EFCC Fighting Elections, Not Corruption By Shaka Momodu

Politics is in the air and the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) is at it again. The former Minister of Petroleum
Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke has become a pawn in the politics
of President Muhammadu Buhari’s re-election bid. Obviously, this
failing government has nothing to sell as its achievement to
promote its re-election bid. So as the elections draw near, it’s
scrambling desperately in search of how to sell its re-election bid
to the people.

The EFCC, under the influence of the ruling All Progressives
Congress (APC), has suddenly realised that its most potent arsenal
– Alison-Madueke’s alleged misdeeds – need to be brought back to
public consciousness in its propaganda war on corruption. Pronto,
it dug up the case file to deceive and distract the public from
looking at the performance scorecard of this government with its
not-so-clever ploy of extradition shenanigans. The EFCC sold this
dummy to the media to deceive the people that it is on top of its
game, and the headlines rolled out fast.

However, we should expect to see the revving up of its media war
against corruption with sensational probes into “diverted” or
“missing funds” within the Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP)-controlled states in the days and weeks ahead as the
elections approach.

Please make NO mistake, I am not in support of Mrs
Alison-Madueke’s alleged crimes as some dumb supporters of
President Buhari might want to conclude. Rather, this piece is a
cautionary intervention and an excursion into how the EFCC has
become a plying tool to fight the election campaign for the APC.
Fighting crime must be devoid of politics. The moment you
politicise it, as EFCC is doing, you lose the confidence of the
people and unwittingly create sympathy for the alleged
offenders.

Let me rejig your memory a bit: In October last year, this same
EFCC surprised discerning Nigerians when it opposed an affidavit by
Alison-Madueke asking a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos to
compel the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar
Malami to formally facilitate her return to Nigeria to enable her
defend herself in a suit in which her name was mentioned.
Specifically, it filed a counter affidavit urging the court not to
order the former minister’s return from the United Kingdom to
Nigeria.

A little background on the situation is necessary: In the
application she had filed then through her lawyer, Mr. Onyechi
Ikpeazu before Justice Rilwan Aikawa, Alison-Madueke had said she
wished to appear before the Federal High Court in Lagos to defend a
criminal charge bordering on the alleged money laundering of
N450million. But the anti-graft agency countered, describing her
prayer to be brought back to Nigeria as a ploy to escape justice in
the UK, where, according to the EFCC, she was being investigated
for several financial crimes by the Metropolitan Police.

According to the commission, investigation by the Metropolitan
Police in Alison-Madueke’s case had reached an advanced stage and
her prosecution in the UK was imminent. It therefore said it would
not be in the interest of justice to grant her application seeking
to return to Nigeria, and that she had designed the instant
application to distract and scuttle both her investigation and
imminent prosecution in the UK.

The EFCC, in its counter-affidavit deposed to by one of its
operatives, Usman Zakari, explained further: “That the applicant,
who knows full well that she is on bail in the United Kingdom where
she is being investigated for several financial crimes, and that
she would not be able to leave that country in view of the ongoing
investigation and imminent trial, is seeking the order of this
honourable court for the charge before this honourable court to be
amended to include her name on the face of the charge, in order for
her to escape from investigation and prosecution in the United
Kingdom under the guise that she is coming to face her trial before
this honourable court and also to scuttle the trial before this
honourable court.”

Arguing the counter-affidavit, the EFCC lawyer, Rotimi Oyedepo,
described Alison-Madueke’s application as a “violent abuse of court
processes” and urged Justice Aikawa to reject same. Those were
pretty strong words used to oppose the former minister’s demand for
the court to order that she be brought back home. But
Alison-Madueke’s lawyer, Ikpeazu, maintained that justice of the
case demanded that her client should either be given the
opportunity to defend herself, or the charge sheet should be
amended and her name expunged.

Now, fast forward to November 2018. The same EFCC that opposed
Alison-Madueke’s demand that the court should order the AGF to
facilitate her return to Nigeria to defend herself against criminal
charges, was now claiming that it was pushing for her extradition
because the British authorities had failed to arraign her. The
government pushed out all sorts of funny narratives then that were
celebrated by many including the sensational news story, ‘FG to
Diezani: Face Trial in UK, No Need to Come Back to Nigeria.’

I read the articles gloating about the federal government’s
response to Alison-Madueke’s demand to be brought back home to
defend herself. Of course they simply parroted the EFCC’s narrative
and even went further to insinuate that because she knew she
couldn’t “buy” her way through the UK judiciary, as she could back
home with wads of money, that was why she wanted to face trial
here. Some even argued then that she wanted to escape her ongoing
trial in the UK even though there was clearly no trial going on
over there.

Let everyone of sound mind (because I have come to realise there
are so many irrational people amongst us these days) ask the EFCC:
Why demand for the extradition of someone who last year, asked a
Federal High Court to order the government to bring her back to
defend herself? A demand that was vigorously opposed by the same
agency now brandishing talk of extraditing the very same person?
Does this make sense? Can anybody help me make sense of this?

It was shocking beyond belief that the EFCC chose to forfeit the
opportunity to have the former petroleum minister face allegations
against her in Nigeria rather than in the UK. The bulk of her
alleged crimes were committed here. So why really did the EFCC
choose to oppose her return then? It could be it didn’t have
confidence in the evidence it had gathered against her other than
whipping up the mass hysteria and lynch-mob mentality that wants
blood at all cost. This brings to question the quality of legal
advice the EFCC gets before decisions to either prosecute or not
are reached. Who evaluates the evidence after investigation to
determine whether the evidence it has unearthed establishes a prima
facie case against an individual or a company under target? Is it
the EFCC chairman or the legal department/ legal advisers?

It could also be that the EFCC had more confidence in the UK
judicial system than the Nigerian legal system. How shameful! But
unfortunately, it did not reckon that the UK police will only rush
an accused to court when the facts and the evidence weigh heavily
against that person with the likelihood of securing a conviction,
unlike here where an accused is arraigned in court on a nebulous
charge before commencing the search for evidence.

The chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Magu’s frustration essentially
borders on the fact that the National Crimes Agency in the UK does
not act with the same impunity that the EFCC is notorious for. They
undertake diligent, painstaking investigations, make an evaluation
of the evidence to see if it will stand legal scrutiny before
proceeding to court. They will definitely not go to court to lose
once they determine the evidence will not be enough to earn a
conviction. They will also weigh the legal cost of prosecution on
the taxpayers and determine if it is worth it, and whether recovery
is possible.

Well, the EFCC is not restrained by such standards. It is more
concerned about how much media hype and banner headlines it
generates than the actual evidence it has to earn a conviction in
court, it is more about the optics even though it has led to
high-profile losses in court. Well, the convenient excuse is
usually the judiciary was “compromised”. And for an agency more
politicised than at any time in our history, the optics are usually
good enough for the blood-baying mob.

You see, going by the statements made by top officials of this
government immediately the Muhammadu Buhari presidency was
inaugurated, Alison-Madueke was supposed to be the big fish in the
anti-corruption war. Up till this moment, I am a bit hesitant to
believe that the EFCC has done a diligent investigation that will
lead to a conviction going by its pedigree. But with the radio
silence on the issue from the Metropolitan Police and elections
fast approaching, Magu had to flip flop on it with his extradition
stunt. He would have gullible Nigerians believe that the tempo of
the anti-corruption war has been upped and that the big fish will
soon be in the net by giving the issue some media attention to gain
votes for Buhari. The EFCC’s new-found ostensible resolve to bring
her to trial so that she can pay her debt to society, if convicted,
is driven solely by politics of Buhari’s re-election, nothing more!
I bet you, nothing will come of it because the intentions are not
noble.

Again, while Magu wants to shift attention to Alison-Maduke in
the UK, he continues to ignore the petition from the former
Managing Director of Alpha Beta-turned-whistleblower on the alleged
massive fraud committed by the company amounting to well over N100
billion, bordering on tax evasion, money laundering and outright
corruption. Why? Because a prominent APC leader is alleged to own a
major stake in the company. So investigating and prosecuting him
won’t be in the interest of the president’s re-election.

The Kano Governor Abdullahi Ganduje, aka Gandollar, bribery film
is still premiering on the social media, our political EFCC has
refused to look in that direction. Each time Ibrahim Magu is asked
about it, he dodges the question and switches to a more convenient
and sellable topic – the Alison-Madueke extradition. Come to think
of it, how would Magu investigate the Kano governor when the man
has promised to deliver 5 million votes to Buhari’s re-election
bid? In the presidential primary, he purportedly delivered 2.9
million votes to Buhari. Recall that even Magu himself used to wear
Buhari’s re-election lapel before the public outcry forced him to
drop that ill-conceived, unethical, sycophantic and hypocritical
conduct.

Allegations of corruption are swirling around stalwarts of the
APC and threatening to choke them, but the EFCC is looking the
other way as it always does on matters concerning APC members. Any
attempt to move against them will not be in the best interest of
the president’s re-election which has become its raison d’etre.
What a shame!

For the life of me, I can’t figure out how the Buhari Campaign
Organisation is getting “clean” funding. There have been various
reports, even though denied by the authorities, that the Nigerian
National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) is providing the cash through
slush funds. Under this government, we have seen an unexplained
sudden jump in the consumption of petrol from 30-35 million litres
to 60-80 million litres a day, despite the economic downturn and
the declining purchasing power of the average Nigerian. I heard
they call it round tripping. On the fraudulent 60-80 million litres
we consume daily, the NNPC pays itself subsidy. Could this be the
slush funds being deployed for Buhari’s re-election? Imagine what
is being stolen daily by those running the state oil company. The
EFCC has looked the other way pretending not to be aware of this
monumental heist on a scale never seen before.

In one of his media briefings I attended, I had cause to ask
Magu why the astronomical increase in the consumption of petrol was
not being investigated despite calls for it and, true to form, he
dodged the bullet. In stark contrast, the political EFCC is putting
the squeeze on elements of the main opposition party, the Peoples
Democratic Party, so that it would not be able to raise enough
funds to finance its own campaigns.

Earlier in the week, the Buhari Campaign launched a major
campaign in the media, spent several millions of naira on adverts
in many national dailies. How the money was raised has not been
disclosed. This issue goes to the heart of campaign financing which
these loudmouthed hypocrites of the APC have refused to address. I
am challenging Mr President to come clean to the public on where
his campaign monies are coming from. Nothing but full and
transparent disclosure would be enough. It is not enough to search
an opponent’s plane in search of suspected illicit cash ferried
into the country from abroad purportedly for the elections. He
should tell us where APC’s cash is coming from. Is it from
taxpayers’ money as suspected or contributions from party members
and donors?

For Buhari, it is curious that a man who has carried on with
pompous arrogance as Mr Integrity, and who has branded all past
leaders corrupt (remember how he traduced and lampooned the
previous governments for allegedly using taxpayers’ money to fund
election campaigns?), but has not disclosed to the public how his
campaign organisation is raising money for his re-election, in the
spirit of transparency, full disclosure and simply leading by
example. Examples are better than precepts, after all.

Related