Officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have been beating their chests on the final forfeiture to the federal government of a large estate in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja comprising 753 duplexes and other apartments.
The order to that effect was issued by Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the FCT High Court, Abuja following an application filed by the EFCC. Before then, the same judge had on November 1, 2024 ordered the interim forfeiture of the estate.
The anti-graft agency did not disclose the name of the owner or owners of the expansive estate measuring 150,500 metres located on plot 109 Cadastral Zone Lokogoma District, except it belongs to a “former top brass of the government”. The other clue was that the government official which fraudulently built the estate is being investigated by the EFCC.
The agency was spurred to celebrate because the forfeiture in its calculations represents the largest single asset recovery secured since it was set up in 2003. Even as monetary value is yet to be placed on the 753 duplexes and other apartments, their magnitude and sheer number, stand the asset out in the recovery efforts of the EFCC.
So, the mood of the agency can be understood. But as refreshing as this recovery effort is, the inability to name the characters behind this monumental fraudulent activity did not sit well with the public. It was little surprising that allegations of possible cover-up and double standards have since been levied against the agency.
When this ambivalence to full disclosure is placed side by side the fanfare the agency goes to town naming and publicizing suspects in crimes of even lesser magnitude, its position puzzles the more. It conjures the miserable impression that there is more to the fraud than ordinarily meets the eyes.
But the EFCC sought to justify its position on the ground that, the proceedings for the forfeiture of the estate are in line with Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, which allows legal action on a property and not on an individual especially in a situation of an unclaimed property.
It further contended that since the substantive criminal investigation is continuing, it will be unprofessional for it to go to town with the names of the individuals whose identities are not directly linked to any of the title documents of the properties.
The resort to legal niceties and moral appeal as the basis for not disclosing the identity of the suspect may sound appealing especially in climes where due process serves as veritable guide for public conduct. But not really here. Not with the reputation of the agency in handling fraud suspects in the past.
Before now, the EFCC is known to relish in public parading and even medial trial of suspects in very minor cases even when they are yet to be brought before the courts of competent jurisdiction. In November last year, the agency broke into a private hostel occupied by students of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile Ife, Osun State and arrested 69 students on suspicion of internet fraud.
They claimed the invasion of the student’s hostel in the middle of the night followed credible intelligence linking it to internet fraud. But that was not all. They ferried the suspects to their zonal office in Ibadan, Oyo State and proceeded to publish the names of the arrested students even before profiling them.
The publication drew the ire of the public leading to protests and ultimatum for their release from the OAU students’ union. After the intervention of the authorities of the university and subsequent profiling, 59 of the arrested students were released as no evidence of internet fraud was found against them.
But the harm had been done by the publication and medial trial of the innocent students. This is not an attempt to justify arbitrariness or media trials. But the OAU incident represents a tip of the iceberg in the naming and shaming of suspects by the EFCC when criminal cases are yet to be established against them. So the agency is bound to run into murky waters if it now seeks to hide under legal sophistry and touted professionalism for not disclosing the owner of the estate. Even then, the court proceedings for the asset forfeiture were unambiguous on the top official suspected to own the estate. So, what fear is in there then?
They know the top official under their investigations. They know the funds with which he acquired the estate were not his legitimate earnings but proceeds of unlawful activities, corrupt enrichment, receiving gratifications, kickbacks and abuse of office. All required to unmask the identity of the owner are readily available. The affidavit named him as Godwin Emefiele, former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
So those who read meanings to the reluctance of the EFCC to name the estate owner have strong reasons to do so. Sadly, issues of this nature often nurture public suspicion and mistrust against those in positions of authority. Lack of trust and confidence in public office holders and institutions account largely for the reverses that characterised policy implementation on these shores.
But that is beside the salient issues raised by that fraudulent transaction. It baffles that such expansive and massive property development program could go on within the seat of the federal government without being noticed by any of the arms of the country’s security architecture. Admittedly, the expansive property was originally meant for mass housing development.
But the prying eyes of the security agencies should have spotted the time it changed hands especially with the massive movements in human and material capital involved in such huge construction projects. It was either a case of total failure of intelligence or official compromise.
Curiously, all these happened during the last administration that touted the fight against corruption as one of its cardinal objectives. But how could the fight against corruption have proceeded credibly when the candidature of Ibrahim Magu, the first acting chief executive of the EFCC under Buhari’s regime was twice refused confirmation by the senate?
That was sequel to a letter from the DSS informing the upper legislative chamber that Magu failed integrity test and would constitute a clear liability to the anti- corruption war.
Buhari refused to listen to credible intelligence on the unsuitability of Magu’s candidature and allowed him to operate for years without senate confirmation. The fears raised by the DSS were later vindicated by the abrupt and unedifying manner he was arrested from office and detained by the same DSS following mounting allegations. Magu never returned to that office after that arrest.
That should say a lot on the integrity of the anti-corruption war during that regime. It is not just enough for the anti-graft agencies to wait for financial crimes to be committed before arresting, prosecuting and recovering stolen funds and properties. That is the snag in the current strategy of the relevant agencies.
The emphasis should be on detection and prevention of crimes. The huge sums of public funds carefully stolen and stashed away by rogue officials masquerading as leaders, signpost failure of fool-proof mechanisms for detecting and preventing crimes before they are committed.
It is not just enough for the anti-graft agency to brandish statistics of the 3,455 convictions it secured and over N248 billion recovered during the first year in office of its current chairman. These may be relevant but credible intelligence leading to the detection and prevention of crimes will save even more.
This calls for systemic and institutional reforms that will substantially address the relative ease with which government functionaries loot public funds at their disposal unnoticed. Sadly, Nigeria’s standing in the corruption ladder of Transparency International in the last two years, has continued to indicate the pervasiveness of the malfeasance.
It is getting increasingly clearer that many of those presiding over our collective patrimony cannot be trusted with public funds. Or, how else do we rationalise the criminal love for money and unbridled quest for property acquisition by one man in a country populated largely, by hewers of wood and fetchers of water?
It assails public sensibilities. That has been the disconnect accounting for suspicion and lack of trust in government policies entailing sacrifice from the citizenry. That narrative must change for this country to make reasonable progress.
