EFCC denies deal to exclude ex-Customs chief Dikko from prosecution

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC ) has denied
being part of any deal to exclude former Comptroller-General of
Customs, Abdullahi Dikko Inde from criminal prosecution for fraud
and money laundering.

EFCC made the clarification in a notice of preliminary objection
it filed in a suit by Inde, in which the ex-Customs chief claimed
to have entered an agreement with the EFCC to refund about
N1.6billion to Federal Government’s coffers, following which he
would excluded from prosecution.

Lawyer to Inde, Mahmud Magaji (SAN), while arguing his client’s
counter-affidavit to EFCC’s objection on Thursday, contended that
it was a breach of an existing agreement and contract for EFCC to
seek to prosecute the ex-Customs chief after he has kept to his
side of the bargain and made huge refund to the government.

Magaji also faulted EFCC’s claim that the suit was wrongly
commenced by way of origination summons.

He argued that, contrary to EFCC’s contention, facts in the case
were not contentious. He added that the issue involved in the case
was simple.

Mahmud said: “Our case is simply about the interpretation of
Section 174 of the Constitution and Section 14(2) of EFCC Act, and
no more.

“Our decision to bring this action by way of an originating
summons is the appropriate position. There is no hostility in the
whole case.

“Our client was to be prosecuted for financial crimes. When he
was invited, he was confronted by information the EFCC said it has
against him by virtue of its investigation activities.

“He (Inde) was confronted with options of either to enter a
refund agreement or be prosecuted. He agreed to a refund. And made
refund in several tranches.

“At every payment, we ensured that we get evidence of payment
from the bank,” Magaji said.

He identified the evidence of payment as reflected in some court
documents marked as Exhibit 1 to 20D, and said “these are the
evidence of the refund we made”

When asked by the judge, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, aboutwhere the
said agreement was reached, Magaji said a meeting was held at the
instance of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the
Federation (AGF).

Magaji added that after the agreement was reached by parties, an
official of the EFCC, who he identified as Hajeed (who was the IPO
in the case) provided an account number into which his client
(Inde) made all the refund he made.

He added: “We have fulfilled our side of the agreement. It is
for the EFCC to fulfil its own side of the agreement, by complying
and allowing things to settle

“We are asking that under Section 174 of Constitution and
Section 14(2) of EFCC Act, the EFCC is not bound by this
agreement.

“We are asking this court to enforce this agreement on them.
They should be bound by the agreement,” Mahmud said.

In a counter-argument, EFCC’s lawyer, Chile Okoroma urged the
court to decline jurisdiction over the suit because it was wrongly
instituted.

Okoroma argued that the case was brought under the originating
summons rules when facts in the suit are disputed.

He added: “They said they made some payments by agreement and we
said no, we are not aware of any payment.

“They claimed Magu (EFCC’s Acting Chairman, Ibrahim Magu) was
part of the agreement, but we said no. We do not know anything
about the agreement they claimed to have with the AGF.

“These are triable issues. There are contentious facts and we
say, we need those disputed facts to be resolved by calling oral
evidence. That is our ground of objecting to the suit.

Before entertaining arguments from the two lawyers, Justice
Dimgba observed that while there was evidence that the AGF was
aware of the case and had been served all documents relating to it,
the AGF has not filed any process in response to the case since it
was commenced last year.

In a ruling, Justice Dimgba uphled EFCC’s objection in part.

The judge agreed that facts were contested by parties and
ordered them to file pleadings.

He said: “Having reviewed the processes filed, I am of the view
that the suit was wrongly commenced. The facts are so hostile.
Parties are to file pleadings.

The judge adjourned to March 1 this year.