Follow Us on Google
Introduction
“The taming of the shrew” is a comedy written by legendary William Shakespeare, about 1590 and 1592. In the play, there was a framing device called the “induction,” in which one mischievous nobleman tricks a drunken tinker named Christopher Sly into believing erroneously that he was actually a nobleman.
The genuine nobleman then ordered the play performed for Sly’s mirth and diversion. A shrew is defined as a bad-tempered and aggressively assertive woman. Some synonyms of shrew include virago, dragon, harridan, tartar, anthrophagite, ogress, termagant, vixen, gorgon, etc. The above scenario and context epigrammatically describe the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which has so far been employed as an attack dog by successive governments, to bay at and bite with impunity, real, perceived and imaginary enemies. Critics, plural opinionists, dissenters, political opponents, government functionaries (except those of the ruling party, past and present), are not spared. Such persons are detained, bruised, intimidated and browbeaten by this rampaging government organ, which ought to act within the confines of constitutionalism in a constitutional democracy such as we pretend to be operating. Former President Olusegun Obasanjo dictatorially used the EFCC to repress and hound out of office democratically elected governors, such as Joshua Dariye of Plateau State, Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State and DSP Alamieyeseigha of Bayelsa State. In Plateau and Ekiti, one-third, rather than two-thirds, majority legislators were coerced to impeach the then governors. Alamieyeseigha was not that lucky. He was impeached, handcuffed out of office and flown to Abuja on December 8, 2005, in a helicopter, while his impeachment panel was yet to find an operational venue, let alone hearing from him. I was his counsel, so I have the facts. Such was the unabashed impunity that has since been transplanted to the present.
Nigerians are suddenly afraid to even speak out, let alone critique government. The fear of EFCC and SSS (they prefer the non-statutory sobriquet DSS) is the beginning of wisdom. EFCC simply moves into private citizens’ accounts to blockade and freeze them, after nichodemously obtaining orders of court, ex-parte. EFCC has since elevated a mere EFCC Act over and above the Nigerian Constitution, the grundnorm, the fons et origo.
Judiciary to the rescue
The unruly wings of the EFCC were recently clipped by the Federal High Court, Ado Ekiti, coran, Justice Taiwo Obayomi Taiwo, in a case yours sincerely personally handled for Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose. The EFCC had, as usual, obtained an ex-parte order, freezing the governor’s two accounts with Zenith Bank Plc, on the unproven ground that it suspected the sums therein to be “proceeds of crime.” But there was a catch here. Unlike other interim forfeiture cases, the EFCC did not sue Fayose, the owner of the accounts (sitting governor of Ekiti State), obviously attempting to evade the clear provisions of Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution, which give the President, Vice President, Governor and Deputy Governor, total immunity from any “civil or criminal proceedings” whilst in office. Furthermore, says Section 308, “no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of a person to whom this section applies, shall be applied for or issued,” just as such a person “shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise.” These provisions are as clear as crystal and as clean as a whistle.
Rather, EFCC had sued Zenith Bank, the mere custodian, not the owner of the funds, thus illegally attaching Fayose’s money through a third-party proxy. The judge saw through this façade, chicanery, shenanigan, antics and caper. The court rightly held that attaching Fayose’s accounts through a proxy and doing so in perpetuity, as against the “interim” nature of it (to merely allow for investigation), was in clear breach of his fundamental right to fair hearing enshrined in Section 36 of the Constitution. It also held that the EFCC, in obtaining the interim order of attachment of anonymous accounts, without stating the real owner, amounted to suppression of material facts before the judge that made the earlier order of interim forfeiture. Kudos to the judiciary. Where are the so-called “constitutional lawyers” and “expert analysts” now? They must bury their heads in shame.
Magu, Dss and the Senate: When the hunter becomes the hunted
Last week, the Senate rejected and threw back at PMB Ibrahim Magu’s nomination to chair the EFCC. In stringently worded words, the Senate gave a “damning report” (pet words usually employed by EFCC to repress citizens), against Magu: “Magu has failed the integrity test and will eventually constitute a liability to the anti-corruption war.” Integrity means the quality of being honest and having strong principles. It stands for rectitude, honour, probity, uprightness, nobility, ethics, sincerity, truthfulness. The Senate, whether altruistically, or maliciously, says Magu lacks them, but will be a liability. Liability means hindrance, burden, handicap, encumbrance, impediment, obstacle, drawback, problem, albatross, Achilles heel, stumbling block.
Opaque advisers
Shockingly, in a most bizarre and summersault twist, the leadership of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), that has sanctimoniously and vociferously preached moral rectitude, even occasionally insulting Nigerians’ sensibilities that “corrupt” Nigerians should be summarily executed without trial, demurred. It now sings a new song, that Magu must stay in office: “whether they (Senate) like it or not, he will be there. His chairmanship will keep on being renewed… until he completes his term under the law. The EFCC chairman has a four-year tenure. From the EFCC Act, non-confirmation does not impair his duties.” Outrageous! Poor quality advice. Perhaps, this is why the PACAC has so far created more problems than solutions for PMB and the anti-corruption “war.” A committee that was supposed to be merely advisory, seen but not heard, has become government’s megaphone, usurping the functions of the Attorney-General, Information Minister, security agencies and even the President.
If it is the same EFCC Act that I have, they are dead wrong. Misinformation is more dangerous than non-information. Section 2(1)(a) provides for “a chairman who shall be the chief executive and accounting officer of the commission.” Section 2(3) laconically provides: “the chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall be appointed by the President and the appointment shall be subject to confirmation of the Senate.” For those not versed in law and its intricacies, “shall” used in Section 2(3) means “must”, “obligatory.” So, for the EFCC chairman to perform, he must first be compulsorily screened and confirmed by the Senate. This is a statutory imperative. The Act does not recognise an “acting chairman.” Consequently, PACAC misfired to think that “non-confirmation does not impair his duties.” It does. Otherwise, the law would not have enjoined that “appointment (is) subject to confirmation of the Senate.”
Very soon, I foresee an aggrieved Nigerian, when a push becomes a shove, challenge actions taken under Magu’s acting status. “Acting capacity” is sparingly employed as a conventional temporary stop- gap remedy for the substantive office.
So, these presidential “advisers” now suddenly realise Magu must be given a “fair hearing” and should not be tried in the media? These are the very indispensable ingredients I have poured oceans of ink on and screamed about at rooftops, as missing from the investigative soup of the EFCC, DSS, police, and ICPC, but which the PACAC has always insisted could be dispensed with, in a cavalier manner, in this anti-corruption project. It saw nothing wrong in eminent justices and judges of superior courts having their homes barbarically invaded by masked DSS operatives, with doors and windows brutishly broken down, between the unholy hours of 1am and 5am, when this could decently have been done between 6am and 6pm. PACAC refused to highlight the civilised provisions of the ACJA (by the way, an Act promulgated by the government of their much-lampooned GEJ; I was on the high table when it was launched with the Cyber Café Act, on May 27, 2015).
The ACJA preamble provides that the Act is to ensure, inter alia, “protection of the defendant and the victim.” Section 5 thereof protects a suspect from being “handcuffed, bound or subjected to restraint…”. Section 8 insists that “a subject shall be accorded humane treatment, having regard to his right to dignity of his person; and not be subjected to any form of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
Some Nigerians and PACAC leadership had clapped and applauded EFCC when Oliseh Metuh was dehumanised and handcuffed; when judges were terrorised with their families and made to lie down inside moving pickup vans. Savagery and bestiality were glamouralised. Judges were recused from duty because they were already adjudged guilty without trial.
These holier-than-thou government apologists see nothing wrong with the horrific experiences being encountered by Nnamdi Kanu of IPOB, El Zakzaki and his Shiite movement, Niger Delta militants, the Agatu massacre, profane elections, repression of citizens, continued detention of Sambo Dasuki 14 months after; serial disobedience to court orders and desecration of the rule of law, the very cornerstone of democracy.
PMB’s dilemma
In their simulated sense of self-glorification and redemptive messianism, these “saints” forgot the immutable law of karma that what goes around comes around. PMB has obviously been put in a profound dilemma by these grovellers, what with serial damming allegations of corruption against some of his closest, untouchable ministers, Chief of Staff, SGF and Magu, the fearless anti-corruption czar, now with a moral burden. Should PMB sweep these under the carpet? If he does, has he not immolatorily dealt a fatal blow to his anti-corruption project? If he re-presents Magu’s name to the Senate, as some have urged, will Nigerians believe Magu still possesses moral, non-reproachable high grounds, like Caesar’s wife, who must be above board? If PMB trashes the DSS report, would he not have eternally discredited his secret police and its operational credibility? If, if, if…..
With the Fayose judgement and the Ministers/SGF Babachir/Magu brouhaha, erstwhile respected human rights activists, who now enjoy the largesse, munificence, comfort and opulence of closeness to, or appointment within, the cozy corridors of power and have, therefore, suddenly become revisionists, renegades and turn-coats, standing law, logic, ethics and morality on their heads, will now have no option but to sober up and advise their paymasters appropriately. They forget that, like the mammy wagon lorry anecdote proclaims, “no condition is permanent,” and “soldier go, soldier come, but barracks remain.” Ha, the ephemerality of power! The expiry date of lies!! The immutability of truth!!! Where are the angels and saints now? But I will not join the maddening crowd. Magu must be given a fair trial by the Senate and PMB. He must not be dismissed or condemned unheard. Even Almighty God did not do that to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Ad nauseam, you cannot fight corruption with corruption, nor use lawlessness to fight lawlessness. Like Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” It is wrong to tag critics or dissenting voices as “corruption fighting back”. Why make it “they” versus “us”? Haba!
