So soon after last time, another Federal Minister has just been involved in fresh showdown with another government agency. This time, the argument is not who has the final say between the two or the complete autonomy of one from the other.
Instead, the argument was over the claim of one side to justify its controversial decision with the alleged earlier action of the other. With national attention on the burial rites of Gani Fawehinmi, only the emotive issue of the alleged clearance of ex-public office holders on accusations of corruption could have diverted attention.

Federal Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Michael Aondoakaa, once again came into limelight with the news that he (Nigeria in fact) had refused to co-operate with Britain in matters of investigating and prosecuting Nigerian ex-public holders on charges of corruption, fraud and money laundering. He sweetened the news with the emotive issue of national sovereignty, at least by implication.

If only he stopped there. Instead, Aondoakaa based his rejection of the British request on what he described as a long-standing clearance of the suspects from any criminal liability. For a moment, leftists and human rights activists were angrily distracted from the mourning of Gani Fawehinmi’s death in terms of media coverage.
If the implied national sovereignty issue of rebuffing a foreign country’s law enforcement agency’s attempt to enlist Nigerian’s assistance for criminal prosecution of our citizens, corruption charges are what even the supposedly enlightened ones do not countenance despite legitimate rights of the suspects under the rule of law. It is usually a festival for the mob.

And when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was alleged to have been the source of the virtual discharge and acquittal of the suspects, it couldn’t have been a more disturbing time for the agency. Here was the EFCC being criticized both at home and by foreigners for allegedly abandoning or at best slowing down the war on corruption. The same agency, EFCC, was still engaged in a survival battle against powerful vested interests challenging the agency’s constitutional and legal right to combat the widespread misconduct in our banking industry. Only to be reported to have cleared ex-public office holders from corruption allegations.

That seemed to be a clear case of double standard which was not in any way amusing or acceptable to observers. Accordingly, it was quite understandable that the EFCC instantly returned with seeming jabs of ordinary denial of ever previously clearing any of the involved ex-public office holders (of corruption charges).
It emerged that the EFCC was underestimating the battle on hand. Documents legitimately found their way into the press except that the contents of such documents obviously leaked by the Federal Ministry of Justice, against all expectations completely discredited the case of the Ministry of Justice all along.
Or, to be fair, at that stage, which side was correct? EFCC at long last went for the kill by specifying that the purported letter of clearance from involvement in the alleged financial crimes was to defreeze the bank account of a company suspected in the investigations to have been the conduit pipe for the crime of money laundering.

If only the company involved was cleared in the EFCC’s letter, how did it come that Attorney-General Michael Aondoakaa transfered such clearance to individuals and his ministry still went on to leak the letter to the press? Clearly, the Minister was a victim of his own bellicosity. Since the EFCC letter of clearance adduced to only “your client,” such reference applied to only an entity rather than entities or group of individuals.

Yes, the EFCC was correct that the letter under reference was in the matter of only a company. The EFCC also had a point as was clear in the media leaks that its letter was a reply to Adepetun, Caxton Martins, Agbor and Segun, solicitors and advocates on behalf of a firm, African Development Fund Incorporation. This legal firm never inquired from the EFCC on any issue concerning ex-public office holders under investigation.
The EFCC must also learn its own lesson not to indulge in any ambiguity when communicating on legal matters.
If we say the EFCC in its response to the legal firm innocently limited itself to the lawyers’ “client” (your client,) why not go a step further by specifying “your client, African Development Fund Incorporation” etc. etc.?

In such a situation, the Federal Justice Minister could not have generated this avoidable controversy.
On his part, Michael Aondoakaa, as Attorney-General had to face a humiliating climb down from his erstwhile uninhibited assertion that the former public office holders had been cleared of corruption charges. Probably, he did not know that investigations and indeed criminal trials were still in progress in law courts. Still, that would not excuse the Minister’s involvement in this controversy.
One day’s proper inquiries from relevant law enforcement agencies would have acquainted him with the latest and exact position to enable Nigeria respond appropriately to the British Metropolitan Police.

Now Attorney-General Michael Aondoakaa has impliedly blamed the media for quoting him out of context. He could still have admitted, as he did, (that he now realized that EFCC’s letter of clearance affected only the firm suspected of money laundering) without blaming the press. Here it is hoped he won’t deny blaming the press for his blunder. National media widely reported in print, audio and visuals.
This was the problem during the June 12 election crisis when the row broke on who said what, where or why and if. At that stage, NTA had to be requested to re-transmit the entire tape of the interview concerned. So far, in this EFCC controversy, especially after the Attorney-General claimed to have been misquoted, the media should similarly reproduce the entire tape of Aondoakaa’s briefing. If he was misquoted, due apology should be extended to him but if he was accurately reported, ordinary Nigerians would know.

In any case, why did it take him over a week to realize he was misquoted?
There is also this lesson for the media. Reporters must be instructed and in fact trained to ask arising questions instead of just collecting speeches or statements. So doing, public figures will be able to clarify what they mean or if they maintain their stand on controversial issues. Thereby, nobody would be able to claim to have been misquoted. The media must also be more curious on controversial issues. In this particular case, the minister or the EFCC chairman could be contacted before the row became public.

There is also the issue of a country’s sovereignty in matters of co-operating with other countries especially long established democracies either in assisting with necessary documents or in getting nationals tried in foreign countries.
Once a country is a signatory to international treaties on war against crimes especially corruption and drugs, that country is obliged to co-operate if and when the need arises. It is not neo-colonialism as the Attorney-General tried to imply. Does Nigeria have such a treaty with Britain?
If we do not have, that is okay except that we should be prepared for the consequent classification as a nation of criminals. If on the other hand, we have such a treaty with Britain or any other country, Nigeria owes that obligation to co-operate on the British request for the documents to facilitate investigations and even prosecution.

The only right Nigeria can insist on is to make such agreement reciprocal or worse still, refuse to ratify such treaties. There had been cases in the past when Nigerian government handed over its nationals to the United States to be tried for criminal offences.
Has the need ever risen for Nigerian government to request suspects from Britain or United States to be tried in Nigeria? Such suspects could be Americans, Britons or indeed Nigerian refugees. From criminal law, if there had been, what were the responses from these supposedly friendly countries?
Must Nigeria necessarily rush to sign treaties on international crimes without the foresight to occasionally refuse to co-operate? Nigeria must be bold. The United States does not sign international treaties like the one on International Criminal Court on war crimes in Yugoslavia.

The reason for United States refusal is purely national interests even if selfish. With American military engagements in hot-spots all over the world, no American soldier/civilian can ever be arraigned for war crimes at the ICC in Yugoslavia. Heavens haven’t fallen.
On the other hand, a Nigerian soldier can be faulted for war crimes in Sudan and duly arraigned before the ICC. See the difference? Nigeria is ever desperate to be in the good books of foreign powers. America is not. That is the country.