Corruption War in Dire Straits

The Monday Discourse

The much touted anti-corruption war of the President Muhammadu Buhari administration became morally delinquent last week when one of its major drivers and head of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ibrahim Magu, was accused of compromising the war he was actually called to lead. Omololu Ogunmade gives the insider story of his rejection, with additional reports by Shola Oyeyipo and Segun James

It was a sad end for the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Magu, last Thursday when the Senate threw out the request for his confirmation for which he had desperately fought for complete six months.

The Senate cited a damning security report by the Department of State Services (DSS) as the reason for his rejection. Since then, it has been an uneasy calm in anti-graft crusade of the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari, who had appointed Magu in acting capacity on November 9, 2015 following the sack of Ibrahim Lamorde.

How It All Began…

Magu’s rejection on December 15, 2016 was the climax of a series of physical and psychological conflicts he had battled since his appointment last year. But the intense battle which eventually consumed him last Thursday began on June 17, 2016 when Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, while serving as Acting President, sent his name to the Senate for confirmation.

Whereas the vice president’s action was cheery to Magu and proponents of his confirmation, it only intensified the Cold War which had been raging against his confirmation since inception. Magu had initially thought that the battle against his confirmation which began in the Presidential Villa would also end there. But immediately his name was forwarded to the Senate, the battle equally shifted to the upper legislative chamber.

First, in an unusual manner, Senate President Bukola Saraki declined to read his confirmation letter until almost a month after, specifically on July 14. Again, after the letter was eventually read, Magu and his admirers thought that the coast was clear but that was untrue. Rather, it only intensified the battle as the Senate again returned to its initial silence on his confirmation by keeping the letter in the cooler.

Several questions were raised on why the Senate opted to sit on Magu’s confirmation. Pressure was also mounted on the Senate leadership to act on the letter. Hence, on December 7, when Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu eventually announced Senate’s preparedness to screen Magu the following day, December 8, it was perceived to be victory at last and sad news to his opponents.

But then, those who believed Magu was unfit to head the anti-graft commission only returned to the drawing board by drawing Senate’s attention to a damning security report consisting of Magu’s alleged dirty past and present.

Second, when Magu arrived at the National Assembly complex on December 8, for confirmation, the Senate turned him back, saying some of its members, who were absent had requested for the postponement of his screening to enable them participate in the exercise. That was enough signs for Magu that the road to his confirmation was yet shrouded in a fog of uncertainty. Nonetheless, the Senate asked Magu to return again for his screening on Thursday, December 15.

Expectedly, Magu returned to the National Assembly complex last Thursday basking in the euphoria of hope with a retinue of his aides clad in black suits, who had flooded the lobby of the National Assembly. However, indications that Magu would leave the National Assembly a sad and frustrated man began when immediately after the commencement of the plenary, senators dissolved into an executive session.

This raised questions among dispassionate observers, notably journalists, on why the Senate opted to go into a closed-door session over a matter that had been with it for six months, moreso when it had only last week given an assurance of its preparedness to screen Magu that Thursday. That made it clear to every discerning mind that his confirmation could be jinxed.

Why didn’t the Senate hold executive sessions before inviting Magu all the while? Why opting to hold an executive session at the very time it had fixed for Magu’s confirmation and after the nominee had already arrived in accordance with the screening schedule? These were some of the questions raging in the minds of pundits.

As THISDAY learnt, the executive session was stormy as there were altercations between strong opponents of Magu among the senators and the Senate Leader, Ali Ndume, who reportedly made case for Magu’s screening because they both hail from the same area. But before the end of the meeting, the Senate commissioned its spokesman, Sabi Abdullahi, to announce Magu’s rejection to the press.

Thus, Abdullahi stormed the press center to announce the bombshell and cited unfavourable security report as the reason for Senate’s decision.
Hear him: “This is an official statement from the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. It’s the statement on confirmation of the nomination of chairman and members of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

“The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria wishes to inform the general public that based on security reports available to the Senate, the Senate cannot proceed and confirm the nomination of Ibrahim Magu Mustapha as the Executive Chairman of EFCC. Accordingly, the Senate hereby rejects the said nomination and has returned the said nomination to Mr. President for further action,” Abudullahi said.

Abdullahi did not take questions from journalists on why it had taken the Senate this long to arrive at the decision and why it also took the parliament almost two hours of turbulent executive session to come up with that resolve.

Questions on Magu’s Rejection

Since Magu’s rejection by Senate on Thursday, a number of questions had arisen from the development. First, the manner of his rejection was strange to parliamentary norms. Screening, confirmation and rejection of nominees are usually done under the camera in full glare of the public.

As a matter of fact, rejection or confirmation is not done in an executive session. Confirmation or rejection is done following a recommendation of the relevant committee assigned to screen a nominee. It can also be the offshoot of a resolution of the Committee of the Whole Senate after satisfactory screening.

But in a strange manner, Magu did not have any chance to stand for screening during which he could have been confronted with the damning allegations of corruption and sabotage against him.

This has raised some questions on whether Senate’s decision of that magnitude in an executive session was valid or not. There were also questions on why such decision was not taken and communicated to Magu instead of inviting him twice when eventually he was given no chance to appear before the Senate for screening. There were also questions on why the Senate did not act on the DSS security report since October 3.

Responding to journalists’ insistence that Senate’s curious decision was confusing, Sabi retorted: “There’s no confusion here. We have said it’s based on security reports. Please, all of us public officers go for security screening, everybody!

“And we are saying based on security reports, we cannot proceed and confirm and we are rejecting it and returning it back to Mr. President for further actions. That’s just the statement. It’s as simple as that. That’s exactly what the Senate has said and I don’t have any other explanation more than this.”

Having said this, Abdullahi returned to the chamber and towards the end of the stormy session, it was learnt that Magu was invited to the meeting where the bombshell was eventually broken to him. Questions also arose on who had the authority to write a security report against a public officer, the Director-General of DSS or National Security Adviser (NSA)?

There were arguments that DSS usurped the authority of the NSA by opting to write the report. Whether this claim is true or not remains an issue to watch out for as the controversy rages on.
There were also insinuations that the battle for Magu’s soul, which culminated in the security report that the Senate acted upon was the fallout of a supremacy contest between two contending groups in the Presidential Villa.

While the one said to have convinced Osinbajo to send the letter for Magu’s confirmation was strong, the other which allegedly prevailed on DSS to write the letter was stronger. This brings reminiscences of an allegation that Saraki once made that there was a government within the government of Buhari. But the sacrosanct issue in this matter is whether Magu indeed engaged in such shady deals or not.

This accounts for why he is expected to speak out on such damning allegations or have his image and career as a police officer marred in disrepute throughout his lifetime. This is moreso that there are opinions that having such a morally bankrupt person at the helm of anti-graft crusade will be a tragic blow to anti-corruption war in the country.

The Damning DSS Report

The security report against Magu was addressed to the Acting Clerk of the Senate on October 3, 2016. The report was very damning and was enough to spell doom for anti-graft war under Magu unless it is proven otherwise. In the 15-paragraph letter, DSS said investigation conducted on Magu showed that in August 2008, following a search at his residence during the tenure of Mrs. Farida Waziri as the EFCC Chairman, some sensitive documents that were not supposed to be in his possession were found.

The report also said the discovery resulted in his detention and subsequent redeployment from EFCC to the Nigeria Police after which he was suspended from the Force.

The report further said in December 2010, Police Service Commission (PSC) found Magu guilty of “acting prejudicial to state security, withholding files, sabotage, unauthorised removal of EFCC files and acts unbecoming of a police officer and awarded him severe reprimand and punishment.”

The report said upon the appointment of the immediate past Chairman of EFCC, Ibrahim Lamorde, as EFCC boss, he made the return of Magu, who had earlier worked with him when he was EFCC’s Director of Operations his top priority, a situation it said eventually culminated in his return to EFCC. The letter stated that Magu’s return to EFCC at the instance of Lamorde was an attestation to his culpability in allegations of corrupt practices.

It further disclosed that Magu lives a flamboyant life to the extent of currently occupying a rented apartment of N40 million at N20 million per annum which it said was not paid for by the EFCC but by a retired Naval officer, Commodore Umar Mohammed, which it described as a questionable business man, who was once arrested by the DSS. Mohammed was said to have lavishly furnished Magu’s residence at the cost of N43 million.

He was also accused of proceeding on official and private trips in a private carrier easy jet owned by Mohammed. In one of such trips, he was said to have flown to Maiduguri along with Mohammed and the Managing Director of Fidelity Bank, Nnamdi Okonkwo, who was being investigated by the EFCC over complicity in funds allegedly stolen by former Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Allison-Maduke.

As an expression of his flamboyant lifestyle, DSS accused Magu of cultivating the habit of flying first class against the directive of President Muhammadu Buhari.

For example, he was said to have once flown first class to Saudi Arabia to perform lesser hajj at the cost of N2.9 million.
The report also alleged that Magu lived dual-faced life, portraying himself as an anti-graft Czar on the one hand and yet living a secretive life on the other hand. He was also said to have divulged official secrets to Mohammed in view of the benefits he was deriving from him.

The DSS said it discovered a number of official documents Magu made available to Mohammed when it searched the latter’s house. One of such letters was said to be forged allegedly from the Office of the Vice President containing the report of a fictitious investigation by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo to the president, requesting for approval to commence a probe into a matter claimed to be involving the Minister of State for Petroleum, Dr. Ibe Kachikwu and his brother, Dumebi Kachikwu.

The report further stated that Magu was fond of covering his shortcomings using police cronies to execute operations coupled with discoveries that such cronies have acquired a lot of landed property for themselves. While concluding, the report stated: “In the light of the foregoing, Magu failed integrity test and will eventually constitute liability to anti-corruption drive of the present administration.”

Implications of the DSS Report

The anti-graft crusade under Magu is already doomed by the DSS damning report unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be untrue. This accounts for why some believe that Buhari cannot afford to be complacent over the matter if he’s indeed passionate about anti-graft crusade. Already, it is believed that Magu’s image is dented and he can no longer lead the crusade with his already dented image.

It will therefore amount to a mockery of the fight against corruption to leave a task of that magnitude in the hand of a perceived morally deficient person. The way forward therefore, as pundits will argue, is for Magu to come out clean of the allegations with proofs of their falsehood or be shown the way out if the anti-corruption war must thrive.

From the Court of Public Opinion

But in spite of the position taken by the lawmakers on the confirmation of Magu, the reaction of the chairman, presidential advisory committee on corruption, Professor Itsey Sagay, had raised some eyebrow. In what could be a reflection of the mindset of the presidency on the matter, Sagay was quoted to have insisted that “Whether they (the Senate) like it or not, Magu will be there. His chairmanship will keep on being renewed.”

According to the professor of law, “Since Nuhu Ribadu left, we have not had a man with such sterling qualities as Ibrahim Magu, and whether they like it or not, Magu will be there until he completes his term under the law.”

But reacting to Sagay’s assertion, former National Secretary, Labour Party (LP) and founder, Egalitarean Mission, Africa, Mr. Kayode Ajulo, was of the opinion that the erudite law professor should rather toe the line of the position of the law instead of seeing it from a political point of view.

“Nigeria is a republic. Everything should be as stipulated by the constitution. As a lawyer, I don’t want to look at the insinuation that his rejection was due to politics. By the virtues of the provision of the law, the lawmakers have responsibilities and obligations to perform to Nigerians.

“They are expected to either confirm or reject a person brought before them but in this instance, the entirety of the Senate rejected his appointment and that brings me to what I have always advocated; that we should build and make institutions stronger. All the noise shows that we place more premiums on persons.

“In my view, it is better we have a much stronger, viable and viral EFCC that can effectively fight corruption. Prof Sagay, knowing the law is not unaware that Section 2, subsection 3 of the EFCC act stipulates how he (Magu) can be appointed – that without the Senate approval, irrespective of the sentiment, he is not a chairman.

“I was in London recently. I didn’t even know the name of who the chairman of their electoral body is but elections went on smoothly. That is because the institution is strong and whoever heads it must work within the law.”

Also speaking on the issue, a member of the Ekiti State House of Assembly and chairman, House Committee on Information, Youth and Sports Development, Hon. Olugboyega Aribisogan, opined that there is need to reflect on the position taken by the Senate.

“As a lawmaker, you can only act on information available to you. If the Senate President, relying on information from Senate Committee on Media, says there are issues raised against Magu, the people who presented him should react.

“We should look deeper into why the Senate relied on the DSS report to reject him more so he has acted in that capacity. So, the issue is whether we should allow some of these reports without reading any political meaning to it”, he said.

Lawyer and the Lagos State Labour Party (LP) Chairman, Pastor Abiodun Popoola though not aligning with either the presidency or the Senate on Magu’s matter, was of the opinion that the law should be allowed to take its course.

“In every civil society, there are rules and regulations and they must be respected. Government should rather be bothered because unlike the Senate, someone they presented has been rejected when in the eyes of the public he has done well and should scale through.

“Though it could also have political undertone going by his (Magu) reactionary attitude lately, even at that Nigerians should stand against statements such as ‘whether the Senate likes it or not, Magu will remain EFCC chairman’.

“If former president, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan said so the caliber of those in office today may not be there. And as such, I think it is time to begin to question the integrity of those in power. Democracy is a government of the people for the people, so, the ideas from four corners of the country should be respected,” he said.

He contended that the EFCC itself has not been particularly spectacular in the anti-corruption fight, stressing that ‘They are looting the money they claim they are receiving and witch-hunting the people”, adding that “Though I don’t want to talk for the Senate because they are all thieves in the high places. They should all begin to build strong institutions”.

Auwal Ibrahim Musa (Rafsanjani), the Executive Director of Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) and the civil societies in the country are disenchanted by the action of the senate.

According to him, CISLAC along with Transparency International-Nigeria (TI) and Zero-corruption Coalition (ZCC) express “concern at the circumstances surrounding the non-confirmation by the Nigerian Senate of Ibrahim Magu as the Chairman of Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), upon his appointment by the President.

“We find it worrisome that the confirmation of the head of such a strategic anti-corruption agency is taking such a long time, having been first appointed in November 2015, and worse still at a time when the nation is reinvigorating the fight against corruption. CISLAC, TI- Nigeria and ZCC wonder if there is more to the unfolding events than meets the eyes.

“We are further alarmed at the circumstances preceding the last session in which the Upper Chamber failed to confirm the appointee. The fact that the session was preceded by a rowdy sitting and the Senators resorted to a closed-door session further highlights the lack of transparency in the confirmation process.

“We find the Senate’s reliance on a Security Report from the Department of State Services (DSS) as a reason for the rejection of the President’s appointee very curious. While we acknowledge that the Senators have the power of confirmation, as well as, the right of recourse to relevant institutions for vetting, this must be applied strictly for public good and in very transparent and accountable manner.

“CISLAC, TI and ZCC therefore call on the Senate to make public the security report it depended upon to reject the confirmation. Merely reading it out in a closed session and applying it to arrive at such far-reaching decisions fall short of the expectations of the electorate that they represent in the exercise of their powers.

“We call on the DSS to publicly confirm that they are the source of the report in question and authenticate the content for the Nigerian Public to know. Considering that the DSS is also an agency in the executive arm, it should indicate if the report was also shared with the President, who appoints the EFCC chairman. This is to ensure that it is discharging its functions as expected by law and procedure.

“We call on the Presidency to publicly state its position on the unfolding issues so that Nigerians can have a clear picture and draw their own conclusions as public support is crucial to a successful fight against corruption.

“The position of the EFCC chair is a very sensitive one and its occupant must be held to the highest levels of integrity and credibility. A situation where individuals and groups hide under clandestine and unverified documents and reports to take decisions that could undermine the integrity of individuals and institutions at the forefront of the anti-corruption efforts will be a disservice to the nation and must not be allowed to stand.

But for Mr. Morenikeji Saliu, a legal practitioner, the action of the senate is a welcome development.

“The rejection is a welcome development. It’s democracy at work for once. For some time now, our political leaders have hoodwinked us because due process only exists in papers alone. That is why you find that confirmation of appointments is always like ritual and predetermined.

“In the past, no questions are asked. We have had instances where ambassadorial nominees cannot recite the national anthem. Things are always settled. Whether the senate actions are ill-motivated or not, that is beside the point and whether the DSS was instigated to write the damning report is of no effect, what matters is that a screening took place.

“I think the senate has subjected a presidential nominee to the rigor of screening and if he has failed, then it means that he cannot be the chairman of the commission. There are so many other Nigerians, who can do the job. Let the presidency present another candidate,” he concurred.