IN a move purportedly aimed at enhancing the operational efficiency of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the House of Representatives is currently entertaining a bill to amend the law setting up the anti-graft agency. If eventually passed into law, the bill, which has already passed a second reading, will ensure that only retired judges of either the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court are appointed to head the agency. One of the most disturbing, and ultimately damning, aspects of the national parliaments handling of the menace of corruption is the consistent way it has attempted to weaken the anti-graft agencies rather than strengthening them. According to the sponsor of the bill, Bassey Ewa, the EFCC Act 2004 has to be amended to correct deficiencies inherent in the modus operandi of the agency. Ewa, claimed that only retired judges had the temperament and competence to pull off successful prosecutions.Curiously, the House of Representatives bill is coming at a time when a similar attempt seeking to amend anti-corruption laws to allow for a merger of the more vibrant EFCC with its largely lethargic counterpart, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, failed at the second reading stage at the Senate. The sponsor of the bill, Ita Enang, was forced to withdraw it when his colleagues refused to be swayed by his arguments.Although the moves from the two chambers of the National Assembly may appear to portray the genuine intentions of the lawmakers to strengthen the anti-graft agencies and position them for more efficient service delivery, the legislators need to be careful not to be seen as masking other intentions which may actually weaken the already flagging anti-corruption war. For instance, the plan to have a retired judge as the head of the EFCC may sound appealing, but it does not necessarily guarantee better performance for certain obvious reasons. Firstly, there is a limit to the kind of success to be expected from a retired judge who, at over 70, should be allowed to enjoy a well-deserved rest in retirement, after many years of service to the nation. Given the pervasive nature of corruption in the country, only vibrant, committed and patriotic young persons should be saddled with the duty of fighting corruption. A review of the performance of the EFCC and ICPC shows the wisdom in appointing younger people as the arrowheads of the anti-corruption war. Until the EFCC, headed by relatively younger people, came into existence in 2004, very little was achieved in the governments bid to fight corruption, although the ICPC had been in existence since 2000. Apart from such high profile cases involving former governors of Bayelsa State, Diepriye Alamiyeseigha, and Plateau State, Joshua Dariye; and a former Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, hundreds of others have been arrested and prosecuted by the EFCC. Figures emanating from the office of the EFCC boss, Farida Waziri, show that the agency has secured 600 convictions and recovered assets worth $12 billion, which, by far, eclipse the N13 billion reportedly recovered by the ICPC which has been headed by retired jurists.Secondly, if the job of heading an anti-graft organisation should be taken on merit by upright and incorruptible people, many qualified Nigerians are automatically shut out the moment a law restricts such an appointment only to retired judges. In any case, recent experience in the judiciary has heightened the perception that even judges are not immune to corruption. This perception was recently reinforced by the Nigerian Bar Association President, Joseph Daodu, who alleged that justice could be bought and sold in the country. "There is a growing perception backed by empirical evidence that justice is purchasable and it has been purchased on several occasions in Nigeria," he said. If justice can be bought by litigants, it also follows that corrupt people, with their ill-gotten wealth, can also buy freedom from EFCC run by retired judges.Besides, given that the job of the EFCC centres primarily on investigation, the police are well suited to perform the job. This has even been acknowledged by the sponsor of the bill who is proposing an Assistant Inspector-General of Police to handle the investigation unit of the agency. Even from the point of view of the law, the current EFCC boss and her predecessor, Nuhu Ribadu, are both lawyers, who are thus not strangers to the demands of investigating and prosecuting suspects.The action of the House of Representatives members has a tendency to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, against the backdrop of recent calls for the resignation of the EFCC boss and the clamour by some top government officials for the merger of the two anti-graft agencies. Recently, it was rumoured that Waziri was never promoted AIG before her retirement from the Police, on which basis calls were made for her resignation. It follows the pattern of events that resulted in the exit of Ribadu, whose eventual removal was preceded by partisan concerns about his promotion to the rank of an AIG. The national interest in this matter is clear. Rather than become enmeshed in unnecessary controversy about who should head the anti-graft agency, what the lawmakers should be working on, if they are genuinely interested in furthering the cause of anti-corruption, is how to save the EFCC from undue influence by the Presidency. What EFCC needs is autonomy, not a federal attorney-general that is overbearing and negatively intrusive. If the EFCC is allowed to perform its duties without waiting on the body language of the Presidency, the agency will certainly perform to the satisfaction of Nigerians.
Click here to read full news..
