“The 1st defendant is not investigating the accounts and/or appropriation, disbursement and administration of funds of Benue State Government. The 1st defendant is only investigating economic and financial crimes, money laundering related offences allegedly committed by some officials of Benue State Government," the EFCC stated in its response to the suit.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has refuted the claims by the Benue State Government that it was attempting to shut down government operations.
According to the agency, the investigation is not targeted at the appropriation of funds by the state government, but at allegations of financial crimes by some government officials.
Making the clarification on Monday, while responding to the summons filed by the state government, the agency said the investigations stemmed from petitions of indigenes of the state, including former Commissioner of Police, Abubakar Tsav and Joel Magnus, President of the Concerned Citizens of Benue State Transparency Anti-Corruption Group, Gboko, Benue State.
The response came on the heels of a suit filed by the Benue State Government through the state’s Attorney General, with the EFCC, Speaker, Benue State House of Assembly, Clerk, Benue State House of Assembly and the Auditor General, Benue State, as defendants.
The EFCC said: “In carrying out its onerous duties, the 1st defendant, being a responsible agency of government, has employed the best practices of extending invitation to concerned State Government functionaries through high ranking government officials such as Secretary to the State Government, Permanent Secretaries of relevant ministries/agencies, Accountant General of the state and Liaison Officer, Benue State Liaison Office, Abuja without resorting to crude and uncivilised methods.
“The 1st defendant is not investigating the accounts and/or appropriation, disbursement and administration of funds of Benue State Government. The 1st defendant is only investigating economic and financial crimes, money laundering related offences allegedly committed by some officials of Benue State Government.”
The EFCC clarified that the action was not aimed at disrupting government activities, stating that “The ongoing investigation cannot result into a shut down or grinding to a halt, the activities of governance in Benue State as the 1st defendant is not an army of occupation. Indeed, the 1st defendant has not shut down government offices/business as it has been inviting relevant state government officials to make statements and/or furnish relevant documents as the need arises.
“The ongoing investigation can only result in restoring the confidence of citizens of Benue State, who are calling for accountability, transparency and probity in the affairs of government of their state. It may well be that the outcome of investigation may prove the allegations as baseless, which is in the interest of the government of Benue State.
“That contrary to the depositions contained in paragraphs 12 13 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the business of governance of Benue State has not in any way suffered or been destabilised consequent upon the ongoing investigation, as relevant officials only report as the need arises, who report and make statements and or bring relevant documents in furtherance of investigation.
“That contrary to the depositions contained in paragraphs 21, 22 and 25 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons, it is not true that honouring invitations by relevant Benue State Government officials in furtherance of ongoing invitation is distracting or causing inconveniences to the officials invited, who by virtue of their offices and responsibilities/duties, their statements are crucial to the investigation, which is very painstaking.
“That contrary to the depositions contained in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons, the statutory duties of the 1st defendant of investigating criminal allegations are never in conflict with the constitutional duties of the 4th defendant, hence there is no usurpation of the official functions of the 4th defendant, whose constitutional duties are quite distinct and different from the statutory duties of the 1st defendant.
“The 1st defendant has never interfered with the federal principles relating to the tiers to the tiers of government, as the 1st defendant is only discharging its statutory duties.”
Justice Nnamdi Dimgba fixed August 29 for the hearing of the suit.