The fate of some high profile corruption cases is hanging in the balance.
They are expected to be sent to the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami ( SAN), by the Economic and Finacial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The AGF will then determine whether or not there are enough grounds to prosecute such cases.
Any case above N50 million is to be referred to the AGF, who will determine whether to send it for trial or not.
With this development, reports of investigation involving Governor Ayodele Fayose, ex-Minister of Petroleum Resources Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke, former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, ex-Chief of Defence Staff Air Marshal Alex Badeh, ex-ministers, ex-Service Chiefs, the $181m Halliburton case, the INEC staff case, all cases involving banks, and others will now be referred to the AGF.
But the EFCC yesterday said there was no conflict between it and the AGF.
The commission said it had been compliant with all provisions of law and had no intention to stoke a misunderstanding over requests from the AGF.
It said the orchestrated conflict between the EFCC and the office of the AGF was evident that “corruption can and is fighting back in a variety of ways”.
Details of what the AGF termed “serious or complex” cases are contained in the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission( Enforcement) Regulations 2010
The conditions on serious cases are contained in Section 10(1) (2) a-g of the Regulations.
Section 10 says: “Where the commission conducts investigation in respect of a case or complaint, which is serious or complex, it shall forward to the Attorney-General the outcome of the investigation with its recommendations on whether there are sufficient grounds to initiate prosecution.
“For the purpose of these regulations, a case or complaint is serious or complex if the case or or complaint:
* has a significant international dimension;
*involves money or assets of a value exceeding N50million;
*requires specialised knowledge of financial, commercial, fiscal or regulatory matters such as the operation of markets, banking systems, trusts or tax regimes
*involves allegation of fraudulent activity against numerous victims
*involves substantial loss of funds by a Ministry or Department or a public body.
*is likely to be of widespread public concern or
*involves an alleged misconduct which amounts to an act of economic sabotage.
The AGF is also mandated by the Regulations to look into any petition against the EFCC.
Section 23 reads: “Where there is an appeal or petition to the AGF on the conduct of the commission, a copy of such petition shall be sent to the commission and the Attorney-General of the Federation may direct that the relevant case file, if any, be forwarded to him for examination.”
On foreign aid and grants, Section 24 also constrains the EFCC and its chairman.
It says : “The Chairman of the Commission shall within 30 days of the signing or receipt of such aid or grant inform the AGF with details of the terms and conditions of the grant or aid.”
On forfeiture of assets, Section 17 states that any final order should be forwarded to the AGF.
It reads: “A copy of every final order for the forfeiture of the assets of a convicted person shall be forwarded to the AGF by the commission.”
The Regulations also provide sanctions for any breach of the sections therein.
Section 25 says: “Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of these Regulations is liable to the sanctions provided under any law or pursuant to Staff Regulations made under the Act.”
A top source gave insights into why the Regulations were put in place and gazetted by the administration of ex-President Goodluck Jonathan.
The source said: “The regulations are expected to serve as checks and balances. Is it proper for a chairman of a commission to oversight himself?
“That is why the framers of the law gave the HAGF the oversight power by way of regulations.
“The essence of the regulations is to oversight the EFFC to avoid excesses, abuse and impunity. The power to make regulations pursuant to Section 43 of the EFCC Act is to complement the HAGF overarching powers as contained in Section 174 of the Constitution1999 as amended.
“So, the Acting Chairman of EFCC, Mr. Ibrahim Magu should cooperate with the office of the HAGF and not confront.”
But the EFCC yesterday said there was no conflict between it and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mallam Abubakar Malami( SAN).
The commission said it had been compliant with all provisions of the law and has no intention to stoke a misunderstanding over requests from the AGF.
It said the orchestrated conflict between the EFCC and the office of the AGF was evident that “corruption can and is fighting back in a variety of ways”.
The EFCC made the clarifications in a statement by its Head of Media and Publicity, Mr. Wilson Uwujaren.
The statement said: “The attention of the EFCC has been drawn to the near-daily reportage of either the existence of a face-off or an impending and damaging conflict between the Commission and the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN).
”Notwithstanding the fact that EFCC has been consistent in its position that there is absolutely no conflict (actual or impending) with the AGF, some unscrupulous persons have continued to push the false narrative into media headlines.
” For the avoidance of any doubt, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, wishes to categorically state that it is compliant with all provisions of law and has no intention to stoke a misunderstanding over requests from the office of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice.
”Furthermore, the Commission’s mandate, operational philosophy and the conduct and pronouncements of its officials do not countenance any activity on the fringes of the law.
“It is therefore untenable for there to be any suggestion that the EFCC or the Commission’s principal officials are either in conflict with or readying for a ‘showdown’ with the AGF or other officials of government.
“ Any such ‘conflicts’ being paraded in the media exist only in the apparently fertile imagination of corrupt elements angling to knock heads together in furtherance of their own pro-corruption agenda.
“ All the brouhaha raised in recent days over a non-existent conflict between the EFCC and the office of the AGF only go to underline the fact that corruption can and is fighting back in a variety of ways.
”The Commission wishes to underscore that the EFCC is a creation of statute and its operations and officials being as they are, guided by the firm, unambiguous provisions of those laws and regulations, are not and can never be in contravention of the law or opposition to constituted authority.”
