After maintaining what had been described as awkward silence for weeks, the presidency has finally made public its position on the rejection of Ibrahim Magu as the substantive chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) by the Senate.Vice President Yemi Osinbajo who made the position known said whether he is confirmed by the Red Chamber or not, Magu can remain EFCC chairman.LEADERSHIP recalls that the rejection of Magu by the Senate had rekindled speculations about the seeming frosty relationship between the executive and the legislature.It became more apparent that the lawmakers were indeed set for a show down with the presidency when the Senate further refused to screen nominees for resident electoral commissioners (RECs) on the ground that Magu must first be removed as acting chairman of EFCC.The upper chamber had also vowed that it will no longer consider Magu for confirmation if his name was sent to it again by the president.But speaking with a group of select online newspapers on Tuesday night, Vice President Osinbajo declared that the acting chairman of EFCC enjoys his confidence and that of the president.The President reserves the right to say this is who I want. I am fully in support of Magu as the EFCC chairman just as the president is, he stated.Osinbajo who is a professor of law and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) expressed the views of another learned silk, Chief Femi Falana (SAN) that there was no need to send Magus name to the Senate for confirmation in the first place.Citing section 171 of the 1999 constitution to back up his assertions, he argued that although the EFCC Act requires that an EFCC chairman be sent to the Senate for confirmation, part of Section 171 of the constitution, which is superior to the act, does not mandate such Senate confirmation.He said, It is up to the Senate to make their judgement and it is up to us to say what we want to do. If our candidate is rejected, we can re-present him. No law says we cant re-present him. And again, there is the other argument, whether or not we need to present him for confirmation and that is a compelling argument from Femi Falana.His (Falanas) argument is that under the constitution, section 171, and if you look at that section, it talks about the appointments that the president can make. They include appointments of ministers, ambassadors and heads of agencies such as the EFCC. In that same section 171, the constitution rightly said that certain appointments must go to the Senate such as ministerial and ambassadorial appointments.Those of heads of agencies like the EFCC do not have to go to the Senate. That is what the constitution says. But the EFCC Act, which of course as you know is inferior, says that EFCC chairman should go to the Senate for confirmation. I am sure that even a pocket book lawyer knows that when a legislation conflicts with the constitution, it is the constitution that prevails.Agreeing with Falana categorically that there was no need in the first place to have sent Magus name to the Red Chamber, the VP said, We did so and it was rejected by the senate, but I believe that it can be re-presented. I dont think there is anything wrong about the fact that Senate has rejected him. Senate has acted in its own wisdom to say no, we dont want him and we can say, this is our candidate, we like the gentleman and we want him to continue, he added.On the Department of State Security Service (DSS) report which indicted Magu, Osinbajo described it is a robust expression of our institutions of government.He said it was an indication that the Buhari administration does not interfere in the works of its security agencies.The VP continued: We should commend the president for not interfering with what the DSS said. The DSS came up with a report and the man who was accused refuted it. PHe explained and gave a reason. When that happened, the president looked at what Magu said and what the DSS wrote and he said I am satisfied with what Magu said.He then decided to retain Magu as the nominee for EFCC. I dont see any reason why that should be contested. The president has not interfered with what the DSS said. If he wanted to interfere, he would have ordered the DSS to keep quiet. He didnt do that, but he said I dont think the DSS report is meritorious enough to withdraw his nomination.EFCC Raids Adokes House In KanoMeanwhile, operatives of the EFCC yesterday raided the house of a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Bello Adoke (SAN).They, however, found nothing after ransacking the residence in Kano.Adoke and a former minister of petroleum, Dan Etete, among other defendants are currently facing trial over alleged diversion of $1.1 billion during a controversial transfer of a rich Nigerian oil block, OPL 245 to Malabu, a company linked to Etete.EFCC had approached an Abuja Federal High Court, seeking to compel Adoke to attend the ongoing trial for alleged fraud.Lost Graft Cases Temporary Setback- Legal ExpertsProminent lawyers in the country have risen in defence of the ongoing war against corruption, saying the recent loss of some of the cases by the EFCC was just a temporary setback which does not affect the anti-graft crusade in any way.They spoke against the backdrop of the ongoing debate bordering on whether or not the federal government was losing ground on the fight against corruption.EFCC had last week lost four cases against accused persons within 72hours.A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ozekhome, whose account was frozen by the EFCC got judgement in his favour when a High Court in Lagos ordered the commission to unfreeze the account on April 4, 2017.On that same day, an Abuja High Court discharged and acquitted former minister of Niger-Delta Affairs, Elder Godsday Orubebe after the charges against him were withdrawn by the federal government.The government, in withdrawing the charges, said it realised that the money for which Orubebe was being charged is still intact.A day after Ozekhome and Orubebe were given clean bill of health, it was the turn of a judge of the Federal hHgh Court, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, his wife, Olabowale and a senior advocate, Mr. Joe Agi, who were set free by Justice Jude Okeke of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.Some senior lawyers who spoke with LEADERSHIP on the implication said the fact that the anti-graft agencies lost the cases does not mean that the fight against corruption was no longer on track.A professor of law and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Awa Kalu, argued that there is no law that says every accused persons must be convicted.He said, The fact that some corruption cases were lost does not mean that the anti-corruption war is not on course. At the time the cases were filed, they were filed at different times and the facts they presented were also different. The courts delivered its judgement based on the fact presented to them. There is no law that says every accused person must be convicted.Another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Malam Yusuf Ali, shared the views of Professor Kalu.He said, The fact that some cases were lost will not affect the overall cases. Most of the time, we express surprise at the outcome of some of these cases because even before they start, the person accused of corruption had been convicted on the pages of newspaper.We must stop media trial. There is presumption of innocence in our laws. I think the judgment is a lesson for all of us not to convict accused persons on the pages of newspaper. We must learn to allow the court to decide the case one way or the other. The truth is that we must not expect that every person accused of corruption must be convicted.Another lawyer, Mr. Ismaila Alasa, also towed the line of argument of Kalu and Ali when he told LEADERSHIP that the cases lost were just a temporary setback and a wake up call on the anti-corruption agencies to do more in the area of investigation.He said, It is fallacious to think that because you take a case to court you must win. A prosecutor is not a persecutor. He is expected to present his case to the court and leave the court to do justice to the case.It is a wake up call and it also shows that we must up our ante on investigation. We must do a thorough investigation and in doing a thorough investigation, everyone must be involved by giving information because investigators are not miracle workers or magicians.In his view, a former President of the Committee for the Defence of Human Right, Olasupo Ojo, said the usual reaction when an anti-graft agency lost a case in court is that corruption is fighting back but I dont think that is what happened in these case because every case must be treated on its merit.I think these recent development suggest that the judiciary is independent and not an appendage of the executive. This should be pleasing to all lovers of constitutionalism and rule of law. The judicial process is well founded and losing a case at the trial court is not the end.You can still appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court where the initial verdict can be overturned. To me, there is no cause for worry. We should allow the system to work. That is how it happens all over the world. I am happy that the government is reviewing the situation and I know they will come up with measures to improve the capacity of the anti-graft agencies. I will advise the government to reorganise the various legal department of the anti-corruption agencies with quality and quantity.Another Lagos based lawyer, Charles Fadayomi, said he was not surprised that things were turning out the way they are because the signs have always been there that some of the cases were not properly investigated and that some of the decisions to prosecute were purely political and not aimed at advancing the fight against corruption.He noted that the EFCC is doing too much even though they dont have the manpower and training to effectively carry out the job.Fadayomi said, I think the first thing that should be done is to remove the power of both the EFCC and the ICPC to prosecute cases. They should only be allowed to investigate crime. The prosecution of corruption cases should be left to a special prosecuting team under the Attorney-Generals office.Most of the corruption cases in court are handled by a few lawyers, which to an extent, contributed to the delay being experienced in the handling of most of this cases. A situation where a single lawyer is saddled with the prosecution of over five cases in various courts at the same time does not portray the government as being serious or possess the will to ensure swift and proper prosecution.
Click here to read full news..
