DSS, EFCC and Buhari’s anti-corruption war
The
Muhammadu Buhari administration was voted into office on March 28, 2015 because
it promised ‘Change from the Norm’. The president promised among other things
to fight corruption to standstill, wage war against insecurity, revive the
economy and make life better for the populace. In truth, the anti-corruption
war is on course. This administration set up a presidential advisory committee
on anti-corruption under the able leadership of the constitutional lawyer,
Prof. Itse Sagay, its implementation of the Treasury Single Account initiated
by its immediate predecessor had yielded trillions of Naira in savings, the sustained
use of Integrated Personnel Payroll and Information System has assisted the
government to weed out huge number of ghost workers as well as saved billions
of Naira hitherto being diverted to personal pockets. Through the Bank
Verification Number introduced by the Central Bank of Nigeria, many corrupt
persons have been exposed while the newly launched Whistleblower Policy wherein
anyone with genuine information leading to the exposure of corrupt person earns
the whistleblower five per cent of the recovered loot as well as protection.
In
order to rejig the anti-corruption war, on November 9, 2015, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Ibrahim Magu was appointed as acting chairman of the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. On June 6, 2016, the then Acting
President of Nigeria, Professor Yemi Osinbajo forwarded Magu’s name to the
Senate for confirmation. The Senate was not in a hurry to screen the nominee.
It was not until October 2016 that he was invited to Senate for the exercise.
Then the bubble burst. Two Directorate of State Security Services vet reports
on the nominee surfaced. Both letters were dated October 3, 2016 and were
written and signed by same DSS official. One of the letters addressed to the
Clerk of the Senate leveled myriads of allegations against Magu and claimed
that he failed integrity test. The other letter exonerated him of any
wrongdoing and asked the Senate to confirm him. The second letter was addressed
to the Senior Special Assistant to the President on National Assembly Matters (Senate),
Senator Ita Enang. How can the same source blow hot and cold, approbate and
reprobate, commend and condemn? Does this not smack of mischief?
The
Senate acted on the DSS communication to the Clerk, the one which says Magu
failed integrity test and therefore not appointable. His nomination was
rejected even without hearing from the gentleman. Shortly after, President
Buhari asked the Attorney General and Minster of Justice to investigate the
allegations against Magu. In a letter dated December 19, 2016, he was asked to
state his side of the story within 48hours. In a detailed response dated
December 21, 2016 Magu offered a robust response to all the DSS allegations
against him. The Attorney General seemed satisfied with Magu’s response and
must have so communicated to the president. Magu’s name was re-forwarded the
second time to the Senate for confirmation and unfortunately, last Wednesday,
March 15, 2017 the candidate was screened and rejected by the Senate. His
rejection was based on the two DSS vet reports on him (another was requested
and submitted on March 14, 2017) as well as allegation of human rights abuse,
disobedience of court orders and unsatisfactory response to many probing
questions asked him. Many of those who watched the Senate screening of Ibrahim
Magu live on television testified that he was probably jittery and somewhat
uncoordinated in his response.
Hours
after his rejection, I was a guest of Silverbird Television on the station’s News
at 7pm to offer insight into the import of Senate rejection of Ibrahim Magu as
EFCC chairman. The day after, on ‘Good Morning Nigeria’ a discussion programme
of Nigerian Television Authority, I was
also a privileged discussant on same issue alongside the Chairman Senate
Committee on Anti-Corruption, Senator Chukwuka Utazi and Alhaji Ibrahim
Moddibo, a Public Affairs Analyst. I have read the DSS allegations against
Ibrahim Magu as well as his response to the query from the Office of the
Attorney General of the Federation. I have also read a number of interviews on
the subject matter. My conclusion is that there is more to this issue than meet
the eye. There was obviously no sufficient housekeeping by the presidency on
this issue. How do I mean?
According
to Senator Utazi, the nomination of Magu was not accompanied with security
report on him when it was sent last June. This was said to be against the
customary practice and was the reason why the Senate had to ask its Clerk to
officially write to DSS for the missing vital document. Can the Acting
President who is a Professor of Law and a former Attorney General of Lagos
State not have known that such nomination is accompanied with security report
on the nominated candidate? Could he not have been properly advised or briefed?
Two, why did President Buhari not ask DSS to substantiate its allegations
against Magu and rather chose to write to AGF to investigate the matter? I
think it is a trite law that he who alleges must prove. The onus is on DSS to
prove its allegations against Magu and not for AGF to be ask to investigate. I
do not think that the Office of Attorney General, with due respect, has the
capacity to investigate such sensitive matter which bothers on criminal
allegations and abuse of office. If at all the AGF intends to do that, it
should have asked the DSS to substantiate its claims against Magu and
crosscheck that with the defendant’s response.
Third,
why did the president not accompany the re-nomination letter of Magu as EFCC
chairman to the Senate with his response to the query on the matter by the AGF?
Why did Magu himself not come to his Senate screening with a copy of his
response to AGF and other documentary evidences that would have helped his
case? Did anyone promise him that he’s coming to ‘bow and go’ as is done by
Senate for some privileged individuals? On what bases and in whose authority
did Senator Ita Enang write to DSS for security vetting on Magu? Is that the
norm? Why did DSS write conflicting security report on same individual, on same
issue and on same day?
There
is no gainsaying that Senate may have acted mala
fide (in bad faith) by rejecting
the nomination of Magu as EFCC chairman as a vendetta against him for
prosecuting some of its members for corruption. However, as the African adage
goes, “if you must blame the hawk for wickedness, first blame mother hen for
exposing her children to danger”. It is obvious from the many lapses and lacuna
in the handling of Magu’s nomination that the presidency did not do the needful
to help its nominee. Opinions are divided about whether the acting chairman can
stay in office perpetually in acting capacity and if he could still be re-nominated.
Well, the court may have to be involved in the interpretation of the EFCC Act
and Public Service rule on this matter. I do know that under former President
Olusegun Obasanjo, Chief Onyema Ugochukwu was nominated four times before his
nomination was confirmed by Senate while Prof. Babalola Borisade, former
Aviation Minister, was nominated thrice by same president before his
confirmation as Minister. One thing boggles me. Why is it that all EFCC
Chairmen end their tenure in controversial circumstances? From Malam Nuhu
Ribadu, to Ms. Farida Waziri, to Malam Ibrahim Lamorde and now Ibrahim Magu. Is
it corruption fighting back or that the system hasn’t been able to identify the
best person for the job?
Comments
Post a Comment