Somewhat unconsciously, the average Nigerian is blood-thirsty depending on to which political or ethnic bloc is the predator or the victim. A good example is the election trials. When the verdict is sweet, the judiciary is variously acclaimed as having arrived or the last hope of the common man.
If however, the court verdict goes against their expectations, seemingly forgetting the praise hitherto (yes undeservedly) showered on the bench, merely for performing its routine duties, the same judiciary is instantly labeled as having compromised in the discharge of its functions especially with the insinuation of money changing hands. As if to confirm that allegation, some judges, are known not only to have acquired affluence far in excess of their earnings, or been dismissed with ignominy from office. But this does not detract from the untenable position of Nigerians, especially lawyers in unnecessarily rushing to acclaim the bench.

Into this notorious Nigerian factor we can only situate the hurricane sweeping through our banking sector. And so conveniently and also in self-contradiction, the aggressive war on financial crime for which they openly clamoured through American Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, is now being desperately undermined as “northern agenda.”

Flagrant crime in the Nigerian banking sector is not new but on each occasion in the past, any known, particularly widespread cases were firmly handled. What was public reaction on such occasions in the past? Where deliberate effort was made to ensure fair, humane and acceptably legal approach, it was mischievously misinterpreted as institutionalizing corruption.

The earliest banking crisis that comes to mind was in 1953 when colonial government had to liquidate two major banks owned by Southerners – Nigerian Farmers’ Bank and Pan Bank. Of the two, Pan Bank in particular was well-patronised by Nigerians mainly because of its football team – Pan Bank which within a year, won the major competitions in the league and governors cup spanking any and all opposing teams by six goals to nil either before halftime or immediately on resumption in the second half.

Those soccer competitions in those days were like today’s nations’ or World Cup duels. Government took stern action and jailed the culprit bank executives, especially to protect the interests of customers including farmers from all over Nigeria. Was that a Northern agenda?
The second occasion was when the military regime of General Ibrahim Babangida under Structural Adjustment Programme deregulated the financial sector of the economy to open opportunities for Nigerians to establish banks, insurance companies and finance houses (the latter renamed by Obasanjo as microfinance companies).

The opportunity opened up in the financial sector was criminally exploited for theft, fraud, money laundering, round-tripping in foreign exchange deals, etc. To deal with these crimes, the IBB regime initiated the Failed Banks’ Decree but when the draft came up, critics inside found the provisions obnoxious even under a military regime.

For example, under the notorious Failed Banks’ Decree, with former Chief Executive Officer of Inter-continental Bank, Erastus Akingbola now out of the country, any of his relations available – father, mother, wife, son, daughter, uncle or aunty, would have been liable for trial instead. How could anybody justify such a law? IBB then decided that the Ministry of Justice should amend the failed bank decree to make only the alleged suspect accountable for his crime. Before the amended decree could be ready, IBB left office in the midst of the June 12, crisis. He was accused of encouraging financial crimes.

General Sani Abacha came in and implemented the Failed Bank Decree in its raw and unamended form which made it possible for the bank criminals to be kept in detention either awaiting trial or pending their refund of allegedly stolen money/non-performing loans. The same Nigerians turned round to accuse General Abacha of violating human rights.

What really do Nigerians want?
Olusegun Obasanjo came in not only released these suspected bank frauds but also appointed some of them as members of the constitutional conference at Abuja to amend the national document for a projected third term.
Consequently, it is amusing seeing the position of the same Nigerians who only a while ago engaged in cheap publicity of supporting American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s implied criticism of both President Umaru Yar’Adua and the EFCC (under Farida Waziri for allegedly not vigorously (whatever that means) pursuing anti-corruption war as in the past. Now that all of them – Umaru Yar’Adua, Central Bank’s Lamido Sanusi and EFCC’s Farida Waziri – are biting the way expected, the same Nigerians zealots are blackmailing it as a Northern agenda. What is more, noisy Nigerians called for vigorous action on financial crimes.

In a way, both critics and supporters could claim to be right but nobody should complain on the consequences of their position. On prospects in corruption, Umaru Yar’Adua must take the responsibility. On assuming office in 2007, he appeared innocent but the same Yar’Adua has rubbished himself. Is it not a dent on prospects of democracy in Nigeria for Yar’Adua to be inducing and embracing carpet-crossing of elected public office holders (especially his sons-in-law) from their party to the PDP?

Second, in matters of corruption, a state governor was to be impeached for abuse of office and alleged graft. The governor was duly served the impeachment notice and the panel to investigate him was set up. The guilt or innocence of the state governor to be impeached was not the issue. At that stage of complete nation-wide knowledge of the constitutional and legislative development, the process should have been allowed to go through. Instead, Umaru Yar’Adua summoned the leadership of the state House of Assembly concerned to Aso Rock and stopped the entire proceedings, thereby endorsing alleged theft of public funds.

In another matter of suspected corruption, the EFCC was investigating some ex-governors for alleged theft of public funds during their tenure. The investigation was virtually at the final stage for the ex-governors to be arraigned in court. Instead, Umaru Yar’Adua moved in to appoint the ex-governors as ministers.
Although he has never said so, yet Umaru Yar’Adua’s crude intervention in re-run governorship races all over the place is nothing less than a cleverly veiled sustenance of do or die affair and with his party men’s bragging of capturing current opposition – controlled states, all aimed at coercing Nigeria into one-party state in 2011.

So far, Hilary Clinton seems right. But she was wrong to have specified the EFCC as being soft or not vigorous enough in the war on corruption. In Hilary Clinton’s country, the United States, strict rule of law operates. No matter the crime, corruption, murder, manslaughter, what have you, the verdict or even the trial process is determined by the law courts. America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation is the equivalent of Nigerias EFCC and the agency (FBI) abides by whatever is the court verdict. That exactly is what Nigeria’s EFCC must also do.
Hilary Clinton would not even be correct to blame Nigeria’s judiciary (for its pronouncements which frustrate the EFCC), for the simple reason that our judiciary like the American judiciary only interprets and does not write laws.

Furthermore, we severely criticized ex-EFCC chairman Nuhu Ribadu for being irritated by court verdicts and for trying and convicting suspects in the media. Just in case that is Hilary Clinton’s idea of vigorous war against corruption. What is more, there had been high profile criminal cases in the United States determined by verdicts of law courts which did not necessarily go down with public passion. Did Hilary Clinton ever blame the FBI for such handicap?
That is why EFCC chairman Farida Waziri must be prepared for tougher times ahead. She must abide by whatever the courts decide. Where the EFCC disagrees with a court’s verdict, the remedy is appeal to a higher court up to the Supreme Court just like in the United States where to ensure justice in criminal cases of any type, trials stretch up to 10 years in some cases.

It is the training of lawyers all over the world, particularly in United States to explore loopholes in the law to get their clients acquitted. Nigeria cannot therefore be an exception. If an accused on trial of stealing billions of naira can get away with a fine of paltry five million naira, that is the law, not as written by Nigerian judiciary or the EFCC. Till the National Assembly changes such law(s), EFCC cannot be blamed.

Misbriefed by American Embassy in Nigeria, Hilary Clinton’s controversial view on war against corruption must inevitably form a major part of the argument on the crisis in Nigerian banking sector, especially in view of the posture of Nigerian lawyers and their Bar Association. Suddenly, after blistering the government and the EFCC for allegedly abandoning war against corruption, Nigerian lawyers and the Bar Association have suddenly become advocates for suspected thieves in the banking sector.

Yes, it is their professional calling. Did the same lawyers and the NBA realize that when they were hitting the government and EFCC for allegedly not vigorously pursuing war on corruption, they (lawyers, some journalists and the NBA) were gearing them (Umaru Yar’Adua, EFCC and regulator like the Central Bank) for some action to assure and exercise some power/authority they have or do not have? Now, those concerned (Central Bank, EFCC) have responded. Perhaps they are wrong and may be they are right.

In a change of face, we are now being given various reasons in defence of the suspected financial criminals in the banking sector. Central Bank governor Sanusi (or whoever) has no power to sack a bank management. The alleged debtors have denied either the amount they are accused of owing or owing a kobo at all.
If a Central Bank governor has no power to sack a bank management, the more reason we should allow the law courts to interprete the provisions. Whether one billion, ten million or one hundred billion naira, a loan or theft is a loaf, which must be recovered, or a theft for which the culprits must go to jail.
Central Bank allegations are clear as narrated in law courts. Did the accused bankers report the huge non-performing loans in their annual reports to the Central Bank? Indeed, the bankers present such liabilities as assets in their annual reports to the Central Bank?
Which section of our various financial regulations empowers the accused bankers for their alleged criminal conduct? Did the bankers grant themselves individual loan? Did the bankers exceed the limit of approval of loan to themselves or their companies or clients?

What is Northern agenda in any provable breach of financial regulations?
By the way, critics are being unfair to ex-Central Bank governor, Charles Soludo for allegedly failing to act.
Here, central Bank Governor Lamido Sanusi must be commended for his self-restraint from blaming his predecessor.
Those blaming Charles Soludo are in fact vindicating Lamido Sanusi, who inherited the huge financial problem. After all, this stress in the banking sector did not just surface under Lamido Sanusi. Neither would Lamido Sanusi be the first governor to sack a bank management.

Again, what do Nigerians want? Lamido Sanusi has employed the big stick. He is being accused of pursuing a northern agenda.
On the other hand, Charles Soludo took his time and he is now being accused of not acting. Where were Charles Soludo’s critics when he shuffled the management of WEMA Bank? Or was Soludo’s action at that time, a northern agenda?
You are correct. Soludo was accused of Igbo agenda when he made his strike at another bank where he removed two directors who circumstantially were Yoruba but faulted for inability to repay billions of naira to themselves.

What did Soludo get for exercising his power to sanitize misdemeanour in the banking sector? Sponsored advertisements in well-chosen newspapers accusing him of trying to enhance Igbo hold on the bank concerned. Anybody could have been misled until t he Central Bank disclosed the reasons for sacking the directors.
At least, one of those two occasions, Charles Soludo as Central Bank governor exercised the same power as Lamido Sanusi lately exercised as governor of Central Bank to dismiss offending bank directors.

Yes, Central Bank governor Lamido has been faulted rather conveniently for saying he would step on toes or deal with some people. Such determination publicly expressed is no more than directed at whoever might be the culprits among the bank managers who might all along have escaped sanctions or carrying on as if they are too clever. In any case, Lamido Sanusi would not be the first public figure to so boldly speak.
On May 29, 1999,ex-Presdient Olusegun Obasanjo similarly said he would step on toes and that there would be no sacred cow. Was that threat also northern agenda?

Every contributor to this controversy should get himself copies of Central Bank Act and Financial Regulations act 2006 incorporating the EFCC Act, ICPC Act, Anti-Money Laundering Act, etc. You don’t have to be a lawyer to educate yourself on these matters.
Meanwhile, it’s boom time for lawyers as at the peak of election petitions trials.