Fred Itua, Abuja
Justice Ayo Salami-led committee investigating the embattled suspended acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu, has turned down his request to access the video recording of its proceedings.
The committee, has however, promised to be fair in the handling of the proceedings, insisting that it was not conducting a trial, but an investigation to ascertain the authenticity of claims made against him.
A source told Daily Sun that the committee may soon conclude the exercise and submit its findings to President Muhammadu Buhari for further action.
The source said: “That he and the members are not conducting a trial or enquiry on Mr. Ibrahim Magu not the EFCC. This is not a panel, but a committee saddled only with investigation. The request of Mr. Magu for the video recording of the proceedings can’t be granted because the previous recordings of the proceedings at the beginning was unauthorised by the investigation committee and the committee doesn’t know the purpose such recordings will serve.
“The venue of the sitting of the committee is temporary and therefore it is impossible to install video recording equipment as requested by Magu. Even the superior courts of records do not have video recording facilities and lack of such facilities doesn’t infringe on fair hearing.
“The committee undertakes to guarantee fair hearing to Magu and all appearing before it in its fact finding exercise.”
But your comments are contradictory and smirks of guilt. If there was indeed a previous recording which you did not approve of, why are you not looking into that recording and checking at whose instance it was initiated? In fairness, you should have investigated and shared the recording with Magu if that is what he has requested. Secondly, if you are not a panel like you want members of the publicm to believe, why did you then forcefully bring Magu before you to answer to allegations against him? if you thought he was deliberately ignoring your invitations the courts were there for you to approach. More so, it would have made more sense if you started your investigations based on the allegations whether or not he attended. Your actions from when he was seized including inviting witnesses to this day clearly suggests you are a panel presiding over his alleged misdemeanours and clearly not an investigation. You should be able to tell the difference yourselves.