International Dimensions of Non-Confirmation of Ibrahim Magu as Chairman of the EFCC
Mr. Ibrahim Magu is currently the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). He was appointed into this position in December 2015. Under normal circumstance, his appointment, which is a political one, ought to have been confirmed not later than May 2016 in light of the provisions of the Public Service Regulations (PSR) of Nigeria. The PSR provides for a maximum period of six months within which an acting appointment has to be confirmed. However, like in many other cases, Ibrahim Magu’s appointment has not been confirmed since December 2015.
In the last quarter of 2015, President Muhammadu Buhari nominated Ibrahim Magu for the position of substantive Chairman of the EFCC. Without screening but in light of the security report of the Department of State Service, the nomination was not confirmed. As noted by the Department of State Security, Mr. Magu had failed the integrity: some sensitive EFCC documents which were not supposed to be in his possession were found in his house in 2008 when Retired Assistant Inspector General of Police, Mrs. Farida Waziri, was EFCC chairman.
The Department of State Service also has it that Mr. Magu was found guilty in December 2010 of ‘action prejudicial to state security, withholding of EFCC files, sabotage, unauthorised removal of EFCC files and acts unbecoming of a police officer’ by the Police Service Commission. More disturbingly, Mr. Magu was accused of high profile lifestyle: living in a rented house of N20 million per annum, travelling first class at a cost of about N3 million. There were other indictments.
It is on this basis that the Department of State Service concluded that ‘Magu has failed the integrity test and will eventually constitute a liability to the anti-corruption drive of the present administration.’ On the basis of the security report of the Department of State Service, the Senate found it difficult to confirm the nomination of Magu as substantive EFCC chairman. Consequently, on December 15, 2015 the Senate officially withheld its right of confirmation.
On January 17, 2017, for various reasons and in light of the recommendations by the Federal Attorney General, the nomination of Mr. Magu was presented again to the Senate by President Muhammadu Buhari. And for the second time, the Senate revisited the re-submission of the nomination on Wednesday March 15, 2017. It was this reconsideration of the nomination that prompted the international community to develop much interest in seeking to know how the screening of Ibrahim Magu at the Senate would go.
For instance, it is considered that how the screening of Magu goes might determine the direction of the anti-graft war. More than ten diplomatic missions indicated much interest in attending the screening exercise so as to be able to ‘gauge the mindset of the Senate and Magu’ who is highly rated by the international community.
What should be noted at this juncture is that, the Department of State Service also had another report which did not indict Magu but recommended him for substantive chairmanship of the EFCC. In this regard, the good report was sent to the President through Senator Ita Enang, the Senior Special Assistant to the President on National Assembly Matters (Senate) while the indicting report was sent to the Clerk of the Senate.
The sending of two different reports from the same source is not only a major dynamic of the problem but also why the international community is much interested in the matter. Additionally, little or no mention is made of the positive report, whereas the attitude of President Muhammadu Buhari appears to have been largely influenced by the positive nature of the report. The President has access to only one report. Ditto for the distinguished Senators who are insisting that the report in their possession does not allow for confirmation of Ibrahim Magu.
When Magu was asked to respond to the various allegations by the Department of State Services, he was first reluctant but eventually admitted that he had been reprimanded and that to a great extent the report of the Department of State Service on him is valid. In fact, for the purposes of the re-nomination, the Department of State Service still insisted on its initial report.
As a result of the conflicting positions, the refusal of the Senate on March 15, 2017 to confirm Mr Ibrahim Magu as the substantive Chairman of the EFCC for the second time has generated mixed reactions in the polity. On the one hand, attention has been drawn by eminent Nigerians to the possible bias inclines of the Senate as many of its members are also under the EFCC’s investigation led by Magu for alleged corrupt practices. For instance, Barrister Femi Falana (SAN) has it that ‘the participation of many senators who are either under investigation or being prosecuted by the EFCC has vitiated the entire proceedings of the Senate on ground of conflict of interest. It is also a contravention of the Rules of the Senate which stipulate that matters which are subjudice shall not be discussed by the Senate.’
In the same vein, another leading lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun, has argued that, under Nigeria’s current Constitution, ‘the Senate has the power to either reject or confirm, and once the Senate rejects, that is the end of the matter. But the Senate does not have the power to direct any other person to assume office in acting capacity or in the interim to fill the gap. That is the function of the executive.’
With the rejection of the nomination of Ibrahim Magu, Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, another learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that ‘going by Sections 2(1) and 2(3) of the EFCC Act, Magu ceases to be the Executive Chairman of the Commission. Having left his ‘acting’ position during his proposal to the Senate, he also loses his ‘acting’ capacity. It is simply a bad case.’
The National Dimensions
The non-confirmation of the nomination of Ibrahim Magu as the Chairman of the EFCC is quite interesting from both the domestic and external aspects. At the internal level, why did the Department of State Service write two different reports? The two reports are responsible for not just the misunderstanding between the legislative and executive arms of government, but also why many observers have been suspecting a rivalry between the Senate and the Presidency.
The non-confirmation also raises the issue of credibility and integrity of Nigeria’s institutions at home and abroad. Many ordinary Nigerians hold the belief that it is because Magu is investigating many senators that the Senate is biased and that it refuses to confirm Magu. If this were to be the case, how do we explain Magu’s admission of the allegations by the Department of State Services? Magu noted at the hearing that the second report in which he was cleared of the allegations was no longer in the dossiers given to him. He, by so doing, is already insinuating unfairness. The argument of President Muhammadu Buhari is equally relevant here: no fairness, no opportunity for fair hearing, Magu should be listened to.
The position of the president is the ideal thing in a normal system and civilised society. However, the ideal thing becomes a burden when it is selectively done. This is one major reason why the future of anti-graft war cannot be bright. When petitions were written against me as Director General and Chief Executive of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), adequate explanations on the non-tenability of the petitions were given. The Major General Ike Nwachukwu-led Governing Council could only note the explanations. The Council could not determine who was right or wrong.
Again, when the institute was becoming a new terra cognita for acts of serious indiscipline which the same Council had aided and abetted, the matter was referred to the Supervisory Authority but all to no avail: no action. This compelled me to empanel a special committee to look at the acts. The panel comprised the representatives of the Office of the Head of Service, Public Service Commission, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is the supervisory authority, a former Director General of the NIIA and the Department of State Services. The panel met and wrote a report which was sent to the supervisory authority but the report was suppressed. The allegations of fraudulent practices levied against the petitioners were also not looked into by the Department of State Services.
Even at the level of the Council’s allegation that I did not follow due process in the construction of a new international conference centre at the institute, an allegation that does not hold water, I requested for a full investigation into the matter to determine whether there had been any engagement in any form of malpractice. The Council could not do that. The best it could do is to protect staff having multiple dates of births, who changed promotion examination results, who remove queries from their official files, political professors who are NIIA Council-assisted professors, and to write confidential reports based on untruths in the belief to permanently destroy me.
Most unfortunately, it is not known in history that any Field Marshal has declared war on truth and win. No matter for how long the truth may be suppressed, it remains indestructible. In the same vein, no army general or servant of God, no person no matter how powerful can prevent tomorrow from coming. There will always be a tomorrow no matter what happens during the passing day that will become tomorrow.
The very case of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs is a good illustration of how Nigeria is consciously being destroyed by corruption. Attention is drawn to it and for drawing attention to it, the reward is sanction, instead of fair hearing. However, for as long as the anti-graft war only focuses on high-level cases and allowing corruption to grow at the middle and grass root levels, there will not be an end to corruption in Nigeria. The Ike Nwachukwu-led NIIA Governing Council has destroyed the institute beyond repairs, particularly by condoning indiscipline and no one is prepared to save the institution from total demise. The antidote to total demise is independent enquiry into the various allegations and replies in order to establish the hard facts.
Put differently, the unfairness at the NIIA is not in any way different from the unfairness raised by President Muhammadu Buhari in defence of Ibrahim Magu. Every Nigerian, accused of anything must be given a fair hearing because the worst type of corruption is to receive petitions and take decisions on them without allowing the accused a fair hearing. Decision-taking on the basis of a onesided presentation is corruption per excellence. Giving a sermon of respect for rules and regulations but allowing the preacher to do just the contrary is another worst type of corruption.
The International Dimensions
As it is, both Ibrahim Magu and the Senate have many issues of corruption to attend to. The international community is simply waiting to see how the issues will be addressed. As required by the Senate rules, Senators are required to declare their interests on the case of Mr Magus’s screening and, where applicable, exclude themselves from participating in the screening of Mr. Magu.
This matter is similar to the case of the indictment of Donald Trump’s Attorney-General who was alleged to have had contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 United States Presidential Elections and who, according to the CNBC, decided to remove himself from getting involved in any current or future investigations related to the alleged interference of Russia in the US Elections. Jeff Sessions who supervises the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which have led investigations into alleged Russian meddling in the election and any links between Russia and Trump associates without the involvement of Sessions. The point being made is that senators should not be judges in cases they are involved in.
In a forum in 2016, Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka warned the Federal Government to be very vigilant in its fight against corruption as ‘corruption will surely fight back’. He warned against complacency, adding that even during the country’s civil war, the money meant to buy arms for the military to defend the country and protect the citizenry was shared by a few people.
In light of the wise warning of Prof. Soyinka, it is noteworthy that before Mr Magu was appointed as Acting Chairman of EFCC, he was part of the investigative committee set up by the National Security Adviser, Babagana Monguno, to probe the procurement of arms in the Armed Forces between 2007 and 2015. The result of the panel exposed the height of impunity and corruption in system. The obvious question now is that given the involvement of Mr. Magu in this arms deal investigation that led to the arrest of many prominent politicians, can it now be that corruption is fighting back to stop him from further onslaught on corrupt people? Is he simply being haunted by his own corruption? Or is it a case of the kettle accusing the steam?
Magu’s case appears to be the height of a cold war between the Senate and the presidency. It should be recalled that PMB had cleared Mr Magu of any wrongdoing based on the report of the investigation by the Office of the Attorney General contrary to the indicting report of the DSS upon which the Senate predicated its decision to reject the re-nomination of the Acting EFCC Chief. While the Presidency had chosen to disregard the DSS report on Magu’s failure of integrity test, the Senate had chosen to tow an opposite path by its decision to ignore the Attorney General’s report that cleared Mr. Magu of any misdeed. How will the international community perceive the identified offences for which he has been charged?
International donors assisting the EFCC are many. Many of them took interest in attending the screening of Ibrahim Magu. Now that his nomination has been rejected again, the issue of who succeeds him must be carefully handled. The successor must be internationally agreeable for international assistance to remain. In the same vein, Nigerians travelling abroad cannot but be seen as corrupt people. The implication cannot be far-fetched: suspicion, hostility, if not nigerianophobia. If corruption is internationally perceived to be ‘incurable’ in Nigeria, new flows of investments cannot but be affected as well. In seeking therefore an enduring solution to the problem of corruption, let the approach be predicated on truth, fairness, honesty of purpose and holistic methodology.