Abdulkadir Manu
Following in his trail-blazing anti-open grazing law which was first condemned before it became the toast of those who turned round full circle to embrace it, Gov. Ayo Fayose of Ekiti state has embarked on another controversial project of setting up a State anti-corruption outfit in his state as a counter-point to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) set up by the Federal Government.
A bill to that effect has been presented to the Ekiti State House of Assembly for onward promulgation into law and the assembly is feverishly working on the bill. Should the bill see the light of day and should Fayose append his signature to it, Ekiti will become the first state in the country to enact such a law since the present democratic experiment of a Fourth Republic began in 1999.
The state is already on record as the first to challenge the right and legality of the EFCC to probe into state’s finances. In the reasoning of the Ekiti State Government, only the state House of Assembly, which appropriates funds for the state, has the constitutional duty to probe how such funds are expended. On January 30 this year, a federal high court in Ado-Ekiti delivered judgment in favour of the position taken by the state government. While Justice Taiwo Taiwo said the EFCC can investigate and or prosecute individuals, he posited that only the House of Assembly can look into the finances of the state. The only opportunity the EFCC can have in this regard is if it is invited by a state House of Assembly.
This judgment has been described as victory for true federalism. The EFCC is a federal government creation but it has been the graveyard of many state governors. During the government of ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo, the EFCC was leveraged upon by the Federal Government to orchestrate the kangaroo impeachment of many state governors. Going forward and up till this moment, the Commission has also been perceived and accused by opposition figures as having been used to haunt political opponents. Politicians in the ruling party are alleged to usually be immune from harassment and prosecution while those in the opposition parties are treated as good sport. Once an individual under the EFCC searchlight defects to the ruling party, it is said, he is usually treated with more respect and understanding than his colleagues who remain in opposition. This has been a sore point about the modus operandi of the EFCC. Therefore, not a few would welcome any development that whittles the influence and power of the commission. Justice Taiwo’s judgment, if it stands, and if other states emulate Fayose in setting up their respective state’s EFCC by whatever name called, portends a likelihood that will take the shine off the EFCC.
Fayose is not new to controversy. When he enacted his state’s anti-open grazing law, many of his colleagues distanced themselves from him; some even criticised him openly, but within a year, many of these governors have retraced their footsteps. In Benue State, for instance, Gov. Samuel Ortom who was in the forefront of those who spoke forcefully against Fayose’s anti-open grazing bill has not only retracted, he has enacted his own anti-open grazing law and despite the pressure mounted on him to repeal it, he has stood firm on it.
In Plateau, Taraba and other states in the South, the anti-open grazing initiative is catching on like wildfire in the harmattan. Will the state anti-corruption law toe a similar line? Both the Department of State Security and the Senate have tried to get the Presidency to remove Ibrahim Magu as the EFCC boss. Twice, the DSS has authored damning reports on Magu alleging that he was not fit to occupy the office; and twice the Senate had refused to confirm him. He remains in office all the same, with the Presidency coming up with the face-saving device that it did not need Senate approval to make Magu’s appointment. An unrelenting Senate has, however, insisted that for as long as the Presidency clings to Magu, relations between both will remain frosty. It is safe to expect, therefore, that the upper legislative chamber will welcome the Fayose law. If more states join the bandwagon and Taiwo’s judgment stands, then, the influence and power of the EFCC will be considerably whittled down.
There are many who consider this a very good development for true federalism. States have been muzzled and emasculated beyond reasonable limit by federal might. Taking back some of their liberties and freedoms can only do our democracy a world of good. The clamour at the moment is for restructuring of the polity. The Federal Government is being asked to relax the tight ropes emasculating the states and allow the federating units, which the states or regions are, free rein so they can have more financial muscle and the freedoms they require to develop at their own pace.
The belief in many quarters is that it is by so doing that the country will be better governed and development will reach every nooks and cranny of the country. Much of the tension in the land will be doused and heating up of the polity will be reduced to manageable limit. Conversely, there are those who fear that many State Houses of Assembly are pliant tools in the service of State governors and can, therefore, not be expected to call the governors to order on state finances. They have a point there but the solution, methinks, is not in running away from the fight.
Legislatures the world over are the second arm of government or the second estate of the realm saddled with the responsibility to make laws and perform oversight functions on the Executive. There is no running away from or shirking this responsibility. Popular citizen action must be activated to ensure that the various arms of government, the lawmakers inclusive, perform their functions diligently and creditably. Why can’t Labour or civil society groups picket any House of Assembly that is perceived to have rendered itself a mere rubber stamp of the Executive? I
n other countries where democracy thrives; where the theory as well as principle of separation of powers has been allowed to work, it has been as a result of consistent and robust citizen action. The price of liberty, it has been said, is eternal vigilance. Rather than sit idly by or only complain without taking positive action, it behoves us to insist on the right things being done at the state level. Allowing the federal government to hijack powers and responsibilities that are best reserved for the states will not do our democracy any good. In fact, it will continue to ensure that we do not practise true federalism. The heat in the polity as a result of this incongruity will refuse to go away and the country will not be able to achieve its true potential.
Justice Taiwo’s judgment opens a window of opportunity for us to begin to move away from policies and laws of the military jackboot era while the Ekiti State anti-corruption outfit in the works points us in the right way to go, even if it means taking the shine off Magu or the EFCC as presently constituted.
Manu is Lagos-based public affairs
analyst.