Prosecuting corrupt officials easier through Code of Conduct Bureau — Chairman
Prof. Muhammed Isah is the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB), the pioneer anti-corruption agency in Nigeria. In this interview, Prof. Isah who took over the bureau less than a year ago, saw the investigation that led to the prosecution of ex- C
What will you say is your experience since you assumed office as the CEO of the Code of Conduct Bureau?
The bottom line is that this is a very important institution. The Code of Conduct Bureau, as you know, is the creation of the constitution and there is also an enabling law that created it. It was created to check the excesses of public officers. Its mandate is as enshrined in Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule of the Constitution. The work it is expected to do is enshrined under the Fifth Schedule. It is the pioneer anticorruption agency. It has been there since 1979, but it came on board after an enabling law was enacted in I989, which is about 30 years ago now.
The bureau is to check public officers. They are categorised under the law as elected political office holders; appointed political office holders; federal public servants; and state and local government civil servants. Also, the judicial officers are also public officers for the purposes of the code of conduct for public officers. The police, military, customs and all other para-military institutions; the personnel in these agencies are also public servants, hence nobody is spared in this category. More so, from the president to the last person in the local government services are public officers for the purposes of enforcing compliance with the Code of Conduct for public officers.
The bureau is mandated to monitor the conduct of each public officer. It is mandated to gather intelligence, investigate and eventually refer the case to the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) if the public officer is found wanting. It is mandated to receive complaints or petitions of non-compliance with the Code of Conduct for public officers.
The CCB’s work is largely preventive, because most of the corruption cases you find are perpetrated in public offices. So, if public officers are put on check from time to time, the issue of even taking unlawfully from public coffers would be minimised. It is not about pursuing somebody after he has taken and empowered himself, and he or she begins to fight back because the person is already empowered with billions of naira from the public coffers. The person will not stand or allow any authority or power to even come up and insist on making the law take its course.
In that case, since the person has been empowered, he takes the services of the most expensive lawyers to defend the
case because he has dipped his hand into public coffers. That is why you see most of these high-profile cases of people hanging in court without any meaningful progress ever since the fight against corruption became prominent.
How far could you say you have gone in curtailing that scenario?
This is the second leg of the first question asked earlier. That is why I gave a background information of the strategic importance of this institution earlier in my remarks. By this, you understand better and have a yardstick of measuring whether we have achieved anything or not. When we came in, just barely seven months ago, we met the bureau in serious crisis.
There was a serious leadership tussle between the acting secretary and the most senior director then in the bureau. When the last board was leaving, they handed over to the most senior director. At that time, the acting secretary was not around. Later, she was re-instated and when she came back, the most senior director could not accept it easily. So, there was this leadership tussle to the point that the bureau was pressed to a standstill and nothing was happening.
From four to five months before we were confirmed, nothing was happening in this place. There were lots of union activities that frustrated the activities of the bureau then; even the offices were locked. When we came in, by the grace of God within one week of our confirmation, everybody returned to work. All offices were reopened, and everybody went back to duty in his or her station; hence this is the first achievement. The polity was seriously heated if you could recall. We decided to maintain some level of neutrality. We opened our doors to everybody, and we assured everybody that we are here to work and not to play.
Secondly, we tried to see that all the relationships we had with other anti-corruption agencies and other agencies that matter, as stakeholders in the anti-corruption fight are improved upon. There is no way we will get a mail on investigation activities from the EFCC, ICPC or Public Complaints Commission, and we sit on that mail: we ensure that there is speedy treatment of all mails that come from our partners with regard to anticorruption within a reasonable time.
Thirdly, complaints that are filed are treated with dispatch. Between the time we came in and now, we have filed about 50 cases in the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Just last week, I received a brief on more cases to be filed and there are about 15 of them, which are high profile cases and we are ready to prosecute those public officers.
Could you talk to us on the recent prosecution of the former Chief Justice of the Federation, and the experience with that high-profile case?
Yes, we succeeded in that case. You know that there is one thing peculiar about the bureau and the other anticorruption agencies. We have a sister institution, that is the Code of Conduct Tribunal, and no other anti-corruption agency has a tribunal like us, and that makes us peculiar. If the government wants to fight corruption effective, if it can use the CCB. I tell you if CCB can be strengthened the way EFCC and ICPC are strengthened, and supported with funds, I tell you ICPC and EFCC would have less work to do.
Why did you say so?
We have a special court, that is the Code of Conduct Tribunal, and they (ICPC, EFCC) don’t have a special court like us. Our own work is more of preventive, and most of the offences are “strict liability offences”. In law, when it comes to offence, there are two elements that you need to prove: the intent and the act. But in our own case, once you can have the violation of the act, you have nothing to do with the intent. The most difficult aspect of proving an offence is the intent and not the act.
If the law, for instance says ‘don’t be in possession of a knife,’ and you are seen with a knife in the corridor, the offence is completed because of the possession. How you came about that knife, or what you intend to do with it is immaterial. In our own case, your intention is immaterial. But, for instance stealing. When you steal, you have a number of defences on how you went to somebody’s house to take away a property that does not belong to you. You could have a number of defences, and may even succeed at the end of the day if you have competent lawyers to defend you.
Conversely, for offences such as asset declaration; once you don’t declare, that is an offence. Your intention for not declaring is immaterial. The law says as a public officer, you must declare your assets before starting the functions of your office; and you did not declare - and it was discovered you did not - the law would take its course.
So many people see Onnoghen’s case as an isolated case, and there are concerns that he was targeted because of his alleged alliance with the opposition. How do you react to this?
I don’t want to go into that area, but as the Chief Executive of CCB, my own duty is to receive petition and investigate and if found wanting with regard to what the law says, I take you to CCT. Onnoghen admitted he did not declare his assets by himself. Because we have to respect him and dignify his office, we sent our investigative team to his office. They met with him and in the presence of a trusted staff of his, he wrote with his very hand and signed, and the staff countersigned with her name that all he had said and had written, he stands by it. So, what more do you need in this kind of case? Be it an isolated case or otherwise an inclusive case, what more do you or anyone needs when it comes to justice in a case like this?
What measures are you exploring to address lack of funds for the agency to upscale its functions?
When we came in here, we noticed that the CCB had been dumped as a toothless bull dog. Even the government’s attention and the donor agencies attentions, development partner’s attentions and other public institutions attentions, were not on CCB as an anti-corruption agency.
As God may have it, when we came in, we realise this. We have no option than to struggle as much as we could to raise it from the ashes of condemnation to the level of glory. We can only do this if we can stand tooth and nail to discharge our mandate because greatness and achievements are not made out of funds. They are made out of honesty, determination and sincerity of purpose. From zero level you can start and reach the peak, and that is what we are doing now.
We just came back from the office of the Director General of Budgets. We went and told him that this budget preparation process is around the corner, and CCB as an anti-corruption agency, we don’t have funds for foreign engagements. We cannot make foreign trips anywhere because we don’t have funds. There is even a circular from the government on foreign trips restrictions; but some other agencies have it in their budget provisions.
Second, we don’t have investigation funds; and three, we don’t have prosecution funds. We are not also automated. We don’t have any form of automation as I speak with you now, but this cannot deter us from delivering on our work.
If I start making a list for you on how we are surviving on among others, you will be surprised. I’m not indicting government for anything, but the agency was mishandled and mis-administered to this level. But by the Grace of God, we are working hard to get ourselves out of the ashes of failure and we are on the road to success.