A CORRUPT EFCC AND A HOPELESS JUDICIARY

When the chairperson of the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim
Lamorde, admitted before a Senate Committee
on Drugs, Narcotics and Financial Crimes last
Thursday that his agency has been picking up
small time criminals and advance fee fraud field
agents, little did he realise the degree of outrage
his admission would generate in the public
domain.
Lamorde was explaining to senators why the
EFCC had failed over the years to nail high profile
corrupt politicians, senior public servants,
businessmen and women, and other crooked
members of civil society. Lamorde regaled the
senate committee members with long tales of
how his agency had successfully convicted no
fewer than 200 criminals, most of them "419"
fraudsters and roguish elements who use the
Internet to commit crimes of sorts.
The strategy backfired because Lamorde was not
festooned with flowers for that mediocre
performance by his agency. There was nothing to
crow about the arrest and prosecution of small
criminals. During his defence of the EFCC budget
for 2013, Lamorde tried to evade responsibility
for the poor achievement record of the
commission.
He said the judiciary had frustrated the EFCC's
efforts to arrest and put on trial the chief
architects of crime because the judiciary acted in
concert with criminals and their defence lawyers
to use the legal process to avoid prosecution or
to delay trial. Lamorde illustrated how high
profile criminals used the legal process to
forestall their trial and prosecution. He said: "We
have an example of a case we charged to court in
2006; for this very case, we have gone to the
Supreme Court twice on just interlocutory
applications.
They will file this, the judge will overrule them,
they will go to the Court of Appeal and lose there,
but they will still go to the Supreme Court. At the
Supreme Court when they lost, they will be asked
to go to the trial judge for the case to continue."
He explained that his organisation has adopted
an unusual strategy to trap the shifty criminals.
"Unfortunately," he said, "these are people who
have the resources to drag these cases
indefinitely and perpetually…
The first thing we do now is that we try to
recover and confiscate the assets of individuals
that we are investigating because it is only when
you deprive them of their resources that you will
be able to force them to stand trial. Once they
have access to their resources and assets, they
will use it to continue to delay and drag some of
these trial. Lamorde must stop whingeing about
the difficulties he is facing in his job.
He was appointed to do a job and he must find
ways to overcome the obstacles. To achieve
results in the EFCC, Lamorde must think fast and
productively too. He must aim to be one step
ahead of the criminals. He should lobby the
National Assembly to pass laws to eliminate the
ambiguities in our laws that make it easy for
criminals to escape or delay trial. Lamorde has
now made the point that if the EFCC must serve
as an effective anti-corruption agency of
government, it must be granted extra legal
powers to hunt and indict criminals across the
country. Unfortunately, by their silence, the
National Assembly and the Federal Government
that created the EFCC seem to have conspired to
deny the EFCC the appropriate powers to achieve
its key objectives.
The EFCC's anti-corruption campaign is fast
losing energy, concentration and public support.
The achievement record of the agency has not
given the public the confidence that the EFCC is
moving in the right direction. Ever since it was
established in 2003, the EFCC has stuck to its
grand objectives as an indication of its
commitment to the fight against corruption.
However, the EFCC's report card has remained
appalling. For this reason, the EFCC is now
widely regarded as a severely weakened anti-
corruption commission that is profoundly
bewildered about the direction to which it should
go.
Questions have been asked about the degree of
dedication of the EFCC officials to arrest and
prosecute corrupt political leaders, public
officers and business people who behave as if
they are above the law. Here are three cases to
demonstrate the EFCC's apathy to corruption
involving high profile people. The first case
involved the spectacular allegations and counter-
allegations of bribery between oil marketer Femi
Otedola and Farouk Lawan, the chair of the
House of Representatives ad hoc committee that
investigated how the oil subsidy revenue was
used or abused by various companies.
This was a case that staggered the nation but the
EFCC showed little interest in the matter. Second,
despite gross details of how a syndicate
comprising the permanent secretary in a federal
ministry and other senior officials stole pension
funds and defrauded the Federal Government of
over N3 billion every month, the EFCC was slow
to act. The case is now in court.The third is the
case involving the House of Representatives
committee on the capital market. The committee
investigated the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to understand why the capital
market underperformed constantly.
The probe was chaired by Herman Hembe.
During public hearing by the committee, SEC
Director-General Arunma Oteh alleged that
Hembe demanded N39m for his committee and
an additional N5m a day before the hearings
started. Oteh also alleged that Hembe received
from the SEC a first-class ticket and an allowance
to travel to the Dominican Republic to attend a
conference. However, according to Oteh, Hembe
did not attend the conference and did not return
the money. For the period the allegations and
counter-allegations dominated public debate, the
EFCC looked on.
These parliamentary enquiries generated
sufficient reasons for the EFCC to commence
immediate investigation and prosecution of the
principal characters. At the peak of these
enquiries, the Presidency told the nation that the
cases had been referred to the EFCC. An anti-
corruption agency of government that looks the
other way whenever senior government officers,
politicians and business people are accused of
corruption is not a fit and proper agency to
investigate cases of corruption. This is why the
public no longer pays heed to the anti-corruption
catchphrase of the EFCC. Lamorde's allegation
that the judiciary has conspired with big time
crooks to thwart the anti-corruption efforts of
the EFCC deserves closer scrutiny.
Up until Lamorde raised the issue, there have
been widespread allegations of corruption in the
judiciary. For example, the former Chief Justice
of Nigeria, Justice Mohammed Uwais, said at the
opening of the All Nigeria Judges Conference in
Abuja on Monday, 5 December 2005, that
dishonest practices had sullied the reputation of
judges and increased public reservations about
the integrity of judicial officers. Again, in 2006,
then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Alfa Belgore,
expressed grave concerns about mounting
allegations of corruption against judges.
In a keynote address he presented in Asaba at the
biennial conference of all Nigerian judges of the
lower courts on 13 November 2006, Belgore said:
"As the interpreter of the law, it would be ironic
for the judges to be found on the wrong side of
the law by being partisan and accepting bribes.
The consequences will be serious."
On 4 April 2007, former Chief Justice Idris Legbo
Kutigi warned judges that Nigeria required an
unbendable judiciary that will not yield to
political pressure, harassment or threats from
the government and civil society. His speech was
delivered at the swearing-in of 12 new judges of
the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. In his
address, Justice Kutigi said forcefully: "We as
judges are here to interpret the law, do justice
between individuals, do justice between
governments, do justice between government
and the people without fear and favour… The
judicial power of the federation is vested in the
judiciary.
We should do justice to all manner of people
without fear and favour or intimidation. The
adherence to the rule of law is very vital to all
agencies of government." All these admonitions
and admissions were made by the most senior
members of the judiciary. Unfortunately, the
criticisms have not improved public rating of
judicial officers. The surge in allegations of
corruption against judicial officers has not
receded.
In fact, on Monday, 19 September 2011, the
former Acting Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) who
was later confirmed in the position, Justice
Dahiru Musdapher, presented a disturbing
speech in which he stopped short of calling
members of the judiciary corrupt. Musdapher
said at the opening of the special session of the
Supreme Court to commemorate the start of the
2011/2012 legal year: "Since the judiciary exists
for the benefit of the society then the essential
verdict regarding our performance must be from
that which we sit to serve. As it stands it appears
that the society we serve is not entirely satisfied
with our performance."
At the same forum, the president of the Nigeria
Bar Association (NBA), Joseph Bodunrin Daudu,
provided a more dramatic and damning
assessment of the judiciary. He said there was "a
growing perception backed up by empirical
evidence that justice is purchasable and it has
been purchased on several occasions in Nigeria.
We are reaching the point in time where
accusations of corruption in the system will be at
its loudest."
The public is not only dissatisfied with the
performance of the judiciary but it is also entirely
upset with the quality of judicial verdicts and the
integrity of some of the men and women who
serve in the judiciary.