BY the time you read this, a member of the House of Representatives from Cross River State, Mr Bassey Ewa must be feeling extra funky with himself, waxing lofty on account of the bill he sponsored which has enjoyed tremendous media mileage.The Bill which is seeking to amend the EFFC Act 2004, is receiving the applause of the Honourable members and is making tremendous legislative progress. Its main kernel is to make the headship of the anti-graft agency the exclusive preserve of retired justices of either the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. Ewa argued that the commission can file so many charges against a suspect and because they are not well grounded in investigation, these charges do not hold in court and argued further that it is because the agency is not receiving proper guidance from its leadership. In this view, a retired judge will perform better in the circumstance as he is knowledgeable enough to know the kind of charges that can be sustained in court under the barrage of legal scrutiny. The intentions behind this bill are noble and borne out of the desire to reduce the devastating impact of corruption. The wild reception of approval, so far, is an acknowledgement that corruption, in high and low places, must be brought to a manageable level. I share in all these sentiments, and had even long before now, wished to see far more radical amendments that will strengthen the hands of the EFCC.Truly, the EFCC needs to strengthen its investigation unit to be capable of ferreting out all the sordid details to prove that a financial crime has indeed been committed. As a head, a retired judge is likely to be better and independent of mind than a police officer, who like a zombie, has been trained and nurtured in the tradition of taking instructions from superiors. But a retired judge may not necessarily achieve the purpose which the House of Representatives is pursuing. The success of the EFCC depends on the personality of the Chairman, and this cannot be reduced to mere antecedents; it means giving the job to the right person that can do it and the law should be amended to remove the restrictions and make the headship open, using capability and integrity as yardsticks for anybody- whatever his professional or occupational background. The important thing is that the person to head the EFCC must be courageous and not corrupt. For example, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu as EFCC Chairman possessed an element of the desirable degree of boldness in spite of his many unrestrained excesses. As there are corrupt police officers, there are also countless corrupt and weak judges who kowtow, habitually, to authorities. As a rule, retired judges are certainly not the messiahs the EFCC needs.In its present efforts to see that the EFCC fulfills its mandate, the House of Representatives needs to see the fight against corruption in a more holistic context and the paramount need to create and promote the environment that is most conducive for the prosecution of the fight. Fighting corruption is like waging a war; it is not a mere handshake. Therefore, the National Assembly must enact an Act that explicitly declares the independence of the EFCC, immune or insulated from interferences from the Executive or its agents who may want to thwart its neutrality and the clearly defined objectives of impartiality. The present weighty accusations of biased investigations against the EFCC, which are believable, are that influential personalities, within and outside the government still, malevolently, manipulate the agency. In a nutshell, the agency needs protection. Further to the protection, the EFCC, under Mrs. Farida Waziri, has been fighting for a more conducive space to function. Way back in 2008 during a stormy session with the Senate Committee on Drugs and Financial Crimes, she made two demands: Firstly, that the immunity clause in the 1999 Constitution be expunged to enable the agency prosecute all those that are shielded by the clause. Secondly, she asked for the establishment of special courts to try indicted persons. During the maiden launch of Anti-Corruption Revolution of the EFCC in 2008, late President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua called for the removal of the controversial immunity clause from the constitution, even though he was a beneficiary. He argued that removing the clause from the constitution would make those enjoying it to be more careful in governing the people while at the same time making it possible for Nigerians to take them up on any issue of corruption. The immunity clause makes those enjoying careless and reckless in dealings with the treasury, knowing fully well that the day of accountability can be delayed almost for eternity, if such a day ever comes.The need to establish special courts for financial crimes is simple to understand and appreciate; it is borne out of experience and the dictates of common sense. Because in the country's judicial system, an accused is presumed innocent until found guilty, the antics of the legal practitioners and the workload of the judges, corruption cases involving the elite with the means to fight court cases particularly the ex-governors get enmeshed in the rigmarole of the courts; they drag the cases for years until even those who want to see justice, get tired. Cases involving ex-governors of the 2007 class are still dragging- five years after. Many of them have moved on in their businesses and other callings, some becoming legislators who would probably now be involved in the amendment of this same EFCC Act under which they are standing trial. Surely, this is a strand of the mockery of the fight against corruption. Nobody would argue against any effort to strengthen the fight against corruption, including tinkering with the Act setting up the agency. But is should really bother all of us, especially the lawmakers who can do something about it, that corruption cases drag on for so long yet we all pretend to be helpless. We are not really as helpless as we think. Take the case of the Electoral Act 2010 that gave urgency and time- limit to Electoral cases, can the legislators not model EFCC Act after it' Instead of grandstanding in what looks like shadow chasing amendment, will a simple amendment that brings speedy conclusion to corruption cases not serve a more eloquent deterrent message' And why not make efforts to remove the immunity clause from the constitution' There Is need to go beyond the cosmetics to face the nitty-gritty essentials in fighting corruption.
Click here to read full news..
