Politics
EFCC And 2011 Polls
Recently, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had submitted an advisory list containing names of prominent politicians, former and serving public officers, alleged to have one case or another pending before various courts in the country.
The list contained at least 100 names with 40 prominent politicians whom the commission said should be barred from running for elective offices in the forthcoming 2011 elections.
The EFCC’s intention as speculated, may not be unconnected with a purported pre-emptive measure to stop or dashing the hope of some politicians with ambition to contest election in 2011.
The list had generated furore and negative reactions from prominent citizens in the country. Some believed that EFCC has become political tool in the hands of privileged government officials as instrument of intimidation against perceived political opponents.
The Chief of Staff to the Rivers State Government House, Hon. Nyesom Wike, whose name was conspicuously mentioned said: “it is a political vendetta.
Some citizens also saw the EFCC are institution and instrument poised to witch hunt perceived political opponents that refused to tow their political ideology.
This no doubt was said to be the ugly face of the commission under the erstwhile chairman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu.
The them EFCC chairman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu’s similar advisory list caused serious political uproar prior to the 2007 general elections.
The dust generated a number of controversial tendencies with the disqualification of the PDP governorship candidate in Rivers State now incumbent Governor, Rt Hon. Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Chief Peter Okocha, Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) governorship candidate in Delta State and former vice president, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku, among others.
With determination and courage, they fought their cases to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court judgments gave them victory at the end of the day.
However, the questions agitating the minds of concerned Nigerians are whether the EFCC has such powers to stop any politician from contesting the forthcoming election based on the advisory list?
Will the 64 registered political parties in Nigeria accept the advisory list to act upon it thereof?
Is EFCC now usurping the constitutional functions of the law courts as to stop candidates without any conviction by the court?
However, perusing the law setting up the anti graft agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment Act 2004), the EFCC was charged with among others functions, the duties of investigation of all financial crimes including advance fee fraud, money laundering, counterfeiting, illegal charge transfers, future market fraud, fraudulent encashment of negotiable instruments, computer credit card fraud, contract scam etc.
Also, the EFCC shall adopt any measures to identify, trace, freeze, confiscate or seize proceeds derived from terrorist activities, economic and financial crimes related offences or the properties, the value of which corresponds to such proceeds.
Again, EFCC has such function of the examination and investigation of all reported cases of economic and financial crimes with a view to identifying individuals, corporate bodies or groups. From the legal perspective therefore, EFCC was not charged with the responsibility of stopping any candidate from contesting elections or to compile any advisory list to the political parties.
A prominent legal practitioner based in Port Harcourt, Barr. Awanen Jas, said the EFCC lacked the power to advise political parties on whom they should endorse for elections.
The legal luminary added that until a person is convicted by a law court, nobody has the right to stop a person from standing for election.
“EFCC has no powers under the law establishing the anti-graft agency to stop any aspirant”, he declares.
Also speaking to The Tide, an Attorney at law of the OLORI EGBE & Co Port Harcourt law office, Olubisi Mikail Afolabi, Esq, said the political parties should disregard the EFCC’s advisory list as the agency cannot constitute itself unto a court of law to stop any candidate vying for elective position.
Mikail Afolabi added that it is only court of law of competent jurisdiction having found any politician guilty of corruption and upon conviction can such politician be stopped from contesting election and not mere EFCC’s advisory list.
Also speaking to The Tide exclusively, in Port Harcourt, the Chief of staff to the Rivers State Governor and former chairman, Obio/Akpor local government area, Chief Ezebunwo Nyesom Wike, whose name was among the names on the EFCC advisory list faulted the inclusion of his name by the anti-graft agency in the advisory list to the political parties, said that he has no case to answer before the anti-graft agency.
He stated that EFCC should not be a political tool to be used to witch- hunt politicians with integrity and willingness to serve their constituency.
Chief Wike added that EFCC wrongly included his name in the advisory list of politicians having cases pending against them in court.
The Chief of Staff emphasised that the case between him and the EFCC which started in 2008, originating from his arraignment by the EFCC before Abuja High Court and then to the Court of Appeal Abuja, presided over by His Lordship Justice Ayobode Olokulo-Sodipe, where the Appeal Court ruled in his favour by quashing such criminal case against him.
He further explained that from March 2009, when the Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him of any wrong doing, the EFCC has not appealed against that judgment or any case against him to warrant his name being listed by the commission.
However, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Port Harcourt, Dr Ishmael Guorima, had a contrary opinion. He said the EFCC’s advisory list is timely to the political parties to be careful with certain candidate being considered to be fielded for elective position.
The senior lecturer said the EFCC’s advisory list is a welcome development and a clear departure of the modus operadi of EFCC under Malam Nuhu Ribadu.
He said the list to the political parties is to advise the parties that, “please they should look before they leap in fielding candidates”.
However, the various political parties have the discretionary power to field any candidate they consider as their choice, if such a candidate wins the primaries of the parties.
It is the consensus opinion that EFCC should be guided by law in its operations to avoid being used as political tool thereby defeat the noble objective of its primary responsibilities of fighting corruption.
Philip-Wuwu Okparaji
The state chairman of the party, Dr Babandi Gumel, disclosed this in a statement signed and made available to journalists on Saturday.
According to the statement, the Jigawa PDP received news of Alhaji Lamido’s suspension with “profound shock and disappointment”.
The statement added that the suspension, which was reportedly based on allegations that Alhaji Lamido attended meetings capable of undermining party unity, amounts to an affront to justice, internal democracy and the reconciliation efforts recently championed by the PDP leadership.
The party stressed that the exercise of legal and constitutional rights within the party should not be interpreted as an act of disunity. It recalled that Alhaji Lamido approached the court after he was allegedly denied the opportunity to purchase a nomination form to contest the position of National Chairman of the PDP.
The statement further noted that the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, ruled in Alhaji Lamido’s favour by restraining the PDP from proceeding with its national convention until his right to contest was determined.
The Jigawa PDP argued that the suspension appeared to be a punitive action against Alhaji Lamido for seeking judicial redress over an issue on which the court had already found merit.
The party also faulted the decision of the BoT for contradicting recent public statements by its chairman, Senator Adolphus Wabara, who had emphasised reconciliation within the party, admitted past mistakes and appealed to aggrieved members to return fully to the PDP fold.
However, it maintained that suspending a founding member who sought justice through legal means runs contrary to the spirit of reconciliation and healing publicly advocated by the party leadership.
The chairman said the suspension was premature and prejudicial, as the matter remains before the courts. He also described Alhaji Lamido as one of the few founding fathers of the PDP who has remained loyal to the party without defecting, warning that punishing such loyalty sends a negative signal to other committed members.
The party further argued that the action undermines party unity at a time when the PDP requires cohesion to effectively challenge the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It also insisted that there is no provision in the PDP constitution that allows for the suspension of a “life member”.
The party called on the BoT to immediately and unconditionally withdraw the suspension of Alhaji Lamido.
It also demanded that the BoT publicly affirm the right of all party members to aspire to leadership positions in line with the party’s constitution and the laws of the country, without fear of victimisation.
It further urged the BoT to retrace its steps, align its actions with its reconciliation agenda, and tender an apology to Alhaji Lamido.
The Jigawa PDP reaffirmed its commitment to a united, democratic and law-abiding Party.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Comrade Auwal Musa Rafsanjani, CISLAC warned that if proven, such actions would amount to a serious breach of constitutional order, legislative integrity, and public trust.
The organisation noted that Nigeria’s law-making process is clearly defined by the Constitution, stressing that any alteration of a bill after parliamentary passage undermines democratic governance and the principle of separation of powers.
CISLAC further emphasised that taxation has direct implications for citizens, businesses, sub-national governments, and the overall economy. It stated that uncertainty or a lack of transparency in tax legislation could erode investor confidence and raise concerns about accountability and the possible abuse of executive power.
The organisation described the situation as particularly troubling given the rare inclusive, and thorough public consultation that shaped the law’s final provisions prior to its passage.
“This process brought together taxpayers, civil society groups, professional organisations, the private sector, labour unions, local governments, and technical experts, ensuring that diverse viewpoints were considered and carefully balanced.
“Any unilateral changes to these agreed-upon provisions, made outside the established legislative process and without renewed public engagement, not only breach public trust but also violate the fundamental tax principle of representation, which holds that citizens must have a meaningful voice in shaping the laws that govern how they are taxed. Such actions undermine democratic accountability, weaken the legitimacy of the tax system, and risk eroding public confidence”, it noted.
CISLAC expressed particular concern that uncertainty surrounding the authenticity of the tax law, coming at a time when a new tax regime is expected to take effect, could exacerbate the economic hardship already faced by many Nigerians.
It observed that citizens are contending with rising living costs, inflationary pressures, declining purchasing power, and reduced access to basic services, warning that implementing a disputed tax framework under such conditions, risks deepening inequality, discouraging compliance, and fuelling public resentment.
The organisation stressed that tax reforms must be anchored in clarity, legality, fairness, and social sensitivity, cautioning that any tax system introduced without full transparency, adequate public communication, and legislative certainty undermines voluntary compliance and weakens the social contract between the state and its citizens.
As part of its recommendations, CISLAC called on the Presidency to urgently publish the exact version of the tax law assented to, alongside the authenticated copy passed by the National Assembly, to allow for public and institutional verification.
It also urged the leadership of the National Assembly to promptly exercise its oversight powers to determine whether the assented law reflects the will of the legislature, including a review of the enrolled bill process.
The organisation maintained that any discrepancy discovered should be treated as unconstitutional and addressed through lawful means, such as the re-transmission of the correct bill or judicial interpretation where necessary. It further called for an independent review of the process by relevant institutions, including the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation and, where required, the judiciary, to establish the facts and assign responsibility.
CISLAC noted that the controversy highlights the urgent need to strengthen safeguards at the legislative and executive interface. It recommended measures such as digital tracking of bills, public access to enrolled legislation, and more transparent assent procedures.
CISLAC emphasised that the issue is not about partisan politics but about safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. It warned that allowing any arm of government to unilaterally alter laws passed by another sets a dangerous precedent and weakens constitutional democracy.
The organisation urged all parties involved to act with restraint, openness, and fidelity to the Constitution, noting that Nigerians deserve laws that reflect due process, the public interest, and the collective decisions of their elected representatives.
CISLAC added that it will continue to monitor developments and engage relevant stakeholders to promote accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in Nigeria’s governance processes.
