Since the establishment of the EFCC, handling of high profile cases has been a vexed issue, Senior Correspondent, ONYEWUCHI OJINNAKA, writes.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was established in 2004 by Act of the National Assembly, with the mandate to combat financial and economic crimes. The commission is empowered by the Act to adopt measures to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalise offenders of economic and financial crimes. It is further saddled with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of other related laws and regulations relating to economic and financial crimes such as the Money Laundering Act 1995, Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2004, the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 1995, the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debt) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act 1994, the Bank and Other Financial Institutions Act 1991 (BOFIA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act.
In all these acts, the EFCC is expected to have performed creditably and should have recorded more convictions, as scores of violators of these acts are standing trial at various courts of the land. Till date, many of the cases that started since 2007 are yet to be concluded.
It is worthy of note that apart from few successful cases recorded during the leadership of Nuhu Ribadu, the commission did not really impress much under successive leaderships like that of Mrs. Farida Waziri and the incumbent, Ibrahim Larmode.
Going by the avalanche of high profile cases involving ex-governors, public office holders, bank chiefs and business moguls pending in various courts, public opinion pundits have posited that the anti-graft agency has not recorded commendable convictions, especially the ‘big fishes’.
Analysts attributed the unimpressive situation to slow pace of prosecution and long adjournment of cases that are handled by EFCC. There are several situations where charges are withdrawn by EFCC midway into the trial, amended and the defendants re-arraigned on fresh charges.
High profile cases being prosecuted by EFCC involved ex-governors like Chimaroke Nnamani of Enugu State, Rasheed Ladoja of Oyo State, Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State, Gbenga Daniel of Ogun State and Joshua Dariye of Plateau State. Others are Christopher Alao-Akala of Oyo State, Abubakar Audu of Kogi State, Saminu Turaki of Jigawa State and Orji Uzo Kalu of Abia State. Also involved in this category is the former Minister of Aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode.
The trial of these ex-governors and/or public officers who were indicted for money laundering, misappropriation of public funds, conversion of public funds and other financial crimes have either been jettisoned, inconclusive or enjoying long adjournments, courtesy of the bail granted to them by the court.
The same situation applies to bank chiefs such as former managing director of the defunct Bank PHB, Francis Atuche; Bartholomew Ebong of Union Bank, Okey Nwosu of Finbank and Charles Ojo of Spring Bank. Others are Erastus Akingbola of the defunct Intercontinental Bank, Sebastine Adigwe of Afribank, Peter Ololo and Osa Osunde. They were also indicted with offences bordering on financial malpractices and arraigned under the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debt) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act 1994, the Bank and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA) 1991, and the Miscellaneous Offences Act.
These accused persons, some of who were first arraigned in 2007, are now enjoying their cosy mansions and junketing from one part of the world to another, because they were granted bail. What is more worrisome is EFCC conceding to long adjournments that are sought by defence counsel and granted by the court as prayed.
It is therefore surprising and worrisome that in recent times, no convictions of the ‘big fishes’ have been recorded by the anti-graft agency, and that is why the agency is labelled as toothless bulldog that barks aloud but cannot bite.
Despite the shortcomings of the Commission, it recorded the convictions of Dr (Mrs.) Cecilia Ibru of the defunct Oceanic Bank, ex-governors Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, Lucky Igbinedion, and former Inspector General of Police (IGP), Tafa Balogun, who were convicted with light sentences through plea bargain. There have been other convictions, but not high profile cases.
While assessing the performance of EFCC in the last four years, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and former Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice in Delta State, Dafe Akpedeye, said the anti-graft agency has over time garnered a reputation for itself as a financial enforcer that has engaged in the investigation of financial improprieties in the country.
He said: “I think the present leadership of EFCC appears to believe in not advertising themselves. They have not fared too badly. Their apparent low rating, to my mind, stems largely from the fact that they have not sensitised the public enough on their gains, especially so when it is not on big political cases.
“You would agree with me that the negative image that was the lot of Nigeria a couple of years back has tremendously reduced. The impunity with which public office holders helped themselves to public funds has equally reduced, and that could not have happened without EFCC’s contribution. Having said that, I still believe that war on crime is a continuing process and they have a lot of room for improvement.”
For Lagos-based lawyer, Benson Ndakara, the Commission has tried in its little way, but it could do better. He faulted the Commission on the angle of disobedience to court order, but in terms of performance.
He said: “Gone were the days of political arrests or instigation arrests as witnessed in the days of Mallam Ribadu and Obasanjo. You cannot arrest and prosecute and when there is a court order, you cannot obey it.”
Commenting on the delay in the prosecution of cases involving former governors and bank chiefs, Ndakara said it could be as a result of application for injunctions, saying that they are all part of the trial.
“When there is an application for interlocutory injunction or appeal on a matter, the judge will first hear and determine the application before the continuation of the trial.
“What is happening in most of the cases is called ‘springing’; that is, when the court process is used to scuttle or delay trial. What you are objecting is irrelevant, but you use it to appeal even up to the Supreme Court,” said he.
By using frivolous applications, he said, the person would have succeeded in wasting the time and the case continues to linger, pointing out that by using same, it delays or scuttles the court process. It is what has contributed to the delay in the trial of the ex-governors and bank chiefs.
Ndakara exonerated the judges from the delays, saying that judges are bound to determine applications or appeals before proceeding with the trial, “otherwise, an objection is supposed to be made when there is serious need for it”.
