We have banished history from our schools, but that does not stop individuals from preserving and recalling historical records as the need arises. The strange dance between the EFCC and Yahaya Bello reminded me of this article I wrote in June 2018, which was based on a paper I presented in 2007. Read the article “as it was” before I add some addenda.
If Professor Utomi agrees to supervise me, I will pursue another doctoral degree on Institutions and Economic Development, and write my thesis on The Mediating Effect of Political Activities on the Perceived Effectiveness of the EFCC. The key hypothesis will be: There is a significant and positive relationship between political activities and the perceived effectiveness of the EFCC. I have peeped into the bag with the proverbial eye of an elder and can declare, without equivocation (subject to my supervisor’s concurrence), that the above topic is researchable and will contribute immensely to knowledge in the fields of governance and political economy. But that’s by the way.
Read also: The EFCC must reclaim its credibility in Nigeria’s anti-corruption fight
On the 4th of March, 2007, the Justice, Peace and Development Commission of the Lagos Archdiocese invited me to speak on EFCC: Democracy’s Best Friend or Worst Enemy, as part of its 2007 Annual Week. For those who might have forgotten, OBJ established the EFCC in 2003 to underscore his declaration that it would no longer be business as usual in the war against corruption. However, by 2007, there was a consensus that the EFCC had derailed, largely because it redefined its mandate and became central to the political landscape. It was involved in impeachments, the disqualification of candidates, and determining the kind of leaders Nigeria needed. It also appropriated judicial powers and became an arm of the amorphous presidency. It transformed into an impeachment consultant and enforcer—whether in Bayelsa, where legislators served impeachment notices on the Governor-General of the Ijaw nation from EFCC cells in Lagos, in Jos, where only six members were empowered to impeach the governor, in Ekiti, which ended up in a state of emergency, or in Adamawa, where it failed to succeed.
“I narrowly escaped being probed simply because I went on an excursion to his American University of Nigeria in Yola.”
The EFCC also engaged in many policy reversals and suffered from selective amnesia, especially regarding the probe of IBB, the number of corrupt governors, which seemed to be determined ‘as the spirit directed,’ and the screening of political aspirants. Questions abounded—was Ebeano Nnamani corrupt or not? Should the EFCC act only on petitions, on allegations, or as directed? Of course, its star war was against Atiku, which extended to his tenants, classmates, newspaper vendors, and just about anybody. I narrowly escaped being probed simply because I went on an excursion to his American University of Nigeria in Yola. The EFCC’s record on the rule of law was woeful—it detained people as it pleased (or as it pleased its master), treated court orders with contempt, convicted people whose cases were not yet in court, and worst of all, it was an illegal offspring, as it started operations before it was legalised. It also turned a blind eye or zoomed in, depending on who was involved. Thus, it ignored the COJA contracts, El-Rufai’s indictment by the National Assembly, petitions against Kwankwaso, or the embarrassing third-term bribery saga.
The EFCC’s list of death (a list of banned politicians) showcased it at its best: multiple versions of the list existed; some individuals already in court for corruption were not on it, while some not yet charged made the list, including those indicted by OBJ’s panel, even though the courts had not made pronouncements. Atiku, of course, was numero uno on the list, which formed the basis of INEC’s questionable disqualifications and the political rigmarole of 2007.
In the 2007 paper, I called some witnesses, including Senator Nnamani, who declared that the war against corruption was lopsided, warning that “no corrupt politician is more important than the other”; Human Rights Watch, which declared that the anti-corruption efforts had lost much credibility because the EFCC selectively indicted some candidates and not others whom it had acknowledged as meriting investigation; Vincent Obia, who reminded us how the EFCC’s radar eluded Andy Uba, despite his confession that money was illegally deployed to rig elections in Anambra State (Sunday Independent, 3/3/05); and Peter Clever Opara, who drew a parallel between the hounding roles of Napoleon’s dogs and the role of the EFCC in subverting the laws of the land to please its master (Sunday Independent, 11/2/07, pB12). Other witnesses included Abukakar Tsav, who argued that since the politicians did not follow due process in their lootocracy, there was no need for the EFCC to follow due process in dealing with them, but he advised Ribadu to talk less, work more, and leave the job of pronouncing his victims guilty to the courts (TheNews, 26/6/06); Atiku Abubakar, who lamented that while the EFCC claimed it was investigating Jefferson, the name did not appear anywhere in its final report, while his (Atiku’s) name was mentioned 19 times. He concluded that the EFCC had become a willing tool in the hands of his traducers (TheNews, 2/10/06, p22). The Sun condemned the undue bravado and arbitrariness that the EFCC brought to its job, noting that it expanded its operational horizon, prosecuted, and passed judgments, particularly relying on the PTDF report, which had been set aside by three courts (The Sun Editorial, 12/2/07). Femi Adesina was the Editor-in-Chief then (I don’t think he would toe this line again). Chief Umezeoke, Chairman of Buhari’s ANPP, accused the EFCC of being a pliable tool in the hands of the ruling party, drawing global attention to the conscienceless double standard where Goodluck Jonathan, number nine on the original EFCC list, was eventually forgiven and canonised. Meanwhile, ANPP declared that the EFCC had been turned into a hunting dog against PDP opponents (Vanguard, 8/2/07, p15). The Nation opined that the EFCC turned itself into the policeman tasked with going after the president’s enemies. Its harshest criticism was for Ribadu, who carried out his functions with messianic airs and the carriage of a monarch with the power of life and death, highly unmindful of the dictates of the law (Editorial, 22/3/07).
Read also: Bribery: EFCC boss, Bobrisky, VDM, others to appear before House of Reps Monday
With all these evidence, I indicted the EFCC for abandoning the economic and financial field and positioning itself in the political arena, creating the indelible impression that it was an instrument of presidential warfare, engaging in self-destructive double talk, neglecting some issues while overworking others, and forming an unholy alliance with INEC. I concluded that the EFCC had done more harm to the political process, heightened political tension, and polluted the already troubled political waters. Therefore, it could not be a friend to democracy. That was in 2007.
As we enter another electoral season in 2018, I was reminded of my 2007 paper by a statement (22/5/18) from Victor Uwaje, a special anti-corruption investigator, that he was fired for refusing to go after Atiku, Saraki, Wike, and Ekweremadu. This sounds eerily familiar. The EFCC has suddenly become very active again, dealing with some of its regular customers, like Patience Jonathan, Shekarau, Jang, and Olisa Metuh, who was handcuffed like a dangerous and unrepentant criminal. It has also decided to conduct a forensic examination of OBJ’s power projects simply because PMB asked: “Where is the power?” (This is 11 years after it had probed OBJ). The EFCC also has newer customers like Eze Iyamu, Lucky Imasuen, Gamawa, and Yaro. But before then, Lai Mohammed, usurping the power of the judiciary, released a list of looters, including those yet to be accused, while excluding Mrs. Madueke, whom the government had been haranguing for the past three years, as well as Uzor Kalu, who is on trial, and Lawal, the “grass-cutter” sacked on account of corruption. Of course, the PDP released its own list, and it’s left to the reader to compare the two. It is also alleged that the EFCC has deployed its operatives to intimidate and harass contractors handling projects in some PDP-controlled states. We are now in the era of the politics of arrest (Comrade Odeyemi, 18/6/18), or as the PDP calls it, “a police state where any Nigerian who holds a divergent view to PMB’s 2019 re-election bid becomes endangered.”
One can safely conclude that as it was in the beginning (2007), so it is now (2018), and shall we allow it to continue to be so? But as a potential doctoral student in this area, I have made some critical observations. The EFCC still has issues with legality. It started operations before it was legalised, and today, the EFCC boss is on duty without his appointment being duly legalised. In 2007, the PDP was in charge, and others were complaining. Today, the APC is in charge, and the PDP is the leading complainant, reminding us that no condition is permanent. Furthermore, the police are more active today than before. Those whom the EFCC has nothing against, or is not.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
