Of corruption, EFCC inactions , Bankole, probity, accountability and the nation’s future.
Headspeaker Dimeji Bankole
There appears to be a different standard of judging a crime in the playbook of Nigeria’s leading anti-graft agencies when it affects people presumed to be “executive suspects”, an ongoing NEXT investigation of high profile cases involving top brass Nigerians has revealed.
Using the case of the Speaker of the House of Representative, Dimeji Bankole, as an illustration, NEXT investigations found that the current institutional cultures in both the Economic and Financial Crimes commission (EFCC), and the Independent Corruption Practices Commission (ICPC) often lead to very opposite resolutions regarding the same case, even when they are armed with the same complaints and the same evidence.
Soji Apampa, a leading civil society voice in the country and chief executive of the Centre for Business Integrity in Abuja, located the problem in the framework of what he characterised as the power struggles among the statutory agencies charged with leading the anti-corruption battle in the country.
“Clearly, what we are seeing now is a difficulty, on the path of those responsible, to fight corruption” he said, adding that “we are witnessing power struggles, which have all along been in our society. But they are just beginning to manifest.”
Last week a business survey on crime and corruption in Nigeria discovered that people have “little trust in anti-corruption authorities” partly based on the belief that reports on crimes would not necessarily lead to closure or effective investigations and or prosecutions.
The report was jointly sponsored by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the European Union (EU), and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
The 2.3 billion naira car scandal
A clear illustration of the problem was the 2007 car scandal in the lower chamber of the nation’s parliament.
In December 2007 at an executive session presided over by Mr. Bankole, the lower parliament approved the purchase of 380 units of Peugeot 407 cars; 5 for each of the 76 committees of the house.
This transaction was followed by wide allegations that some members made financial gains from the deal because Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN), which supplied the vehicles, allegedly supplied inferior vehicles at significantly less cost than the approved ones. The House was also alleged to have paid Value Added Tax twice to the Federal Inland Revenue Service.
The ethics and privileges committee of the House which investigated the allegations cleared the leadership of any wrongdoing and instead questioned the source of the documents presented by Festus Keyamo, a Lagos lawyer who first raised the allegations.
Recommendation 3 of the committee was that “the clerk of the National Assembly should immediately carry out an internal investigation to unravel why certain classified and important documents such as the letter of offer and acceptance in the National Assembly were procured by unauthorised persons …”
Consequently, the EFCC commenced investigations on the scandal. However, in a recent but dramatic entry into the controversy, the EFCC claimed that it has concluded its investigations, sent a copy to its legal unit for prosecutorial recommendation, and another copy to the Presidency for its attention.
EFCC Farida Waziri
Farida Waziri, the chairperson of the EFCC triumphantly told journalists at the EFCC headquarters on June 7 that the commission’s report was ready and had been sent to the “commission’s legal unit for advice.”
She also said the commission had sent a report of its investigations to the Presidency and was sure of the Presidency’s cooperation.
Passing blame
Hardly had Mrs. Waziri uttered her comments than it was refused. The Presidency, through its spokesman, Ima Niboro, denied ever receiving any report from the EFCC, and advised the agency to do its job according to its rules because, as he said, the Presidency was not in the business of vetting law enforcement reports.
The Waziri-Niboro tick-tack gave outsiders enough gunpowder to fire shots of doubt at the anti-corruption claims of the administration; to suggest executive tampering with cases.
Embarrassed at the gaff, Mrs. Waziri’s herself quickly struggled to smoothen the rough edges of her claims by. “I don’t think the Presidency will want to use it (the investigation report) to blackmail,” she said. “You know the Presidency believes in the rule of law.”
However succour came by way of a civil society intervention when Mr. Apampa claimed that “it is not that EFCC did not tell the truth”, adding that “I am inclined to believe them” but shifting the blame to the doorsteps of the Presidency. “Perhaps the people in the presidency are not quite comfortable going ahead with it because each side is holding the other to ransom,” he said.
However, Aduche Wokochi, head of business law department at the Rivers State University of Science and Technology, takes a contrary view. “The function of EFCC is not supposed to be approved by the President before they institute prosecution,” he said.
“They are established by the law and the law that set them up does not require them getting Presidential approval before they prosecute anybody, he said challenging the agency to show good conduct by re-submiting the document if it feels serious about making it public that way. They should re-submit.
Perhaps the period of invisible presidency has led to the loss of the report. They must have their own copies of every report. They should resubmit if they feel it is necessary.”
Musa Ebho-imaha, the special assistant on media matters to Mr. Bankole, appeared confident that Mr. Bankole had no case to answer at the weekend, telling NEXT that “He (Bankole) has never been invited (for questioning), because there is no truth in the matter.
The EFCC knows there is no truth in the matter.”
Femi Babafemi, the EFCC spokesman, declined to respond to questions or reply to text messages on the status of the car probe scandal.
However, the ICPC insists on pursuing investigating into the matter. A source involved in the ICPC investigation said PAN, which has always denied any wrong doing, and which was initially trying to protect the House leadership by keeping some necessary documents from ICPC investigators, “are now cooperating; some House members definitely have case to answer.”
The car scandal is not the first investigation over which the anti-corruption agencies are refusing to prosecute or even invite Mr. Bankole, who has no immunity.
The Rural Electrification Scandal
Upon conclusion of its investigations into the 5.2 Billion Naira rural electrification scandal, the EFCC charged Ndidi Elumelu, the chairman of the House committee on power, and his Senate counterpart Nicholas Ugbane, as well as some other legislators and staff of the rural electrification agency, to court on a 156 count charge.
Though Mr. Bankole was widely believed to have been involved in the scandal, his involvement was neither investigated, nor was he invited by the commission for questioning.
“There was no point inviting the speaker, he has no case to answer. If he is not in court, it means he has no case to answer,” stated Mr. Ebho-imaha.
Again the story is different at the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) which is also carrying out an investigation over the scandal.
“We have almost concluded investigations, but so far everything shows that the Speaker also has a case to answer. There is no way he would be free, though we will have to invite him to state his case,” the source, who is involved in the investigation, stated.
Companies owned by relatives of Mr. Bankole, investigators believe, benefitted from the scandal.
When contacted, Folu Olamiti, the ICPC spokesman simply said “our investigations are still ongoing, but we are almost through with them.” He declined to comment on Mr. Bankole’s involvement.
Buoyed by what they describe as a “window available for complaints, and possible prosecution resulting from investigations at the ICPC,” legislators who branded themselves as progressives, and who are seeking the prosecution of Mr. Bankole and other members of the House leadership over the scandal are now relying on the ICPC to conduct what they say will be “a thorough investigation on the latest 9 Billion naira scandal.”
The 9 billion naira allocation scandal
The 9 billion naira allocation scandal in the House of Representatives indicates that, whereas the EFCC makes a strenuous public show of its investigation into the matter, it has nevertheless scrupulously pursued an enforcement strategy that will avoid prosecuting Mr. Bankole.
In this case, some legislators are accusing Mr. Bankole and the House leadership of mismanaging 9 billion of the 11 billion naira meant as allocation to the legislative house in 2009. The legislators petitioned the two anti corruption agencies when a one-week ultimatum they gave the speaker to resign expired.
The EFCC, which claims it has set up a seven-man committee, stormed the National Assembly offices of the legislators recently for more incriminating documents, and interrogated some persons involved in the scandal.
However, knowledgeable sources at the agency told NEXT at the weekend that, “the investigation may well go the way of previous ones involving Mr. Bankole had gone, which is either to exonerate the Speaker or that the report simply not see the light of the day.”
Till date the EFCC has not questioned Mr. Bankole. On Tuesday, July 3, in his office at the commissions headquarters, Emmanuel Ayoola, the chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences commission (ICPC) met with Dino Melaiye and Independence Ogunewe, leaders of the “Progressive Minded Legislators”.
Contrary to media reports, it was the legislators who called for the meeting. Mr. Melaiye and Mr. Ogunewe, according to our source, brought more documents to buttress their allegations against the speaker.
The ICPC boss, according to investigators, personally led the interrogation of the legislators because, “in any case, before they came, we had started our investigations; though they gave us more documents to show the speaker’s culpability,” the source stated.
Same old tale
The allegations, which include price inflation purchase of unnecessary materials by the house at inflated prices, and purchase of exorbitant cars for the speaker and the deputy, have all been refuted by the Speaker and the House leadership who accuse the anti-Bankole legislators of parading fake documents.
“If they say the documents we are presenting – even to the EFCC and ICPC are fake – let them present the original ones to Nigerians,” stated Mr. Melaiye on a radio programme.
“There was definitely inflation of prices in their purchases – how can you purchase a television set which even up till now is less than two hundred thousand naira, for 525,000 naira?” stated an anti-corruption source. “We however have to focus on who among them (the House leadership) benefitted from the inflated prices.”
Mr. Wokochi is however worried at the possibility of multiple investigations. “If one agency has concluded investigations, it should commence prosecution, the other agency should discontinue because a person cannot be prosecuted twice on the same matter,” he said.
Source: 234next
Related Posts
Short URL: http://www.emnnews.com/?p=4613
Posted by admin
on 11:30 am. Filed under Articles, Banking & Finance.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
