The anti-graft agency is making a difference

Like other major public agencies, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has given an interim report of its achievements in the last three and half years under the current administration. While the revelations are of grave national interest because of the overwhelming scale of corruption in the Nigerian public space, they also came as no surprise. Almost on a daily basis, disclosures of cases of corruption seem to compete with rampant insecurity for front page headline prominence. Oftentimes, the sheer volume of resources – cash, real estate, automobiles and precious metals – found with those accused and being investigated is mind boggling. Unfortunately, a good number of these investigations and the attendant court proceedings either run cold or simply lead nowhere.

That perhaps explains why the public perception of the EFCC is that it thrives on either media show conviction of suspects or sheer incompetence disguised in excessive showmanship. But the just released interim report paints a somewhat different picture of the agency. According to the EFCC Chairman, Ola Olukayode, some 10,872 convictions were secured under his stewardship while a whopping N1.233 trillion, $684 million, £373 million and €9.34 were recovered. A total of 1,177 real estate assets and a slew of other tangible assets were also recovered.

Clearly, this scope of cash and asset recoveries is impressive by any standard. But it also reveals something deeper. First, it indicates that the EFCC may have been more successful in asset recovery mechanism than in crime punishment. Even those from whom these troves of cash and assets have been recovered are still freely operating in our society and many of them remain nameless. To that extent, while the EFCC may have succeeded as a mechanical public asset recovery outfit, its efficacy as a law enforcement and a crime deterrence agency remains doubtful. However, there is a larger cultural and political problem bigger than EFCC: the institutionalisation of corruption, especially in the public sector. For instance, many of the convicted politicians have in recent years been pardoned, contested and won elections despite having abused public trust in previous offices. While we cannot blame the commission for those political decisions, they nonetheless impact on its work and effectiveness.

Even more worrisome is the tardiness and rot in the judiciary which often hamstrings the best intentions of the EFCC. Indeed, the judiciary has to a large extent been a stumbling block to the efforts in fighting graft. Several cases against prominent political figures have been in various courts for years without the trials even taking off. The country’s feeble and overstrained judiciary offers infinite openings for experienced defence lawyers to secure never-ending and sometimes dizzy delays as well as dubious injunctions against criminal prosecutions. These are some of the challenges for which we cannot blame the EFCC.

  There was once a debate as to whether or not the federal government should establish specialised anti-corruption courts for efficiency, speed, integrity and expertise. But there were also questions about the relationship of such courts to the regular judicial courts, the procedures for appointing and removing such judges, and the substantive scope of jurisdiction, among others. Even though the idea has not gone beyond rhetoric, the mere suggestion of it is an indication that the EFCC has often been sabotaged by corrupt tendencies in the judiciary itself.

 In a nation where the political system continues to recompense rather than reprimand corruption and the boundary between right and wrong is becoming increasingly difficult to determine, we must acknowledge the commendable efforts of the EFCC under Olukayode. What is perhaps required is an urgent need to review the instruments establishing the agency to strengthen it in the area of asset recovery as well as in its criminal investigation and prosecutorial functions.