Skip to main content

Nigeria Needs More Anti-Graft Agencies

September 25, 2011

Facts are sacred, opinions are free. The above popular maxim is applicable to the re-current debate on the desirability or otherwise of merging the nation’s two foremost anti-corruption agencies. Though there have been subtle attempts in the past by those who are supposed to strengthen the anti-graft agencies to weaken the influence of these agencies.

Facts are sacred, opinions are free. The above popular maxim is applicable to the re-current debate on the desirability or otherwise of merging the nation’s two foremost anti-corruption agencies. Though there have been subtle attempts in the past by those who are supposed to strengthen the anti-graft agencies to weaken the influence of these agencies.

The issue of the merger of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), however, became a public issue when the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Muhammed Bello Adoke (SAN) appeared before the Senate during the screening of last ministerial nominees of the minster, this was the surest way of making the anti-graft agencies more responsive and efficient.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });

The matter was further worsened when a Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Eta Enang went on air in one of the nation’s private television stations, stating that a bill is before the National Assembly seeking the scrapping of ICPC and transferring their functions and duties to that of the EFFC.

The Senator in the said bill was of the opinion that was the best way to strengthen the anti-graft war in the country. More worrisome is the position of the Minister of Justice in the recent edition of an Abuja based weekly magazine (NewsWorld) where he said,” I am going ahead with the merger. Before the end of the year we would have gone far, if not completely done”. Following the positions of the two high ranking members of the Nigerian government, it was believed in some quarters that the two government officials are merely echoing the thinking of the Federal Government and by extension, the stance of Mr. President on the matter.

Of late, the National Assembly was said to have invited the management of ICPC, EFCC and the Code of Conduct Bureau to appear before it committee preparatory to what some observers believed to be the merger of the three anti-corruption agencies in the country.   

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });

Consequently, the Nigerian media noted for its sensitization nature has been awashed with editorials, opinions and analysis on the merits and demerits of the arguments for the proposed merger of the anti-corruption agencies.

However, a content analysis of various editorials, opinion articles and stories written on the matter reveals a complete lack of respect for facts and figures on desirability of merging the agencies of government. This lack of respect for facts confirms the wide held wrong notion among some Sections of the International Community that if you want to hide something from the black man put it inside a book.

A cursory analysis of media reportage of the controversy showed that majority of the opinions and even editorials were mostly based on emotions and sometimes on residential knowledge of the anti-graft crusade in the nation, without the hard facts and statistics of what operates across the globe.

Available facts based on the enabling laws setting up the two agencies indicated that the ICPC and EFCC are two separate agencies with different statutory responsibilities which are complementary and not in any popularity contest. A critical analysis of the enabling laws of the agencies reveal that there are no overlapping functions that is in contention between the two agencies. The Acts of the two agencies allows for investigation and prosecution of any violation under the laws prohibiting corruption in the Nigerian nation state.                             

The uniqueness of the ICPC Act 2000 is that it confers on the commission an holistic approach in combating corruption through; investigation and prosecution, system review otherwise known as prevention; public enlightenment and education. This uniqueness not only makes ICPC a law enforcement agency but it also has a preventive mandate through the mechanism of systems review in public organizations; identifying corruption prone areas and effecting changes .The EFCC does not have this responsibilities in their enabling laws.

Those who framed the law of the two agencies also differentiate their areas of coverage of investigation. For instance, section 61 sub-sections 2 of the ICPC Act 2000 states emphatically the complementary role of anti-graft agencies and prevent operational conflict, as it states; “without prejudice to any other laws prohibiting bribery, corruption, fraud, or any other related offences by public officers or other persons, a public officers or any other persons may be prosecuted by the appropriate authority for an offence of bribery, corruption, fraud, or any other related offences committed by such public officer or other persons contrary to any laws in force before or after the coming into effect of this Act and nothing in this Act shall be constructed to derogate from  or undermine the right of authority  of any person or authority to prosecute offenders under any other laws”.

From the above sections of the ICPC Act, it can be conveniently concluded that the ICPC or EFCC has no monopoly to prosecute corruption offenders in the country, thus, the statutes of EFCC, Code of Conduct Bureau, the Penal Code, and the Criminal Code can effectively co-exist with and complement the ICPC Act and vice versa.

What should be of paramount to the government and the operators of the two agencies is the issue of inter-agency cooperation and collaboration in order to avoid double jeopardy where a person will be facing similar investigation and charges from two agencies.

It should be noted, however, that the only grey area where it appears the jobs of both agencies overlap is in the definition of corruption and fraud which occur in the Acts establishing both agencies. In the ICPC Act 2000, corruption is defined as including fraud while in the EFCC Act economic crime is also defined as including corruption.

Furthermore, those who framed the two statutes specified area of specialization of person(s) qualities to be possessed to head the agencies. In the case of EFCC, the position of the Chairmanship is usually executive and reserved for retired security operative while that of the ICPC is not an executive in nature and only a lawyer who is qualified to be a judge of superior court of record can head the agency Going by the endemic nature of corruption in Nigeria, the country needs more than three anti-corruption agencies to fight corruption.

There are several countries around the world which adopted a multi-agency strategy in dealing with corruption; based on reason of high population and because of the multi-farious nature of corruption. For example, China has 3,563 anti-corruption agencies to fight corruption and related offences.

The Philippines with a population of 94 million has seven major laws and 18 anti-graft agencies, Bangladesh with a 150 million population, the same as Nigeria, has seven anti-corruption agencies, Argentina with population of 40 million has three anti-corruption agencies, Ghana with 24 million population has three, Australia has four anti-graft agencies, South Africa with a population of 49 million has four bodies fighting corruption and several other countries in Europe and America have more than two anti-graft agencies.

Judging by the experience of the past, creating a monolithic anti-graft agency is dangerous because such institution can be used to victimize political opponents and abuse its powers. The position of ICPC/EFCC is that the nation needs complementary agencies to provide a kind of check and balance on the exercise of powers

Instances abound where petitions referred to one agency were not investigated but on further reference to the other agency, the matters were duly investigated and prosecuted. A good example is the allegation of bribery case preferred against former Chairman NDLEA Alhaji Bello Lafiaji, which was first sent to the EFCC and he was cleared of any corrupt charge but when the matter was referred to the ICPC, the former NDLEA was investigated and charged to court and sentence to two and half years imprisonment. Alhaji Lafiaji is currently serving his terms in Kirikiri prisons in Lagos. This case provides practical gains of a multi-agency anti corruption environment. It is imperative to state without reservation that what is required to strengthen the anti-corruption crusade in Nigeria is amendment of perceived weak sections of the laws setting up the anti-graft agencies. And more complementary ways of strengthening the agencies is passing of support laws such as the whistle blower protection Act as well as demonstrating enough political will on the part of the government with improved funding for all the anti-graft agencies.

To the agencies themselves, there is urgent need to increase their synergy and collaboration in order to provide an enabling environment necessary for the transformation agenda of the present civilian administration. What is important at this stage of our national life is to go back to December 2006 era when the numbers of  total of cabinet level ministries that we have in the country were 31 and about 42 Ministers as against the over bloated between 42 and 48 ministers.

Reducing the cost of governance will entails also a drastic decrease in the recurrent budgetary provisions of all the three arms of government, while increasing the budgetary provisions for essential front line services such as anti-corruption crusade and national security. This may, however, be reduced in the future when the level of graft have done down and the level of security improve considerable.      

While the merger controversy is still raging on, President Goodluck Jonathan demonstrated the political will of his administration by re-constituting the membership and Chairmanship of the ICPC. To some people, by appointing an acting Chairman and re-constituting the Board of ICPC, the President is reiterating his stands on zero tolerance for corruption. To them, it will amount to waste of public funds for the President to appoint an acting Chairman and membership of ICPC and sack the board after few months in office.

As Steve Oronsaye led committee carry out their review of Federal MDAs, what is needed at time in our history as a nation is that all hands must be on deck to strengthen the anti graft agencies because as one scholar said, once Nigeria reduce the menace of corruption, half of the nation’s problem would have been solved.

Sina Babasola

[email protected]

 

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });