Anticorruption: Why CCB should respect FOI Act
“While elected public officers may not
be constitutionally obliged to publicly declare their assets, the Freedom of
Information Act 2011 has now provided the mechanism for the CCB to improve transparency
and accountability of asset declarations by elected public officers.” -
Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project in a June 21, 2019 lawsuit
against the Code of Conduct Bureau
Introduction
The
impact of corruption on our country is palpable. It is visible in our
underdevelopment in spite of our enormous natural resources. Nigeria has wasted
five cycles of oil boom. Trillions of Naira are lost to thieving political
office holders and their accomplices in the civil service as well as organised
private sector. Dilapidating infrastructure and heightening insecurity are all
byproducts of mis-governance and misappropriation of public resources.
In order
to combat the scourge of corruption, successive administration had established
different anticorruption agencies. Among them are the Police, the judiciary, Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission, Independent Corrupt Practices and other
related offences Commission, Office of Auditor General of the Federation and
those of the States, Bureau of Public Procurement, Fiscal Responsibility
Commission, Nigeria Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, as well as the
Code of Conduct Bureau and Code of Conduct Tribunal.
Code of Conduct Bureau and its functions
CCB
was established by Section 153 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as
amended. Under Paragraph Three of the Third Schedule of the Constitution, CCB
is empowered to carry out the following functions:
(a) receive
declarations by public officers made under paragraph 12 of Part I of the Fifth
Schedule to this Constitution; (b) examine the declarations in accordance with
the requirements of the Code of Conduct or any law; (c) retain custody of such declarations
and make them available for inspection by any citizen of Nigeria on such terms
and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe; (d) ensure compliance
with and, where appropriate, enforce the provisions of the Code of Conduct of
any law relating thereto; (e) receive complaints about non-compliance with or
breach of the provisions of the Code of Conduct or any law in relation thereto,
investigate the complaint and, where appropriate, refer such matters to the
Code of Conduct Tribunal.
These
are five out of the seven responsibilities conferred on CCB by the Nigerian
Constitution. Paragraph 11 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution stated as
follows: (1) Subject to the provisions
of this Constitution, every public officer shall within three months after the
coming into force of this Code of Conduct or immediately after taking office
and thereafter - (a) at the end of every four years; and (b) at the end of his
term of office, submit to the Code of Conduct Bureau a written declaration of
all his properties, assets, and liabilities and those of his unmarried children
under the age of eighteen years.
(2)
Any statement in such declaration that is found to be false by any authority or
person authorised in that behalf to verify it shall be deemed to be a breach of
this Code. (3) Any property or assets acquired by a public officer after any
declaration required under this Constitution and which is not fairly
attributable to income, gift, or loan approved by this Code shall be deemed to
have been acquired in breach of this Code unless the contrary is proved.
High profile personalities caught in the
web
These
legal provisions were put in place to check corrupt enrichment by elected
political office holders. Some high profile public officials who has been
dragged by the CCB to its sister agency, Code of Conduct Tribunal on the basis
of alleged false asset declarations include former Lagos State Governor,
Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, immediate past Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki
and early this year, immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria, Walter Onnoghen.
Out of the three, it was only Onnoghen that was found culpable of the
allegations of false asset declaration.
According
to Paragraph 18 (2) of the Fifth Schedule of the Nigerian Constitution “The
punishment which the Code of Conduct Tribunal may impose shall include any of
the following - (a) vacation of office or seat in any legislative house, as the
case may be; (b) disqualification from membership of a legislative house and
from the holding of any public office for a period not exceeding ten years; and
(c) seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property acquired in abuse or
corruption of office.”
SERAP, CCB, and the Court
A
Civil Society Organisation working on anticorruption through public interest
litigation, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project better known as
SERAP wrote to the Code of Conduct Bureau seeking access to the asset declaration
form of presidents, vice presidents, governors and deputy governors that have
been in power in Nigeria since 1999. However, CCB declined the request premised
on the Freedom of Information Act 2011 on the basis that “Asset declaration
form is private information.” And that its disclosure will intrude on the right
to privacy of the people whose asset declaration forms are being sought.
This
refusal prompted SERAP to file a suit (FHC/L/CS/1019/2019) demanding the
following reliefs:
AN
ORDER granting leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and to seek
an order of mandamus directing and compelling the Respondent to compile and
make available to the Applicant information on specific details of asset
declarations submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau by successive Presidents,
Vice Presidents, Senate Presidents, Speakers of House of Representatives, State
Governors and Deputy Governors from 1999 to 2019 and to publish widely
including on a dedicated website, any such information.
AN
ORDER granting leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and to seek
an order of mandamus directing and compelling the Respondent to compile and
make available to the Applicant information on the number of asset declarations
so far verified by the Code of Conduct Bureau and the number of those
declarations found to be false and deemed to be in breach of the Code of
Conduct for Public Officers by the Bureau and to publish widely including on a
dedicated website, any such information.
AN
ORDER granting leave to the Applicant to apply for Judicial Review and to seek
an order of mandamus directing and compelling the Respondent to immediately
take cases of false asset declarations to the Code of Conduct Tribunal for
effective prosecution of suspects, and include banning the politicians involved
from holding public offices for at least a period of 10 years and seeking
refund of stolen public funds as part of the reliefs to be sought before the
Tribunal.
My argument
I am
of the considered view that the refusal of the CCB to oblige SERAP of the
requested information about the asset declaration forms of the aforementioned public
officials is a breach of Paragraph 3 (c) of the Third Schedule which urged the
CCB to: “retain custody of such
declarations and make them available for inspection by any citizen of Nigeria
on such terms and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe.” The
Freedom of Information Act 2011 is a legislation of the National Assembly.
As
rightly observed by SERAP, “Sections 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 20 and 31 of the FOI Act
are clear and unambiguous, stating a clear intention to make public information
such as details of asset declarations by presidents and state governors more
freely available to the members of the public and a clear obligation on the
part of public institutions to proactively keep proper records in a manner that
facilitates public access to such information or record.”
If I
may ask, how did Dennis Aghanya, the author of the petition against former Chief
Justice of Nigeria Walter Onnoghen, lay hands on the asset declaration form of
the former CJN? Aghanya, a former media aide to President Muhammadu Buhari is said
to be the Executive Secretary of the Anti-Corruption and Research Based Data
Initiative. How did those who wrote petition against Bukola Saraki and Bola
Tinubu lay hands on their asset declaration forms? Perhaps it was CCB officials
who discovered the discrepancy when they carried out verification exercise on
the forms. However, in the case of Onnoghen, we were informed that CCB was yet
to verify his asset declaration form. So who tipped off Aghanya to write that
petition? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. SERAP should not
have been denied access to the information being sought because as a responsible
Non-Governmental Organisation, it is just
seeking to assist CCB in doing
its job of making public officials accountable.
Paragraph
Three (e) of the Third Schedule of the Constitution says CCB shall “receive
complaints about non-compliance with or breach of the provisions of the Code of
Conduct.” How can people or organisation
complain when they are denied access to information filed by these public officials?
I do
know that the law deliberately makes the filing of the asset declaration forms
secret so that those public officials are not exposed to danger of attacks; more
so in a society like ours where insecurity is now prevalent. That being said,
in the interest of public accountability, it important to still make the asset
declaration forms of political office holders available to responsible
interested organisations willing to assist CCB to cross check the declarations.
There
have been complaints that the Bureau is not well resourced to carry out its
verification exercise of the assets declared by public officials. It is
therefore important for it as well as other anti-corruption agencies to be well
funded in order to make them more efficient. We have also had former presidents
and governors who voluntarily made their asset declaration forms public. These
include former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, ex-President Goodluck Jonathan as
Vice President and incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari. This is a step in the
right direction worthy of being emulated.
Comments
Post a Comment