The rejection of Ibrahim Magu as EFCC chairman by Nigerian law makers raises questions about the confirmation process and cohesion in the APC-led Federal Government, writes ISAAC ANYAOGU
Twice, lawmakers have rejected the nomination of Ibrahim Magu, acting chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), as substantive chairman, relying on a report by the Department of State Security (DSS), Nigeria’s intelligence agency, casting doubts on his integrity.
“In the light of the foregoing, Magu has failed the integrity test and will eventually constitute a liability to the anti-corruption stand of the current government,” says the DSS report, read by Dino Melaye, on March 15.
Many say the verdict was predictable because those with questionable antecedents have been made arbiters of integrity.
“There’s a certain quagmire here and I don’t know what can be done about it. A man has to go for confirmation hearing in an assembly peopled by crooks he is investigating,” says Pius Adesanmi, a Nigerian scholar based in Canada on his social media page.
Several people condemned the decision on social media and many agreed with it. Others raised other issues regarding why all EFCC chairmen have to be from northern part of the country and even why it must be from the police force.
Social media space is literally peopled with characters unrestrained either by discretion or decorum, hence people say what they really mean. The situation would have been hilarious, if it weren’t so terrible.
A damning security report
For his rejection the second time, the DSS merely referred the Senate to an October 3, 2016, security report which indicted Magu of corruption.
The report said that Magu was being investigated for his close ties to an indicted retired Nigerian Air Force officer, Commodore Umar Mohammed.
Among other things, the DSS said that a search warrant executed at Magu’s residence during the tenure of Farida Waziri as the EFCC chairperson sometime in August 2008, revealed he had in his possession sensitive files about public officers under investigation which resulted in his detention and subsequent redeployment from the EFCC back to the Nigeria Police Force.
The appointment of Ibrahim Lamorde as EFCC chairman who has a congenial system relationship with Magu led to his return to the EFCC.
Magu was also depicted as living a flamboyant lifestyle, renting a house worth N40 million and cost a tad more to furnish which they claim Mohammed footed the bill.
It was also alleged that against a directive of the president that public officers fly economy on government’s purse, Magu flew first class to Saudi Arabia to perform the lesser hajj at the cost of N2.9 million.
A weak defence
As damning as the security report was, the federal lawmakers questioned Magu about corruption within the EFCC, unlawful detention of suspects and disregard for court orders.
“There were two of such submitted reports to this office by the same law enforcement agency, the same day about the same people, that goes to tell you about the credibility of such an institution,” Magu said in his defence.
The Senators picked holes in it, “If there were two letters written to the clerk, I will totally agree with what you are saying, one letter was written to the clerk, one letter was written to the adviser to the National Assembly,” said Bukola Saraki, Senate president.
He added, “Yesterday, the same agency referred to one of the letters, I think if there was any ambiguity beforehand that has been cleared, I think it is important for us not to rubbish an institution unnecessarily.”
In his defence, Magu, a trained forensic accountant, demonstrated a poor appreciation of methodical defence. Rather than speak to the issues raised in the report, he questioned the integrity of the DSS.
Defence lawyers know that attacking your accusers before providing a solid defence is not good strategy.
Attorney Oscar Michelen of the United States writes on his blog about courtroom strategy, “Remember the Five Ps of Trial: Prepare, prepare, prepare, prepare and prepare. Know the file, break down the depositions, think the case through, read the documentary evidence over and over. Knowing your case better than your adversary is the first step to success.”
Curiously, Magu a trained investigator provided a feeble defence to the weighty charges against him, unwittingly validating the charge by senators that under him, the EFCC has degenerated into an institution that disregards due process, preferring media trial where evidence is inadequate.
However, in front of media cameras Magu explained that his relationship with Mohammed was not as deep as alleged and the house in question actually belonged to Dora Akunyili. But then, it was a case of too little too late.
It would be surprising if Magu expected a sympathetic ear. As head of the Economic Governance Unit (EGU), a frontline unit in charge of investigating senior public officials, Saraki, current Senate president, was grilled on the collapse of Societe Generale Bank of Nigeria, and James Ibori.
A divided house
However, the issues in Magu’s nomination debacle are far more nuanced. Why is the president keen on having someone his top intelligence agency has identified as a liability superintend over an agency charged with combating corruption?
On December 15, 2016, the Senate first rejected the confirmation of Ibrahim Magu based on the DSS report. However, on January 24, President Buhari wrote to the Senate representing Magu for confirmation.
Buhari in the letter said that he had thoroughly investigated allegations in the DSS report against Magu and Babachir Lawal, secretary to the government of the federation and found them lacking substance.
Apparently, the DSS didn’t get the memo because they referred the senators to the same report indicting Magu.
“Was the presidency aware of the DSS report against Magu when it submitted his name to the Senate twice?” wondered Aminu Gamawa, a law teacher and legal practitioner, saying, “There is something fishy and confusing.”
It says a lot about the government when an agency under the presidency questions the choice of a nominee approved by the president. Nigeria’s public officials, after all, are not reputed to have a pulse that beats as clearly as their conscience.
Could this be the clearest evidence of a confused government whose officers cannot articulate a coherent message?
Only recently, Abike Dabiri, senior special assistant on Foreign, Diaspora Affairs to the President issued a travel advisory to Nigerians who intend to travel to the United States warning those without compelling reason to travel to the U.S to postpone their travel plans until Donald Trump’s policy on immigration becomes clearer.
“In the last few weeks, the office has received a few cases of Nigerians with multiple entry US visas being denied entry and sent back to Nigeria”, said Dabiri-Erewa.
“In such cases reported to the office, such affected persons were sent back immediately on their next available flight and their visas were cancelled.”
However, days later, Geoffrey Onyeama, Nigeria’s foreign affairs minister, refuted the claim.
“I have reached out to the US Ambassador to Nigeria and the country’s high level officials who said nothing of such had happened. I can tell you to ignore the advice to reconsider travelling to the US because there is no basis for that,” he said.
Then he rubbed it in, “In speaking on any external relations, you will hear it from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Office of the President.”
A constitutional duty needing tweaks
For the avoidance of doubt, lawmakers cannot afford to send the signal that it can now cherry pick what security report it can act upon.
“In rejecting Magu’s nomination, the Senate relied on security reports by the DSS. As far as I know, the DSS is not an institution under the Senate, nor does it report to the Senate. It reports directly to the president,” says Odion Omonfoman, a company executive based in Lagos on his social media page.
Is the DSS asserting its independence or exacting vengeance on Magu over some inter-agency scuffle as many have claimed?
If this was true, would a judicial review be needed to complement the confirmation process for sensitive positions where the motive of those charged with the confirmation process is suspicion?
The temptation to balk against this proposition should be tempered with the fact that Nigeria loses billions to corruption yearly and it has become a routine for public officers after leaving office to be investigated for corruption.
On the way forward, Paul Ananaba, a legal practitioner based in Lagos is of the view that “The president may have to look at the nominations again and if he feels strongly he can go ahead and nominate him because there is no specific number of times he can send a name. On the converse, the president may look for someone else.”
