EFCC who has been involved one way or the other in the crusade against corruption since the inception of the Commission. Secondly, I am on record as having publicly made a case for the retention of Magu as the EFCC chair on account of his sterling performance in that position to the extent of proposing that the gentleman should simply be allowed to take a bow by the distinguished Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Thirdly, I have enjoyed a cordial working relationship with Magu leading to mutual respect and esteem by both parties.  Before him, I also enjoyed similar cordial relationship with Messrs Nuhu Ribadu, Mrs. Farida Waziri and Ibrahim Lamorde respectively. This background notwithstanding, I owe a duty as a citizen of the country obsessed with the theory of fighting corruption, to speak out my mind on issues that would affect me and the generality of Nigerians including the image of our dear country.

    Based on the foregoing, we would examine the following fundamental issues.

     

    DSS reports on Magu

    Sources close to the stakeholders including the Senate and the EFCC reveal that two security reports signed by the same person and dated the same date were reportedly addressed to the Senate President ahead of the confirmation proceedings of the nominees to the board of the EFCC, including Mr. Ibrahim Mustapha Magu as the Executive Chairman of the Commission. These reports had been widely circulated and now in the public domain. Copies of these reports may have revealed manifest conflict on the recommendation or otherwise of Magu for the exalted office. In one of the reports, the Senate was reportedly urged by the DSS not to confirm Magu on account of certain unproven allegations.  The second report reportedly urged the Senate to confirm Magu on allegedly on account of his sterling performance since assumed office in an acting capacity.

    The contention that the two separate reports were forwarded to the Senate on Magu has not been denied and it is curious why the Senate would find it convenient to act on the content of one of the reports ignoring the recommendations contained in the other allegedly written by the same person and allegedly proceeding from the same organisation.

    The second issue that is critical on the issue of the security reports on Magu is the element of fair hearing. Reports available at the public domain is to the effect that Magu was never confronted with the content of the security reports and given any opportunity to respond to the allegations or defend himself. This negates the principle of fair hearing.  The importance of fair hearing has long been established and in the case of Ezeji v. Ike (1997)2 NWLR (Pt 486) 206 at 224, per Okezie JCA stated as follows:

    “The right of fair hearing is the foremost of the basic rights of the subject so important that even ‘the worst of criminals is entitled to a fair hearing according to rules of law’”

    This principle of fair hearing was recognised in the case of NAB Kotoye v. Mrs F.M. Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 357) 414 where it was stated that it recognises the right of a party to be given an opportunity to present its case before the court in line with constitutional provisions.

    The question is why was Magu denied fair hearing concerning the contents of the security reports? This may have dealt a fatal blow to the entire proceedings for in the words of Pats-Acholonu, JCA in Ude vs A. G. Rivers State (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 756) 66 at 79:

    “The fairness of a trial is judged by how an ordinary man in the street or in the court would assess the proceedings in the court and how the court final arrived at its decision.  A decision of a court in which one of the parties complained that it could not put its case forward because of the manner the court foreclosed it, renders such judgment suspect and I dare say otiose”.

    So much for the security reports and the needless reliance placed on same without hearing from the other party directly involved.

     

    Alleged issues

    of moral burden

    I think it is also useful to make reference to the impartiality or otherwise of the current leadership of the Senate to preside over the confirmation hearing of Mr. Ibrahim Magu in the light of current realities, precedence and case law authorities.

    Impeccable sources close to the EFCC may have revealed that a significant number of senators (details of which are stated hereunder), including the Senate President, are either under investigation or standing trial on account of investigations conducted and orchestrated by the EFCC under the leadership in an acting capacity of Mr. Ibrahim Magu.

    The following examples will suffice.

    • At the instance of one Barr. Ekpeyong as the complainant, Senator Godswill Akpabio is currently under investigation for alleged abuse of office, diversion of public funds and alleged embezzlement since June, 2015.
    • At the instance of one Honourable S. K. Daniel as the complainant, Senator Jonah Jang is under investigation on allegations that he allegedly awarded various contracts running into several billions of naira without due process and alleged diversion of N2 billion SME-CBN loan since 2015.
    • Senator Aliyu Magatakarda Wamako and other government officials are under investigation for alleged abuse of office, misappropriation of public funds and money laundering while serving as governor of Sokoto State since 2015.
    • At the instance of one Ken Asogwa, the complainant Senator Stella Adaeze Oduah is under investigation in respect of contract awarded by ministry of Aviation to I-Sec Securities Nigeria Ltd for N9.4 billion, N5.6 billion including payments in the said sum disbursed to the contractor and allegedly diverted to various companies where the Senator has interest.
    • At the instance of Save Abia Initiative for change as the complainant, Senator Theodore A. Orji & others are under investigation for alleged misappropriation of N10 billion loan from First Bank Plc for rural infrastructural development, including alleged misappropriation of N2 billion SME-CBN loan for rural dwellers since 2015.
    • Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso & others are standing trial since 2013 for alleged abuse of office and misappropriation of public funds.
    • Senator Danjuma Goje is also standing trial with others and the Federal High Court in Gombe, Gombe State, sitting in Jos and for obvious reasons, this writer is unable to comment on the details.
    • Lastly, the Senate President, Abubakar Bukola Saraki, expected to preside over Magu’s confirmation proceedings, is to public knowledge, standing trial at the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) in respect of allegations in which the EFCC played a significant role during investigations. The merits of the trial are yet to be determined.

    With this background, are we to expect impartiality and fair hearing in confirmation proceedings on Magu, presided over by Senator Saraki?

    Closely related to this poser is whether senators, under investigation or standing trial under the watch of Magu, will endorse the candidacy of Magu as the substantive EFCC chair?

    This writer is not in a position to speculate on such possibility but, it is useful to raise questions on the propriety of some of the senators participating in the confirmation hearing of Magu without raising concerns on the element of bias or otherwise.  I will not go as far as suggesting that the Senate will be bias because that may be judgmental rather; I will prefer to leave such judgment to the public space preferring instead to take the public on a journey through the cases on what constitute bias or the likelihood of bias.

    What is the attitude of cases in such circumstances as described herein?

     

    Interest sufficient

    to raise bias

     

    Per Fabiyi JSC in Anosike vs. Igbeke (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 696)686 at 695 had this to say:

    “It is the general principle of law that magistrates and judges, and in fact, all those exercising be it a quasi-judicial authority, ought to be quite clear of any interest on the case brought before them. Pecuniary interest is the commonest and most offensive type of disqualifying interest.  But it is not the only one. It has been held that foreknowledge, a previous knowledge of the facts of the pending case is something reasonably likely to bias or influence the mind of a judicial officer a judge or magistrate in a particular case.”

     

    Test of determining

    real likelihood of bias

     

    Per Fabiyi JSC in Anosike vs. Igbeke (supra) stated the principles for determining  likelihood of bias as follows:

    “With the fact of this matter, a reasonable man standing aloof and watching the whole drama must come to the inevitable conclusion that there was a real likelihood of bias on the part of the chairman of the election tribunal at Awka against the 1st respondent/appellant. As judge at Abuja Federal High Court he made preremptory orders, which he perfected against the appellant at Awka as chairman of the election tribunal. The chairman of the election tribunal, on reaching Awka and seeing the bottleneck created by him, should have disqualified himself to protect his own image and the intuition represented by him. He is, no doubt, disqualified as Chairman of the Tribunal, which heard the petition in the first instance.”

    In the case of Tim Orugbo & Anor vs. Bulara UNA & Anor (2002) 13 SCM 153, the Supreme Court stated as follows:

    “An allegation of bias or real likelihood of bias is not to be based on mere conjecture or speculation.”

    In the case of Rafiu Womiloju & 6 Ors vs. Mr. Fatai Ogisanyin Anibire & 4 Ors (2010) 4 – 7 SC (Pt. 1) 1 the Supreme Court stated as follows:

    “The allegation of bias is a very serious attack on the person and integrity of a judge.  A counsel who decides to launch such attack on a Judge must be prepared to show by concrete evidence in support of his allegation which I have been able to enumerate above.”

    In the said case, the court elaborated further on the applicable principles as follows:

    “If it can be reasonably interfered by a reasonable person sitting in court, from the circumstance that there is a real likelihood of bias against one of the parties on the part of the court, it must follow irresistibly that the party’s right to a fair hearing had been contravened and the decision on the issue between the parties by the court in such circumstance should not be allowed to stand.”

    In the case of Yabugbe vs. Commissioner of Police (1992) SCNJ 116, the Supreme Court pronounced on the test of bias as follows:

     “The test to be applied in determining what constitute bias which can be implied to a court or any tribunal is not actual bias but a real likelihood of bias.”

    In the case of Okachi Azuokwu vs. Tasie Nwokanma & Anor (2005) 6 SCM 58, it was stated that:

    “In a case where bias is being alleged against a court or judge, it is not the real likelihood that the court or judge could or did favour one side at the expense of the other that is important, it is that any person looking at what the court or judge has done, will have the impression in the circumstances of the case, that there was real likelihood of bias.”

    On the strength of the foregoing authorities, it is doubtful whether the possibility or probability of the element of bias by Senators under investigation or currently standing trial by virtue of investigations orchestrated by EFCC may in the circumstances be real indeed.

     

    The way out

    Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides as follows:

    “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”

    The question to ask at this stage given the circumstances highlighted above, is: What will amount in the circumstances to fair hearing and denial of fair hearing?

    The Supreme Court pronounced on this very important issue in the case of Otapo & Ors v. Sunmotu & Ors (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 580) 587 as follows:

    “A hearing can only be fair when all parties to the dispute are given a hearing or an opportunity of hearing. If one of the parties is refused a hearing or not given an opportunity to be heard, the hearing cannot qualify as fair hearing.  When, therefore, the represented parties were not heard or given an opportunity of being heard in the appeal, the hearing by the Court of Appeal cannot come within the category of fair hearing…”

    Arising from the above, is the need for the Senate to properly conduct a confirmation hearing not executive or closed door session to enable Mr. Magu take questions on the floor of the Senate at a plenary, respond to whatever allegations raised against him and generally given the opportunity to show case his achievements including his competence, character and capacity for the assignment. This will enable the Senators assess his qualities and the generality of the Nigerian public of which he is expected to serve measure and determine his profile for the job. It will also enable the international community assess the character and credibility of the aspirant of the exalted office of the EFCC Chair.  This will satisfy the element of fair hearing as envisaged by cases including pronouncements by the Supreme Court the highest court in the land.

    The next question is who preside over such confirmation proceedings?

    I think the Senate President ought to demonstrate to the whole world that he does not have any vested interest by graciously offering to step aside to enable a neutral person preside over the proceedings. This will show a great sense of character and statesmanship in line with the fundamentals of the democratic tradition. I expect the Senate President to take this advice in good faith because of the impression by a reasonable man in the society standing aloof and watching the proceedings with the mindset that the presiding officer was either investigated at a time by or standing trial at the instance of the investigations conducted by the EFCC at all material times in which Magu, the aspirant being screen by the Senate play some significant role. It does not matter whether in fact whether Senator Bukola will not be biased as he is likely to argue by his actions or pronouncements but the impression that such possibility or probability exists is sufficient to satisfy the element of bias. Taking the argument further, what impressions are likely to go on in the mind of Magu as he fields questions from a Senate presided over by Senator Saraki, a person he had investigated directly or indirectly in the past? Will Magu be convinced in his mind that he would get a fair hearing from a body presided by such a person?

    The safe option is for the Senate President and those under investigation or standing trial to excuse themselves from the confirmation proceedings.

    This will be the path of honour.

    This writer is not to be understood as saying that persons under investigations or standing trial are by virtue of such circumstances culpable. Not at all as the presumption of innocence of every suspect is guaranteed by our constitution and it is for the court ultimately to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone standing trial in any criminal proceedings.

    However, this writer should be understood as saying in line with legal authorities that where there is possibility or probability of bias, the presiding officer should step aside to restore public confidence.

    I will therefore humbly request that proper confirmation proceedings to determine the suitability of Magu should hold. I will also request that the possibility or probability of bias should be removed from the proceedings by enthroning the elements of transparency and fairness in the said confirmation proceedings as Magu takes a second bite at the cherry in his quest to serve his fatherland.

  • Buhari, Babachir, Magu and Senate

    SIR: President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-nomination of Ibrahim Magu for Senate confirmation as chairman Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and his letter asking the Senate to reconsider its stance on Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Engr. David Babachir Lawal is a good opportunity for the Senate and the executive arms to reset their relationship. Equally, it has presented to Bukola Saraki, the Senate President a unique opportunity to further cement his relationship with the President.  Furthermore, it is also an opportunity for the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC) and new Senate Leader Ahmed Lawan to initiate a new bi-partisan approach for smooth approval of any request by the executive.

    Many Nigerians are in support of Magu because in him, they see the zeal to employ international multilateral technical co-operation on corruption to develop a mechanism that will help Nigeria have a system that discourages outright stealing of public funds, and develop an anti-corruption war that relies on forensic evidence, well-trained personnel and free of unnecessary controversies.

    The Senate needs to accept President Buhari’s request on Magu in good faith, while encouraging him to drive the anti-corruption war in a new approach that is multifaceted, multidisciplinary and knowledge-driven; an approach that would assist all institutions of government in re-establishing norms and standards of governance, assist the public, NGOs and even the legislature in monitoring of compliance with the standards. The core of the ‘new’ EFCC should be centred on restoring social order especially to governance; and promoting advocacy and capacity building among genuine whistle-blowers.

    For Babachir, the Senate should as a matter of new legislature-executive relationship, reconsider its December 15, 2016 recommendation. This is for Buhari, not for Babachir. Buhari is a man that keeps his confidence and trust in people until such a person exhausts all avenues of trust. But Buhari is sometimes unlucky, some of the people he trust, betray the trust and the friendship he bestows on them.

    However, Babachir should amend his way of relating with other arms of government and his style of politics- it is pathetic that Babachir failed to get any meaningful public sympathy nor concrete defence from the political class, even his primary constituency- the north, northeast and Adamawa State, let alone other parts of the country. This is a big lesson for Babachir. You cannot be the Secretary to the Government of the Federation and behave like the secretary of a hamlet’s cultural association.

    The whole scenario is a challenge to the ruling APC. The party must work hard to enjoy the fruits of it being majority in the Senate. It is also a test for Senate President Saraki’s capacity to harness senate-executive rapport in a critical situation. For the new senate leader Ahmed Lawan, it will be his first litmus test in his ability to consolidate on bi-partisan approach to important national issues. For Magu, it is an opportunity to further win the hearts of more Nigerians and convince the Senate of his capacity to lead the EFCC in line with senate’s expectation of anti-graft war. While for Babachir, it will be of great help to him for the senate to overlook one of his 2016 lows. For President Buhari, this is a proof that the Senate still sees him in high esteem.

     

    • Zayyad I. Muhammad,

    Jimeta, Adamawa State.

  • Magu, Lawal’s clearance

    President Buhari’s clearance and re-nomination of acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC, Ibrahim Magu are bound to throw up more puzzles than they intended to resolve. The inability to make public the findings that led to the clean bill of health given to the anti-corruption czar did not help matters.

    For now, we are faced with an off-hand dismissal of the weighty allegations raised in the DSS memo given that the president’s letter only said he had got ‘clarifications’ on the issues for which the Senate declined to screen him for confirmation. This casual treatment has been followed up with preachments and sanctimonies as to why the momentum of the fight against corruption has to be sustained with Magu at the steering.

    A lot has also been heard of a strong lobby to get the Senate approve the re-nomination taking into advantage, the strong majority of the ruling party in that chamber. And in the seeming desperate attempt to cajole the public to accept Magu, a weird impression is being conveyed that without him, that war cannot make any more progress.

    How consistent these are with reality is left to be conjectured. Whether the credibility deficits thrown up by the scandalous allegations would be better served by injecting a new hand into the war or retaining the man whose integrity has been put to question, (Buhari’s clearance notwithstanding) is another kettle of fish.

    In all, the unmistakable impression thrown up is that of a government fighting hard to save face; a careful attempt to cover up the seeming duplicity in the fight against corruption. Hard as the government tries in this direction, it would appear it is already caught up by the dialectics of the situation with little or no room for quick escape.

    For one, the report which the President totally faulted and had to re-nominate Magu, was issued by the DSS, an agency of the same government domiciled in the presidency. If it is really true that there was no basis for the allegations, then it speaks loud about the credibility of that critical agency.

    And for another, it could suggest one or two things. It is either it was done out of mischief and prejudice or some people in the agency had axe to grind with the EFCC helmsman’s and had to concoct all manner of subterfuge to get him out of the way. It could also be a mark of incompetence on the part of the agency for such weighty allegations to have been easily dismissed the way the president did.

    Is it possible that the issues traded by the DSS were mere concoctions? Could the agency have gone out of its way to simulate allegations that only exist in the figment of its imagination? Or does the agency stand to gain anything through a spurious report that is loaded with the frightening prospects of stultifying current efforts at stemming the tide of corruption?  These are the issues to consider. And the way they are perceived will shed more light into the complications thrown up by the President’s clearance of Magu.

    The President should have gone further to make public how the clarifications he got resolved the N40 million apartment said to have been rented and paid for Magu by one Umar Mohammed arrested sometime ago for questionable transactions. We needed evidence that he did not violate the President’s order barring public functionaries from travelling by air on first class. More specifically, evidence that he did not fly Emirate Airlines in first class when he went for the Lesser Hajj would have made the difference.

    It would have equally made better sense for the government to have come out with incontrovertible evidence to countermand the damning allegation that Magu maintains a flamboyant and duplicitous lifestyle- one which portrays him as an anti-corruption czar who harbors no friends but at another level hobnobs with corrupt people. It is vital to know how the President resolved the conclusions of the DSS that, Magu “failed the integrity test and will eventually constitute a liability to the anti-corruption drive of the present administration”.

    It is not a matter of bandying unsubstantiated allegations as put forward by the chairman, Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Itse Sagay when he said Magu was ‘victimized because he was doing his job very well’ and that people were afraid that he was doing an excellent job and they felt threatened.

    Coming from such a serious mind, Sagay needed to produce further evidence of those who victimized Magu because of fear over their personal safety in the war. Does this reference apply to those whose report he said has now been found “totally untrue and unsubstantiated” or some others outside of it? Definitely, those who can wield such powers must be within the same government. And that makes the matter more confounding.

    The public deserves to know those attempting to victimize Magu and what action if any, the government has taken to punish them for derailing the momentum of the anti-corruption campaign through allegations that have now been dubbed spurious. We needed to know the critical details of such plans and those behind them to reassure the public that these are no mere attempts at cover up. The issue is already in the public domain. Sagay would be helping matters by demonstrating very unambiguously that the allegations bordered on witch-hunting.

    Then, the credibility of the DSS would have been put to question. In saner climes, the turn of events would have seen the authors of that report resigning their positions especially where the report was based on credible intelligence. All the same, the DSS will have to contend with credibility deficits of having authored a report which prima facie looked credible but the government has come out to say lacks merits. That is the purport of the clearance and re-nomination. But that is not the end of the matter.

    The Senate must come in to determine between the President and the DSS who is right in the positions they have taken in respect of the suitability of Magu for the EFCC job. In this regard, the relevant Senate committee must thoroughly conduct an independent investigation into all the issues raised in the DSS letter to it. In this assignment, it should match whatever evidence at its disposal with the reasons adduced by the president for re-nominating Magu for the sensitive job. All issues must be trashed out in the most credible and transparent manner for us to come to terms with the true picture and direction of the much dramatized war against corruption.

    In the case of allegations of misconduct against the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Babachir Lawal, the matter is much simpler given that the relevant senate committee which investigated and called on the president to relieve him of his post has all the evidence at its disposal. Already, its chairman, Shehu Sani has cried foul over what he termed the doctoring of the report of the committee.

    The senator has faulted some of the conclusions on which basis the President cleared the SGF of the allegations raised against him. The Senate has to redeem its image by demonstrating very clearly that there exists strong basis for its conclusions in the matter of the SGF and his interest in contracts pertaining to the humanitarian crisis in the north-east.

    Magu’s re-nomination and Lawal’s clearance are at the heart of the credibility test of the anti-corruption campaign. They must be handled in the most credible and transparent manner so that Nigerians can properly tap into the temperament of the anti-corruption campaign. The way they are trashed out will give inkling into whether “corruption is fighting back” through the corridors of the campaign prosecutors or outside of it. It will also address clearly, growing feelings that there exist different sets of laws for different people in this war.

  • Buhari, Magu and David Lawal versus Senate

    PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari reserves the right to nominate anyone for any post, and to stick with his nominees even when they are at first rejected by the Senate. In exercising this right, the president last week asked the Senate to reconsider its decision not to confirm the nominee for the post of Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu. Now re-designated as acting chairman, Mr Magu, as this column wrote when he was first turned down, deserves a reconsideration on account of his assiduousness, passion and even efficiency, notwithstanding his sometimes abrasive and unsophisticated approach to the job. The important point is that since the days of the former chairman, Nuhu Ribadu, no one has done the job with as much commitment, if not suicidal zeal. And in any case, those on whom Mr Magu is expected to train his anti-graft guns, are themselves uncouth, ruthless and unconscionable.

    All things considered, therefore, it is not surprising that President Buhari is sticking to Mr Magu. Last week’s presidential remonstrance to the Senate may be lacking in finesse and logic, not to say administrative acumen, but there are indications he may just pull it off. The plot against the EFCC boss, it was clear from the beginning, was never profound, never strictly legal, and never quite legislatively moral. Had the antagonism against Mr Magu rested purely on his work, especially the content of his ideas, perhaps he could be exposed as lacking in a structured approach to the work, and shown to be all sound and fury. Instead, at the point of his denunciation, when Mr Magu seemed to have united his enemies against himself, it was obvious that the plot reeked of a conspiracy between fulminating members of the president’s kitchen cabinet and many cynical lawmakers seized by either fear or loathing.

    But in sticking with Mr Magu, the president once again illustrated sharply the confusion and amateurishness that pervade the presidency. In the letter sent to the Senate and read by its president, Bukola Saraki, President Buhari clearly glossed over the anomalous manner the secret service undermined his appointee. It is true that institutions ought to be free to do their work, especially when that work promotes and undergirds the constitution. But in respect of Mr Magu’s nomination, that work ought to have been done silently and behind closed doors. That work ought to have helped the president to come to a clean and clear decision on who his nominee would be. However, the secret service did its job in such a manner that it seemed to have served as a counterpoise to the president’s decision and a reflection of the disharmony that has crept into the inner workings of the presidency.

    What the public expected of the president in his letter to the Senate was to address the secret service’s report frontally, get the agency to formally withdraw the report it earlier forwarded to the Senate, and plausibly defend its volte face on the grounds of superior information, not executive pressure. It has sadly taken the Senate to point out this elementary fact to the public and the presidency. The presidency may already be lobbying the Senate to approve Mr Magu’s appointment, but there is no way both the presidency and the Senate would not need to first resolve the matter of the secret service’s unfavourable report on Mr Magu. They can’t sweep it under the carpet.

    The chaotic workings of the presidency manifested even more vividly in the subterranean clearance unilaterally granted the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Babachir David Lawal. Not only were the allegations levelled against him in the Senate referred by the presidency to the wrong persons for investigation, even the exoneration itself bore the hallmarks of tameness and favouritism. It is possible Mr David Lawal is innocent of the accusations and suppositions levelled against him; but those who probed him, including the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, did nothing to clear the SGF of wrongdoing. For, at the centre of the whole brouhaha is the issue of conflict of interest, not whether he had resigned or not from the companies that secured the contract from the ad hoc agency under his supervision.

    It is not clear how the Senate would react to the SGF matter. They will probably resist all blandishments the presidency might bring, even if the executive arm manages to win the support of Senator Saraki. It will therefore require inordinate pressure to save him, the kind of pressure that comes with horrendous and costly compromises, the kind of pressure President Buhari by his personal constitution and aloofness and inner solitude is poorly equipped to give. The whole world, figuratively speaking, supports Mr Magu. The initial resolve of the Senate to reject his nomination may therefore be unable to withstand the pressure that will be brought to bear when eventually the anti-graft boss is presented for screening. Indeed, what is at stake here is not so much whether the Senate finally does the president’s bidding concerning Mr Magu and Mr David Lawal, but the obvious and frustrating fact that the presidency does appear to walk with unsteady gait, reeling from one faux pas to another, unsure whether its modest accomplishments so far have not been the fortuitous outcome of kindergarten application of policies and ideas.