Controversy over Malami’s moves to seize control of EFCC
Mr Mohammed Adoke (SAN) had barely spent five months in office as the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, when he, on September 20, 2010, issued the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission some regulations to assert his control over the anti-corruption agency.
By their nature, economic crimes which are part of the major focus of the EFCC are mostly connected with public offices which in turn are intertwined with politics.
This explains why the commission under successive Presidents since its establishment in 2004 has been largely seen as a political attack dog of the government in power, and this has continued to fuel speculations that anti-corruption efforts of successive governments are mere political games.
Section 43 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act which stipulates that the AGF “may make rules or regulations with respect to the exercise of any of the duties, functions or powers of the commission under this Act” provides the much needed window for the AGF to keep the anti-corruption agency under his control.
Adoke, who assumed the office of the AGF on April 6, 2010, was quick to take advantage of the provision when on September 10, 2010, he issued the 10-part regulations titled, ‘Report of Results of Investigation in Certain Cases’, mandating the EFCC to report the outcome of its investigations on “serious or complex” cases to the AGF office.
The regulations listed seven criteria that qualified cases to be “serious or complex.”
The criteria captured among others, cases having a “significant international dimension”, involving money or assets worth N50m, or “likely to be of widespread public concern.”
Such cases, according to the regulations, also included those requiring “specialised knowledge of financial, commercial, fiscal or regulatory matters such as the operation of markets, banking systems, trusts, or tax regimes.”
The rest of the criteria captured cases involving “allegations of fraudulent activity against numerous victims; substantial and significant loss of funds by a ministry, department or public body; and an alleged misconduct which amounts to an act of economic sabotage.”
With these, any major corruption case being handled by the EFCC would hardly escape categorisation as a serious or complex case that must be reported to the AGF.
Although Section 6 of the regulations stated that “nothing shall be construed as preventing the commission from exercising any of its powers under section 7 of the Act (the EFCC Act)”, many believed that the regulations denied the agency power to operate freely without the AGF’s undue interference.
Contrary to the expectations that the AGF office would loosen its grip on the EFCC under the regime of the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd), Mr Abubakar Malami (SAN), who was appointed the AGF on November 11, 2015, has only tried to exert tighter hold of his office on the commission.
He, however, did not find it easy with a heady Acting Chairman of the EFCC, Mr Ibrahim Magu.
The early signs that things had quickly gone sour between Malami and Magu surfaced when in 2017 the EFCC boss resisted repeated demands by the AGF office for various anti-corruption agencies, including the commission, to submit their lists of high-profile cases.
Magu’s resistance to Malami’s alleged invasion was believed to be due to historical distrust that the EFCC had for the AGF office.
The AGF office’s determination also manifested in the areas of some major bills pushed by Malami but perceived by the EFCC as attempts to whittle down its powers or make it vulnerable to the control of the AGF office.
The EFCC under Magu opposed the bills such as the Proceed of Crime Bill; the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Centre Bill, 2015; and the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Bill 2016, in its bid to stave off the AGF’s control.
When Nigeria was suspended by the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units in 2017, Malami, through his then Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Salihu Isah, said the development was partly caused by EFCC’s opposition to the bills.
In the statement titled, ‘EFCC ignoble role that led to Nigeria’s Egmont suspension’, the minister recalled how the EFCC, through its opposition to the NFIC Bill, frustrated his efforts to make the National Financial Intelligence Unit independent of the EFCC as required by the global financial intelligence-gathering body.
He recalled how Magu and the EFCC allegedly frustrated his attempts to make the President to re-transmit the NIFC Bill, 2015, and the Proceeds of Crime Bill earlier passed by the 7th National Assembly for fresh consideration by the then 8th National Assembly in 2017.
The minister also recalled how the EFCC “vehemently rejected the new Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Bill 2016” during the House of Representatives Committee review session on April 18, 2017.
“They have always perceived the Office of AGF as a threat instead of addressing the issues related to the best strategy to fight corruption advocated by the AGF,” the statement read in part.
However, determined to have his way, Malami last year issued a directive gazetted as Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette Vl. 106, No. 163, and titled ‘Asset Tracing, Recovery and Management Regulation 2019’, directing all anti-corruption agencies to surrender their powers of assets recovery to the Federal Ministry of Justice.
The directive, which scrapped all existing assets recovery and tracing committees, also stated that all non-conviction based forfeiture must be conducted by the AGF office.
The move was largely believed to be targeted at the EFCC being the agency with the most extensive assets recovery efforts.
Malami’s new spokesman, Dr Umar Gwandu, explained that the regulations which came under public criticism “was informed by the need to regulate the procedures for the tracing, recovery, management and disposal of illegally acquired assets as required under various extant legislation.”
Gwandu’s clarifications would hardly sway the public from seeing Malami’s moves as attempts to seize the agency’s autonomy, as less than a year later, the minister authored a memo to the President accusing Magu of abuse of office and mismanagement of recovered assets.
Acting on Malami’s memo, Buhari set up the Justice Ayo Salami-led Judicial Commission of Inquiry and ordered the suspension of Magu pending when the investigation would be concluded.
With this happening some weeks earlier, observers were quick to associate Malami with a new bill that suddenly surfaced online seeking to amend the anti-graft agency’s Establishment Act in an ambitious attempt to whittle down the powers of the EFCC and subject it to total control by the AGF office.
Malami has not confirmed or denied to be behind the bill which seeks, among others, creation of the office of a director-general to head the EFCC.
The director-general, according to the proposed law, is to be appointed by the President based on the recommendation of the AGF and subject to confirmation by the Senate.
It also seeks to eliminate the office of the Secretary of the EFCC, and also proposes that the Annual Report of the EFCC is not to be submitted to the National Assembly until it has been passed through the AGF for onward transmission to National Assembly.
The most vocal critic of the bill has been a top aide of Buhari, Prof. Itse Sagay (SAN), who is the chairman of Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption.
In PACAC’s statement signed by Sagay, the senior advocate described the bill as an attempt to perpetrate fraud and urged all Nigerians as well as NASS to reject it.
Sagay, who pulls no punches in repeatedly criticising Malami about his handling of anti-corruption matters, said the bill would eliminate the EFCC’s “freedom and autonomy” and replace it with “an entity under the complete control of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General.” Punch
