ON
EFCC’s IMMUNITY TO PROBE STATES
I
ran into an old time friend, Musa recently during a professional conference
that held in Jos, Plateau State. Amid our numerous conversations pertaining to
politics and governance, he said he had learnt that at the moment various
states’ legislators in Nigeria were merely aides to their respective governors.
Consequently, the fellow who resides
abroad opined that the various law enforcement agencies in the country needn’t
wait till a whistle is blown by such set of politicians before scrutinizing a
sitting governor’s activities. In my candid response, I told him that my only
fear and worry remained the fact that even the said enforcement agents could be
pocketed by the states’ number one citizens, especially in situations where
their statutory services are mostly needed.
It seems as if we foresaw what would be
ruled soonest by a judicial council domiciled in the country. It’s not anymore
news that penultimate week, precisely on Tuesday 30th January 2018,
a Federal High Court sitting in Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State declared that the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) could not probe states’
finances without a report of indictment from states’ Houses of Assembly.
The ruling was informed by a suit filed
by the Ekiti State Government via its Attorney General against the EFCC,
Inspector General of Police, the state’s Assembly Speaker and Clerk, Chairman
of the state’s Universal Basic Education Board, as well as its Auditor General
and Accountant General. Various financial institutions in the state were
equally among the defendants.
The aforesaid suit was filed in
reaction to invitation letters sent by the anti-graft commission to a few
government officials in the state, seeking details of some of the state’s
financial transactions. It’s also of note that the EFCC reportedly extended the
gesture to the affected banks, requesting financial books of the state in their
custody. It’s noteworthy that the government in question had earlier written
the banks, urging them not to oblige the commission with the requested
information.
The court presided over by Justice
Taiwo O. Taiwo added that the banks weren’t entitled to adhere to such
instruction. It further held that the EFCC lacked the immunity to usurp the
oversight functions vested in states’ legislatures under Sections 128 and 129
of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, to initiate a probe or criminal
proceedings against a state official when need be. It thus stated that only
states’ Assembly was immune with oversight and investigation roles over state
finances, appropriation and implementation.
Justice
Taiwo’s order was a clear way of telling Nigerians that the EFCC, among other
similar law enforcement agencies, lack jurisdiction at the state level. It
suffices to say that, by his declaration, the commission had been told to
restrict its activities to only within the federal ambit, which signifies that
only institutions or parastatals owned and managed by the Federal Government
(FG) could be probed by the anti-graft body.
If
such a declaration holds water or anything to go by, I’m afraid, it’s high time
we scrapped the EFCC and its likes. Of course, I see no reason the existence of
the commission ought to continue if it cannot extend its tentacles to the
various states and local councils across the federation as the ongoing
anti-corruption war progresses, because graft is undoubtedly ubiquitous.
It’s then needless to reiterate that by the
judgement of the court, the judge had not just ridiculed the jurisdiction of
the ‘almighty’ EFCC but had as well questioned the legality behind its
establishment let alone day-to-day activity.
A curious person may then ask or would
want to know if the Acts binding the commission are in conflict with the
country’s constitution, because everyone is arguably not unaware that the body
was primarily instituted to tackle financial crimes across the nooks and
crannies of the federation irrespective of where the culpable individual is
coming from. The cases of late Diepreye Alamieyeseigha and James Ibori, former
governors of Bayelsa and Delta states respectively, were obvious proof to this
affirmation.
Waiting until a nod is received from,
or whistle blown by, the state lawmakers simply implies that the revered EFCC
is no longer a watchdog over public servants in the country as regards
corruption. Similarly, opining that the legislators’ oversight function is
enough to probe the state’s accounts was a colossal error and an overstatement.
I wonder what else is expected of members of a legislature, in a state where
the governor has abruptly become an emperor, than to continually act as
instructed by the number one citizen.
However, I wouldn’t stop pondering over the
reason the EFCC and other related agencies would think it wise to focus only on
a few states whereas the country is currently made up of thirty six distinct
states. Does it imply that graft, or corruption in general, is peculiar to a
certain set of Nigerians or localities? For the sake of way forward, such a
question doesn’t deserve to be ignored.
So, as the EFCC is headed for the Appeal
Court to counter the judgement of the lower one having understood that the
ruling was bizarre, unfounded and laughable, it must acknowledge that corruption
is an ubiquitous societal cankerworm, hence the need to extend its proboscis to
other territories that are more evil than its current preys. Think about it!
Comrade FDN Nwaozor
Executive Director, Docfred
Resource Hub (DRH) - Owerri
__________________________________
frednwaozor@gmail.com
Twitter: @mediambassador 
