Connect with us

Opinion

Should EFCC, ICPC Be Scrapped?

Published

on

Following the debate generated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC), and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) whose efforts at tackling the scourge of corruption in the country have remained below expectation, some Nigerians have called for the scrapping of the two anti-corruption agencies which they argue are performing the traditional duties of the police.

However, they feel that the police as a crime-fighting institution has not fared any better.

Here are some of the views expessed by Nigerians on the issue.  Mrs Lora Braisewell – Geogolist

The police should be scrapped instead of the EFCC and ICPC. The police are not functioning. The EFCC and ICPC function better than the police, for me, they do better work. They are created for specific functions which they have been carrying out.

What the EFCC needs is more backing from the Federal Government. I don’t think they have enough support from the Federal Government at the moment. With enough backing from the federal government, I think EFCC will do better. When Ribadu was the head of the EFCC, he performed very well in tackling financial crimes in the country. I believe there are still a few good men in Nigeria, who can be co-opted into the EFCC to function better.

Mr Emmanuel Somiari- Media Worker.

My own opinion is that instead of scrapping EFCC, ICPC and FRSC, the police should be scrapped. The EFCC is performing better than the police. Agreed, some members of the EFCC are policemen but they’re doing a better job.

With the appointment of the current EFCC chairman, Ibrahim Lamorde, some bad eggs have been flushed out of EFCC and the commission is doing better. A lot of things went wrong during Farida’s administration which are now being corrected. What the chairman needs to do now is to pick credible people whom he trusts, to work with him.

I also think ICPC and EFCC should work hand-in-hand to curtail fraud and move this country forward.

Barrister (Mrs) Nkechi Bright – lawyer

From the on set I was never in support of the  EFCC because with all their findings, nothing came to an end. You only hear that EFCC discovered this or that but you don’t see anybody suffering for the offence that he/she committed. So I think I’m in support of the scrapping of EFCC.

All Nigerians hear is that EFCC discovered that this person looted a certain amount of money and all that and the matter is in court. But we don’t see these people being prosecuted and being sent to jail which is the ultimate for such offences.

ICPC and EFCC are doing almost the same work and it still boils down to the same thing. The end result is what Nigerians are looking out for. We want to see people that commit offences go to jail and pay for their offences. If you are a commission set up by law like they are and you see that you achieve no result from what you have been asked to do, don’t you do anything about it? You just keep quiet? So I think all parties are to be blamed here, the commissions and even the judiciary (for the endless prosecutions).

In the case of FRSC, I think they deviated from what they were set up to do, they are now interested in changing plate numbers and all that, doing the work of a traffic man, instead of ensuring safety on our roads.

But in their own case, they should be channelled properly. EFCC and ICPC should be scrapped because the Federal Government is just putting in funds there and we are not seeing any result. The desired aim why those commissions were set up, we are not seeing it because corruption is still the same thing in Nigeria. Nothing has changed.

Mr. Anthony Ugowe, a lawyer/businessman What I think is that EFCC and ICPC should be merged, not necessarily scrapped because I think the police will do a very shoddy job in tackling corruption. But EFCC, so far, even if they are not perfect, they’re doing a good job. But ICPC is living under the shadow of EFCC. They do almost the same thing and ICPC has not been performing so far. So I think ICPC should be merged with EFCC.

For the FRSC, I think they should be merged with the police. I think FRSC is a drain on our resources because they do basically what the police does as regards traffic and everything. Apart from that, looking at their number, they are just like a handful compared to the police that are everywhere.

When you have law enforcement officers everywhere, people behave themselves. So, I think they should be merged with the police.

Coming back to EFCC, I think compared to the police,  EFCC has some level of discipline, some staff of the commission are drawn from the police and they still have civilians which create a proper balance in the equation. There’s a sort of check and balance.

So they should either scrap the ICPC or merge them with EFCC, then, FRSC should be merged with police. They should be a special arm of the police. For instance, right now, the traffic wardens (yellow fever) are completely useless. What they do is just to control traffic. But they should be holding the position of the road safety commission. That’s what I think.

Mr. Jackson Monday Sariguma, CDC Chairman. I disagree with the idea of scrapping EFCC because the work of the police is different from that of EFCC. EFCC is tackling financial corruption but the police is tackling general crime. With the level of corruption in the police, I don’t think the police will be able to handle politicians today who are busy looting our treasury.

Merging police with FRSC is also wrong because police cannot do the work effectively. You see policemen on the road instead of them taking care of the problems on the road, you see them collecting N20, N50 from drivers. So they should allow FRSC to be there so that they can manage the road. The day I was going to my village and there was an accident on the road, if not for FRSC officials, many people would have died there. But policemen were there who couldn’t do any thing to help the accident victims.

So I will suggest, let all the commissions remain. Rather, the police be reformed so that the police can be reliable. Nigeria’s income is enough to maintain those agencies. The only thing is that they have to put reliable persons there and they will do their job effectively. So let the status quo remain but government should finance them, maintain them, reform them, send them abroad for training and I believe they will carry out their duties, and Nigeria will be in peace.

Mr. Ifeanyi Onyebe- businessman.

What I want to say is that when the ICPC was created, they were given a mandate which they are not carrying out. They are only focusing on the financial aspect of it. That is why today you hear them talking of EFCC taking over their job.

One of the objectives is to educate Nigerians in order to correct the way corruption has eaten up the whole system. Up till date, ICPC is not educating or enlightening the public. They are supposed to take the campaign against corruption to schools, talk to the students so that when they graduate they are not going to involve themselves in corrupt practices. But today, they are not doing so. They want to investigate those that have committed one or two financial crimes. Yes, in that aspect, the job of the EFCC and ICPC are overlapping. And I’m suggesting that if ICPC does not want to go into educating, enlightening the public on the dangers of corruption, if they want to focus on fighting financial crimes only, ICPC should be scrapped or be emerged with the EFCC.

Then, EFCC on its own side, needs to live up to our expectation. Every time we will be hearing 40 count charges, 50 count charges, yet none of those offenders had been made to pay for the offences committed. None of them has refunded the money stolen. So I want EFCC to sit up and work for Nigerians and not for the government because as it stands now, it seems they are working for the government, those that appointed them.

Again, merging the police and FRSC will bring about a total collapse in the system as far as traffic is concerned. If you see the way people drive on the highways, on our roads, you will agree with me that if you decide to merge the police and FRSC, every thing will just fall apart. The police should be solely in charge of security while FRSC should go on and educate Nigerians on how to drive. Let us  know the signs, let us know what and what we need to do. Let us know the danger of carrying over load, because many people have gone and many are still dying.

The traffic department of the police is not effective. You only see then where they are doing what traffic light is supposed to do, but you can’t see them on the highways doing what they are supposed to do.

Continue Reading

Opinion

One Attack Too Many 

Published

on

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By:  King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth  

Published

on

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael  Abraham

Continue Reading

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s  Outburst

Published

on

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection. 

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office

By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Trending