About three years ago, an undeclared war to assert rule of law broke out without the major combatants even realising that they were making history in which time was to be the sole judge.
On the left corner was chairman of Glo mobile company, Mike Adenuga and on the opposite corner of Mr Nuhu Ribadu, then unlimited power wielding and self uncontrollable chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC).
The first time Nigerians knew of this contest was when news spread that on the instructions of Ribadu, heavily armed EFCC operatives violently broke into the official and residential buildings of the Glo boss Adenuga. And for what reason(s)? According to the EFCC, Adenuga failed to honour summons (okay, invitations) issued to him to appear at the agency’s headquarters in Abuja.

The force employed by the EFCC operatives left so much damage frightening enough to compel Adenuga to take the right decision of withdrawing from Nigeria perhaps with hints from NADECO notebook.
Whatever outraged expressed by the few courageous Nigerians was discussed by Ribadu. What! with the open support for Ribadu by Gani Fawehinmi on Channels television Lagos that the EFCC was within the law to employ force to effect anybody’s arrest. Including (or now excluding) a former chairman of EFCC?
Gani Fawehinmi, as a lawyer should know whatever compliment or non-compliment that he might pay to a civil rights activist.
Three years could render this contest (between Adenuga and Ribadu) weary that the seeming long period has rolled by so quickly to dramatically change the course while the cause remains. While erstwhile underdog Adenuga has stabilised to face his business, the very same Ribadu, the aggressor of yester-years, is now in court challenging the same power he wielded against others.

Ribadu’s case this time is that the law court should stop the EFCC from (a) employing force on him and (b) arresting him. This was the same legal fight from which we (while criticising Ribadu’s use of force against Adenuga) were sure Ribadu as a citizen, would benefit anytime in future. But the former EFCC man could never have thought the use of force, if lawful at all, would soonest apply to him.
Was Ribadu simply performing duties? Seemingly except that later details exposed the mischief behind it all. In a very detailed account of events leading to the violent invasion of Adenuga’s premises, Steve Nwosu (then editor of Saturday Sun and now editor of the Daily Sun) narrated how ex-president Obasanjo for unknown reasons, put pressure on Adenuga to implicate ex-president Ibrahim Babangida as owning substantial shares in Adenuga’s group of companies but especially Globacom.

And because Adenuga would not do that, Obasanjo decided to teach him a lesson and directed Ribadu to employ all means, including force, to arrest the Glo boss. Rather immaturely, Ribadu fell for that hatchet job without realising that such dangerous precedent (use of force) could apply to anybody including himself anytime in the future.
By the way, in the latest developments and without any prejudice to the EFCC’s duty to make sure Ribadu turns up for whatever he was invited, we must not cover up the indefinite character of Nigerian judiciary. Ribadu, in a way, is a very smart man. Very critical of the rulings of some high court judges in some states in the federation, Ribadu has employed finesse to discredit the judiciary. This is better than going to the media to destroy the integrity of judges for their rulings with which he did not agree.

This time, Ribadu used the judiciary to discredit the judiciary. Let us assume that EFCC summoned Ribadu with a view to arresting him even for some criminal offence(s). He headed to the court for an order to stop the EFCC from arresting him but the court turned him down.
So far, nothing is known about details of possible charges against Ribadu. But there are many ex-state governors against whom serious criminal charges of financial crimes have been detailed and it was only fair that those ex-governors (like ordinary Nigerias, may be including Ribadu) should experience or indeed be subject and subjected to equality before the law.

Instead, what happened? The law courts perpetually restrained the EFCC from arresting or prosecuting the ex-state governors depending on what part of the country is theirs and where they obtained their injunctions. If in one vein, the judiciary could stop the EFCC from arresting ex-state governors, why should the same judiciary not stop the EFCC or the police from arresting Ribadu?

The double standard of the judiciary has therefore created image problem for the EFCC. In one vein, for obeying court order(s) restraining it from arresting ex-state governors, the EFCC under Farida Waziri is unfairly criticised for being ineffective or protecting the ex-state governors.
On the other hand, for taking the unsolicited gift of another court order giving it the right to imminently arrest Ribadu, the same EFCC (under Waziri) is unfairly criticised for allegedly harassing the ex-EFCC chairman.

In both cases, she cannot disregard court order no matter how she may disagree with such court ruling.
This is not a moment for gloating over Ribadu’s problems. In fact, problems have a way of accumulating only to blow over eventually almost collapsing the entire world of a citizen. The situation is not helped when such a citizen is the architect of some of the problems.
It is agreed that Ribadu simply exercised his legal and constitutional right in going to law courts to seek protection against the EFCC. Unfortunately and against his calculation, the court simply asserted the legal, constitutional and statutory right of the EFCC to arrest anybody, including Ribadu.
Also before going to court, why did Ribadu forget to remind himself of the force he (as chairman of EFCC) employed in re-arresting his former Inspector-General, Balogun in the premises of a law court and in breaking into the privacy of Adenuga?

For the avoidance of doubt, the violent humiliation of ex-IG Balogun was to try him for refusing to co-operate with the EFCC and not for any corrupt charges as always ignorantly mentioned in the media. If therefore Ribadu could employ force to arrest his boss Balogun, he (Ribadu) set the precedent for the EFCC to arrest him even by employing force.
Yet, the EFCC under Waziri must not fall for that temptation. A major task for the poor lady is to forge a new image of finesse and civility for the EFCC. Ribadu, as EFCC chairman performed his duties in a way unacceptable to civilised Nigerians (admittedly, quite a minority). The new EFCC must therefore do it the way it should be done. That is, to show Ribadu the proper way to detect and punish financial crimes strictly in accordance with the law.
Whatever his frailties, Ribadu is an ex-chairman of the EFCC and must therefore be accorded all courtesy and dignity attaching to that office. We criticised him (Ribadu) when he failed to extend courtesy and dignity to his ex-boss Balogun. That is why the new EFCC must be encouraged not t fall to Ribadu’s low level of conduct. One way of doing this is to make it clear to Nigerians that every effort was made to handle him “in-house.” If he complied, it would be seen by Nigerians and if he failed to seize the opportunity, heck!

For the EFCC, no sacrifice should be too great to make to re-brand itself, as long as such sacrifice is within reason and the law. There is also the danger offering him courtesy and dignity. It may induce in Ribadu some kind of arrogance that he is untouchable and therefore, be goaded along that line by the mob. This should be no more than a long rope.
It can only be hoped that we will not get to that stage. The hope here, specifically, is that Ribadu, as a serving senior police officer, will co-operate with the EFCC, especially in the light of the court ruling against him, which asserted EFCC’s authority to arrest him, if necessary. Such can be no more necessary than when he (Ribadu) thought it necessary to arrest anybody he arrested or sought to arrest.
If, however, Ribadu still ignores the EFCC summons, the next step should still be not to employ force against him. Instead, his problems) should be compounded by carving for him the image of an outlaw. The EFCC should approach the court for an order declaring him (Ribadu) wanted. After, the court, (which asserted EFCC’s right to arrest him) has a history of the case.

At that stage, even the police and other para-military personnel will be involved in the effort to subordinate Ribadu to the rule of law.
Ironically, Ribadu’s problem is not as terrifying as he fears. First, the EFCC has made it known that the files, details and documentary evidence against ex-public office holding financial criminals were nowhere to be found. Despite this information, Ribadu’s supporters continue to accuse the EFCC of failing to prosecute corrupt ex-public office holders, especially as he (Ribadu) went on record that at least 31 hitherto serving state governors had cases of alleged corruption to face.
Just at the same time, his boss, ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo countered that only four of the accused had cases to answer. What therefore was the evidence he collected to make the charge against the ex-state governors? Where is that evidence? To whom was such evidence handed when he (Ribadu) was leaving the EFCC.

Ordinarily, Ribadu would have handed everything to somebody at EFCC. If therefore today, such vital documents are nowhere to be found, what stops the EFCC from confronting Ribadu with the man in whose custody the documents are supposed to be? Nigerians are entitled to know the truth whether the EFCC is covering up powerful criminals or the agency has been sabotaged by removing vital documents to portray the leadership as incompetent.
There is another possible area of fear for Ribadu that he maybe interrogated on the source(s) of his assets. Ribadu should have no fear or the more he exhibits this unnecessary fear, the more he subjects himself to malicious insinuations. His critics once referred to his forty-five million naira house in Abuja. Ribadu explained himself that he bought the house with a loan guaranteed by his father-in-law.

Skeptics could continue to have their doubts. But nobody can fault the legality of Ribadu’s defence on the source of his funds for his house at Abuja. In short, there is no law making it criminal for any public officer in Nigeria to own a house purchased from a loan guaranteed by his father-in-law.
The only K-leg here is that in his days at EFCC, the same Ribadu would have labeled such a father-in-law of another suspect as fellow corrupt Nigerian covering up his son-in-law. These were some of the stupid past utterances of Ribadu threatening him today. But the fact remains that it is lawful for any public officer to be guaranteed a house loan by his father-in-law. No crime can be established on that.
Until the EFCC confronts him, anything on reasons for Ribadu’s summons by the EFCC is mere speculation.
If however, the EFCC is to interrogate him on the source(s) of his assets, the agency is within its statutory functions. Ribadu, as chairman of EFCC, investigated the assets of his boss and servicing Inspector-General of Police, Balogun and many state governors.