The lion’s den is a fortified and formidable fortress that every animal in the jungle deliberately avoids. Every animal keeps the lion at arm’s length just to stay out of trouble.
The same applies to the Federal Government’s establishment known as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The EFCC is likened to the lion, which exudes trepidation and awe that every politician, government official and private individual avoid having any dealings with.
Since its establishment in 2003 by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the anti-graft commission has stood out like the rock of Gibraltar, feared by all and sundry. In fact, the awesomeness of the lion makes it impossible for other big animals similarly endowed with killer instincts, features and characteristics to dare venture into its den. In other words, the lion’s den is its exclusive territory.
The lion may have the same canine structure and behavioral steps with other big animals, yet they don’t dare enter its den.
The simple explanation is that the lion cannot be equaled in hunting because of its dexterity in field strategy. Ironically, the recent happenings in the EFCC as regards the alleged exposition that many termed banana peels is increasingly revealing and fuelling the belief among security analysts that all the prying eyes that had been focused on the EFCC by the Directorate of State Security (DSS) look like a strategy specifically aimed at labelling the lion before the public so that it can attract a bad name.
Understandably, there seems to be no love lost between both security institutions on the one hand, and the headstrong attitude of the commission not recognising the constitutional fact that it is under the supervision of the Attorney-General of the Federation. Nonetheless, it becomes an unfortunate scenario when it turns out that there was a deliberate conspiracy to edge out the acting chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Magu, either because of his alleged stubbornness or radical posture to the anti-graft war.
History, however, recounts how former President lbrahim Babangida created the DSS, formerly known as Nigeria Security Organization (NSO), which metamorphosed into State Security Service (SSS) and later to DSS. During its formative years, a senior police officer, Ismaila Gwarzo, headed it and its responsibilities were within the country and included counter-intelligence, internal security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance as well as investigating some other types of grave crimes against the state.
Before his removal as DSS director-general, Alhaji Lawal Musa Daura had been entangled in some official issues when they crossed each other’s paths, as both tried to exercise their powers. So, it was not surprising when the DSS first forwarded a negative report against Magu, which caused his rejection for confirmation by the Senate.
The reasoning at the time was: why were two separate reports put up against Magu?
Many believe that, surreptitiously, it was not only Magu that was being targeted but the Nigeria Police. No wonder all the police personnel attached to the EFCC were immediately recalled, an action that was not executed when past leaders of the EFCC were removed.
Since the suspension of Magu weeks ago, which also precipitated the recall of all the police personnel posted to the commission, many have been surprised at the unfolding event.
It would be recalled that when the first executive chairman of the EFCC, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, exited the commission in 2007, policemen posted to the commission were not recalled, the same with Mrs. Farida Waziri in 2011, and with Ibrahim Lamorde in 2015.
The question on many lips is: “What could be the motive behind the fraternity that suddenly developed between the DSS and the office of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, SAN, who was a politician before his appointment into the office in 2015, at the same time with Magu?
The law establishing the EFCC states that the chairman must: “(ii) be a serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement agency not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or equivalent.”
Interestingly, the President, who established the commission, was also a military head of state and knows the capability of the police institution. He did not think twice because the police, by training, cannot be compared with any other government service in detection of fraud and criminal intent and in-depth investigation.
No wonder similar commissions in countries like Britain allow only police personnel to head its Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which is a non-ministerial department of the government of the United Kingdom that investigates and prosecutes serious or complex fraud and corruption matters in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The SFO is accountable to the Attorney-General for England and Wales, and was established by the Criminal Justice Act 1987[2] an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 grants the SFO special compulsory powers to require any person (or business/bank) to provide any relevant documents (including confidential ones) and answer any relevant questions, including ones about confidential matters.
The SFO is the principal enforcer of the Bribery Act, 2010, which has been designed to encourage good corporate governance and enhance the reputation of the City of London and the UK as a safe place to do business. Its jurisdiction does not extend to Scotland, where fraud and corruption are investigated by Police Scotland through their Specialist Crime Division, and prosecutions are undertaken by the Economic Crime Unit of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Also, in Indonesia, a retired police officer heads their Corruption Eradication Commission.
No matter the outcome of the Justice Salami presidential probe panel on Magu, it is not expected that such should warrant a change of security agency. Instead, better, stringent measures to oversee the operational activities of the commission should be put in place. The board members should be functional and private auditors appointed to audit all financial activities of the commission, knowing the sensitiveness of the commission.
—————————————
What a country (1)
Here is a country of diverse challenges. Here is a country that jokes over every situation, be it looting of the commonwealth by their leaders in various fields. They do not have sustained anger over issues affecting them, instead it evaporates and they move along unperturbed.
They are denied good health facilities, better education for their children, basic public amenities and thousands have died due to very bad roads. Unfortunately, they only talk and, minutes later, they turn the situation into a laughing matter and they continue in their deprivation. What a country!