It
appears Danjuma Goje’s recent decision to step down from contesting for the
seat of the Senate President has begun to yield dividend.
On
Friday, the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation applied for the
withdrawal of the two remaining corruption charges against him.
This
was granted by the court and Mr Goje was discharged, after eight years of
prosecution for alleged N25 billion fraud while serving as Gombe State
governor.
Earlier,
the anti-graft agency, the EFCC, surprisingly withdrew from the matter for the
AGF to take charge, a day after Mr Goje met with President Muhammadu Buhari and
accepted to cede his quest for the Senate Presidency, for Ahmed Lawan.
This
unusual romance between the EFCC and the AGF attracted criticism from the
public. Until now, the two agencies rarely got along on how best to fight
corruption. They viewed each other with suspicion.
While
the office of the AGF sees EFCC as overzealous, the office of the AGF, in the
EFCC’s estimation, lacks the commitment to fight corruption.
Past
Rivalry between the EFCC and AGF
In
November 2018, the EFCC vehemently resisted the AGF from taking over the trial
of a businessman, John Abebe, at the Special Offences Court in Ikeja, Lagos
State.
Mr
Abebe, younger brother to former first lady, Stella Obasanjo, was arraigned
before Justice Mojisola Dada on a four-count charge of forgery, fabricating
evidence and attempt to pervert the course of justice.
The
EFCC accused Mr Abebe to have, on June 22, 2010, forged a letter dated November
30, 1995, and belonging to BP Exploration Nigeria Limited to that of his
company, Inducon Nigeria Limited.
Also,
in March 2016, the EFCC and the AGF also disagreed at the Federal High Court in
Lagos over who to prosecute the case involving 16 suspects accused of
multi-billion fraud (N43 billion) at the Consolidated Discount House Limited.
Justice
Mohammed Idris had, on February 23, 2016 ordered them to sort out who, between
them, should prosecute the case, but the issue was not resolved.
A
lawyer from EFCC, A.B.C Ozioko, insisted that EFCC would prosecute the
suspects, arguing that the suspects were in its custody.
In
2017, the EFCC and the AGF disagreed again on the handling of ‘high profile
cases’.
The
anti-graft’s head of legal department, G.K. Latona, saidthen that the
attorney-general’s officehad the right to initiate new high-profile corruption
cases and investigate them without waiting for cases initiated by the EFCC.
There
were also controversies between the duo over the briberycase filed against the
chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Danladi Umar, in the High Court of
the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, by the EFCC.
The
EFCC and AGF also maintained polar positions on the Malabu saga.
Although
it was rejected by Mr Buhari, the AGF had proposed last year that the
government discontinue the civil case on Malabu Oil Block (OPL 245) scandal and
all criminal matters in Nigeria in connection with the oil block, among others.
The
OPL 245 is an offshore oil block with about nine billion barrels of crude. It
was auctioned for $1.3 billion (1.1 billion euros).
The
EFCC on December 20, 2016 filed nine charges bordering on an alleged
mismanagement of over $1b Malabu Oil cash against Dan Etete, Mohammed Adoke, a
businessman, Aliyu Abubakar, Malabu Oil and Gas Limited; Rocky Top Resources
Limited; Imperial Union Limited; Novel Properties and Development Company
Limited, Group Construction Limited and Megatech Engineering Limited.
In
another charge, the EFCC sued Etete, Adoke, Abubakar and eight others over an
alleged $801 million bribe, in respect of the auctioning of the Malabu oil
block.
The
others are: Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Limited; Nigeria Agip
Exploration Limited; ENI SPA; Malabu Oil and Gas Limited; Ralph Wetzels(ex-
Director of SNEPCO), Casula Roberto(Italian) whilst being the Director of AGIP;
Pujatti Stefeno(Italian) while being the Director in AGIP; and Burafato
Sebastiano(Italian).
Mr
Buhari later directed the EFCC to ensure that everyone involved in the Malabu
oil scandal is prosecuted.
Special
Goje
The
EFCC in 2012, charged Mr Goje with 21 counts of conspiracy and money laundering
along with Aliyu El-Nafarty, former chairman, Gombe State Universal Basic
Education Board, Sambo Tumu, his cousin, who was contracted to supply food to
the Government House, and S.M. Dakoro, a businessman.
The
anti-graft agency alleged that the defendants conspired to defraud the state of
about N25 billion via illegal acts, contrary to, and punishable under sections
15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition Act) 2011, as
amended.
After
several years of dragging the matter, the court on March 22 of this year,
quashed 19 out of the 21 counts of alleged N25 billion conspiracy and money
laundering filed against the former governor.
A
day after Mr Goje agreed to step down for Mr Lawan for the Senate presidency
seat, the EFCC withdrew from the remaining two charges.
The
EFCC counsel, Wahab Shittu, argued that it was the Office of the
Attorney-General of the Federation in the exercise of its powers under the
Constitution that took over the fraud case.
“It
was simply a constitutional prerogative of the Office of the Attorney-General
of the Federation in the exercise of its powers under section 174 of the
Constitution. EFCC has no authority to challenge the exercise of such powers”,
he told journalists after the anti-graft agency had been prosecuting the former
governor for almost eight years.
On
June 21, the AGF resumed the prosecution at a Federal High Court in Jos.
The
matter was adjourned to July 4 after Pius Akutah, a counsel from the office AGF
pleaded with the court to give his office time to enable them continue with the
case.
He
said, “We wish to inform the court that the case has been transferred to office
of AGF and documents concerning this case were officially handed over to us by
(the) EFFC on Wednesday. We need time to look properly into the documents
before we proceed with the case.”
However,
on Friday when the matter came up, the counsel applied to withdraw the
remaining charges against Me Goje.
“As
it is, the Federal Ministry of Justice wishes to withdraw those two charges
against the accused persons.
“This
action is in line with the power vested on the AGF by virtue of section 128 of
the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 particularly sub section 1 of
that section (128). It’s in accordance with the power vested on the AGF by the
constitution that we wish to withdraw the charges before your Lordship.
“This
is our humble application and urge your Lordship to grant our application,” he
reportedly said.
The
defence counsel, Adeniyi Akintola, did not oppose the application.
He
simply said: “My Lord, we are not opposing the application but we are urging
your Lordship to evoke the provision of section 2(a)(b) of the Administration
of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and acquit them of the charges.”
“The
same section gives your Lordship the discretionary power to make an order for
the accused persons to be discharged and acquitted. My Lord has the power under
Section III. As we urge your Lordship to consider our humble application, we wish
to thank you for your patience with us since 2011 when we started this journey
on the case.”
“We
also wish to commend the AGF for (the) wise decision in bringing this case to
an end.”
In
his ruling, Babatunde Quadiri, the judge presiding over the cases said pursuant
to Section 174(1) particularly sub-section (b) and coupled with Section 108 (2)
of 2015, “the application by the AGF to withdraw the charges is hereby granted.
The accused persons are hereby discharged.”
Lawyers React
A
lawyer and human rights activist, Inibehe Effiong, told PREMIUM TIMES that the
AGF’s office had the right to take over the case but the circumstances
surrounding EFCC’s withdrawal is suspicious.
“The
AGF has the constitutional power to takeover, continue or discontinue any
criminal case instituted on behalf of the federal government. That power by the
AGF is not subjected to review by any court,” he said.
“It
is a matter that the Supreme Court had decided. In 1983, in the case of the
State V. Ilori, where the Supreme Court
proclaimed that the AGF is only subject to the constitution and his appointor.
“The
EFCC Act is subject to the overriding power of the AGF and there is no court in
Nigeria that can stop them. Under Section 150 of the Constitution, the Chief
Law Officer of the federation is the AGF.
“My
worry, however, is the circumstances that surrounded Goje’s case. That power
has to be exercised in public interest.
“We
now have to ask ourselves – what was the interest in Goje’s case? Several witnesses
had testified, the matter had been on for years and the AGF’s office suddenly
took over. Is it that the EFCC is not competent enough? We’re not arguing
legality, but the circumstances, whether it is of public interest.
“This
is someone who met the president and there are reports that the reason for the
AG’s interest in the case is because Goje stepped down from contesting for
Senate President’s seat.
“While
we are not giving credence to rumour mongering, the truth is that the
coincidence surrounding Goje’s case requires further interrogation. As a
lawyer, I am worried. The AGF has power to initiate criminal proceedings and
file charges on its own. Why then wait for EFCC to prosecute and then only for
the AGF to take over?
“One
of the points that the media should question is the letter showing the interest
of the AGF. When was the letter written? Was it before May 28? Because, from
May 29, we did not have a sitting AGF and decision to continue or discontinue
will be taken by the AGF.
“The
EFCC needs to tell the public, explain in clear circumstances, when the AGF
took over the case. Which Attorney General authorised the taking over? So, I’m
saying in essence that the time has come for a constitutional review to
separate the office of the AG from the minister’s office. When you have a
partisan member of a political party as Attorney General, he would not be able
to distinguish his role as the chief officer of the Law and his political
appointee.”
A
Lagos-based lawyer, Ademola Owolabi, also corroborated this.
He
told PREMIUM TIMES that, “The AGF has power under the Constitution to take over
any matter. Failure of the EFCC to withdraw means it is acting in ignorance of
the constitution.
“The
AG is answerable to only one person; his appointor, who is the president.”
While
he maintained that EFCC cannot continue to be over zealous, he said, “there is
poor consideration in the government of President Buhari. Perhaps, Goje would
have won the Senate presidency seat. He was asked to step down and immediately
he did, tables turned.”
Source:Premiumtimesng
No comments:
Post a Comment