Nigeria Content Online

There appears to be
a different standard of judging a crime in the playbook of Nigeria’s
leading anti-graft agencies when it affects people presumed to be
“executive suspects”, an ongoing NEXT investigation of high profile
cases involving top brass Nigerians has revealed.

Using the case of
the Speaker of the House of Representative, Dimeji Bankole, as an
illustration, NEXT investigations found that the current institutional
cultures in both the Economic and Financial Crimes commission (EFCC),
and the Independent Corruption Practices Commission (ICPC) often lead
to very opposite resolutions regarding the same case, even when they
are armed with the same complaints and the same evidence.

Soji Apampa, a
leading civil society voice in the country and chief executive of the
Centre for Business Integrity in Abuja, located the problem in the
framework of what he characterised as the power struggles among the
statutory agencies charged with leading the anti-corruption battle in
the country.

“Clearly, what we
are seeing now is a difficulty, on the path of those responsible, to
fight corruption” he said, adding that “we are witnessing power
struggles, which have all along been in our society. But they are just
beginning to manifest.”

Last week a
business survey on crime and corruption in Nigeria discovered that
people have “little trust in anti-corruption authorities” partly based
on the belief that reports on crimes would not necessarily lead to
closure or effective investigations and or prosecutions.

The report was
jointly sponsored by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the European Union
(EU), and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

The 2.3 billion naira car scandal

A clear illustration of the problem was the 2007 car scandal in the lower chamber of the nation’s parliament.

In December 2007 at
an executive session presided over by Mr. Bankole, the lower parliament
approved the purchase of 380 units of Peugeot 407 cars; 5 for each of
the 76 committees of the house.

This transaction
was followed by wide allegations that some members made financial gains
from the deal because Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN), which supplied
the vehicles, allegedly supplied inferior vehicles at significantly
less cost than the approved ones. The House was also alleged to have
paid Value Added Tax twice to the Federal Inland Revenue Service.

The ethics and
privileges committee of the House which investigated the allegations
cleared the leadership of any wrongdoing and instead questioned the
source of the documents presented by Festus Keyamo, a Lagos lawyer who
first raised the allegations.

Recommendation 3 of
the committee was that “the clerk of the National Assembly should
immediately carry out an internal investigation to unravel why certain
classified and important documents such as the letter of offer and
acceptance in the National Assembly were procured by unauthorised
persons …”

Consequently, the
EFCC commenced investigations on the scandal. However, in a recent but
dramatic entry into the controversy, the EFCC claimed that it has
concluded its investigations, sent a copy to its legal unit for
prosecutorial recommendation, and another copy to the Presidency for
its attention.

Farida Waziri, the
chairperson of the EFCC triumphantly told journalists at the EFCC
headquarters on June 7 that the commission’s report was ready and had
been sent to the “commission’s legal unit for advice.”

She also said the
commission had sent a report of its investigations to the Presidency
and was sure of the Presidency’s cooperation.

Passing blame

Hardly had Mrs.
Waziri uttered her comments than it was refused. The Presidency,
through its spokesman, Ima Niboro, denied ever receiving any report
from the EFCC, and advised the agency to do its job according to its
rules because, as he said, the Presidency was not in the business of
vetting law enforcement reports.

The Waziri-Niboro
tick-tack gave outsiders enough gunpowder to fire shots of doubt at the
anti-corruption claims of the administration; to suggest executive
tampering with cases.

Embarrassed at the
gaff, Mrs. Waziri’s herself quickly struggled to smoothen the rough
edges of her claims by. “I don’t think the Presidency will want to use
it (the investigation report) to blackmail,” she said. “You know the
Presidency believes in the rule of law.”

However succour
came by way of a civil society intervention when Mr. Apampa claimed
that “it is not that EFCC did not tell the truth”, adding that “I am
inclined to believe them” but shifting the blame to the doorsteps of
the Presidency. “Perhaps the people in the presidency are not quite
comfortable going ahead with it because each side is holding the other
to ransom,” he said.

However, Aduche
Wokochi, head of business law department at the Rivers State University
of Science and Technology, takes a contrary view. “The function of EFCC
is not supposed to be approved by the President before they institute
prosecution,” he said. “They are established by the law and the law
that set them up does not require them getting Presidential approval
before they prosecute anybody, he said challenging the agency to show
good conduct by re-submiting the document if it feels serious about
making it public that way. They should re-submit. Perhaps the period of
invisible presidency has led to the loss of the report. They must have
their own copies of every report. They should resubmit if they feel it
is necessary.”

Musa Ebho-imaha,
the special assistant on media matters to Mr. Bankole, appeared
confident that Mr. Bankole had no case to answer at the weekend,
telling NEXT that “He (Bankole) has never been invited (for
questioning), because there is no truth in the matter. The EFCC knows
there is no truth in the matter.”

Femi Babafemi, the
EFCC spokesman, declined to respond to questions or reply to text
messages on the status of the car probe scandal.

However, the ICPC
insists on pursuing investigating into the matter. A source involved in
the ICPC investigation said PAN, which has always denied any wrong
doing, and which was initially trying to protect the House leadership
by keeping some necessary documents from ICPC investigators, “are now
cooperating; some House members definitely have case to answer.”

The car scandal is
not the first investigation over which the anti-corruption agencies are
refusing to prosecute or even invite Mr. Bankole, who has no immunity.

The Rural Electrification Scandal

Upon conclusion of
its investigations into the 5.2 Billion Naira rural electrification
scandal, the EFCC charged Ndidi Elumelu, the chairman of the House
committee on power, and his Senate counterpart Nicholas Ugbane, as well
as some other legislators and staff of the rural electrification
agency, to court on a 156 count charge.

Though Mr. Bankole
was widely believed to have been involved in the scandal, his
involvement was neither investigated, nor was he invited by the
commission for questioning.

“There was no point
inviting the speaker, he has no case to answer. If he is not in court,
it means he has no case to answer,” stated Mr. Ebho-imaha.

Again the story is
different at the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related
offences Commission (ICPC) which is also carrying out an investigation
over the scandal.

“We have almost
concluded investigations, but so far everything shows that the Speaker
also has a case to answer. There is no way he would be free, though we
will have to invite him to state his case,” the source, who is involved
in the investigation, stated.

Companies owned by relatives of Mr. Bankole, investigators believe, benefitted from the scandal.

When contacted,
Folu Olamiti, the ICPC spokesman simply said “our investigations are
still ongoing, but we are almost through with them.” He declined to
comment on Mr. Bankole’s involvement.

Buoyed by what they
describe as a “window available for complaints, and possible
prosecution resulting from investigations at the ICPC,” legislators who
branded themselves as progressives, and who are seeking the prosecution
of Mr. Bankole and other members of the House leadership over the
scandal are now relying on the ICPC to conduct what they say will be “a
thorough investigation on the latest 9 Billion naira scandal.”

The 9 billion naira allocation scandal

The 9 billion naira
allocation scandal in the House of Representatives indicates that,
whereas the EFCC makes a strenuous public show of its investigation
into the matter, it has nevertheless scrupulously pursued an
enforcement strategy that will avoid prosecuting Mr. Bankole.

In this case, some
legislators are accusing Mr. Bankole and the House leadership of
mismanaging 9 billion of the 11 billion naira meant as allocation to
the legislative house in 2009. The legislators petitioned the two anti
corruption agencies when a one-week ultimatum they gave the speaker to
resign expired.

The EFCC, which
claims it has set up a seven-man committee, stormed the National
Assembly offices of the legislators recently for more incriminating
documents, and interrogated some persons involved in the scandal.

However,
knowledgeable sources at the agency told NEXT at the weekend that, “the
investigation may well go the way of previous ones involving Mr.
Bankole had gone, which is either to exonerate the Speaker or that the
report simply not see the light of the day.”

Till date the EFCC
has not questioned Mr. Bankole. On Tuesday, July 3, in his office at
the commissions headquarters, Emmanuel Ayoola, the chairman of the
Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences commission
(ICPC) met with Dino Melaiye and Independence Ogunewe, leaders of the
“Progressive Minded Legislators”.

Contrary to media
reports, it was the legislators who called for the meeting. Mr. Melaiye
and Mr. Ogunewe, according to our source, brought more documents to
buttress their allegations against the speaker.

The ICPC boss,
according to investigators, personally led the interrogation of the
legislators because, “in any case, before they came, we had started our
investigations; though they gave us more documents to show the
speaker’s culpability,” the source stated.

Same old tale

The allegations,
which include price inflation purchase of unnecessary materials by the
house at inflated prices, and purchase of exorbitant cars for the
speaker and the deputy, have all been refuted by the Speaker and the
House leadership who accuse the anti-Bankole legislators of parading
fake documents.

“If they say the
documents we are presenting – even to the EFCC and ICPC are fake – let
them present the original ones to Nigerians,” stated Mr. Melaiye on a
radio programme.

“There was
definitely inflation of prices in their purchases – how can you
purchase a television set which even up till now is less than two
hundred thousand naira, for 525,000 naira?” stated an anti-corruption
source. “We however have to focus on who among them (the House
leadership) benefitted from the inflated prices.”

Mr. Wokochi is however worried at the possibility of multiple
investigations. “If one agency has concluded investigations, it should
commence prosecution, the other agency should discontinue because a
person cannot be prosecuted twice on the same matter,” he said.