IN THE MATTER BETWEEN MATAWALLE AND EFCC

of the grounds listed by Matawalle, this Court has nonetheless found it necessary to make a public policy pronouncement in the interest of all, hoping that our learned friends will stop misleading the public.

The argument that a federal body cannot look into the finances of states is as misleading as it is disingenuous. Item No 6 on the Exclusive Legislative List of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) vests banking regulations in the Federal Government. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, the National Assembly exercised its authority by enacting the EFCC Act, 2004, granting the agency the power under Section 6(b) to investigate all financial crimes including advance fee fraud, money laundering, counterfeiting, illegal charge transfers, futures market fraud, fraudulent encashment of negotiable instruments, computer credit card fraud, and so forth.

Thus, any transaction that passes through the banking system is, by virtue of the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, subject to federal regulation. It is, therefore, illogical to accuse the EFCC of poke-nosing into the finances of states whereas it is able to probe transactions that go through the financial system. If state funds were to be spent in such a way and manner that would not involve the banking system, the EFCC would be legally barred from looking into such transactions. In the real sense, therefore, what the EFCC does is to investigate and prosecute acts of money laundering that went through the financial system, no matter the individual, agency, or tier of government involved.

If the contrary were to hold true, we may as well conclude that if a vehicle belonging to a state government and driven by an employee of the state kills a citizen on the federal highway, the driver could not be prosecuted by the

Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) since it is a federal body. Insofar as the crime is committed in an area under federal jurisdiction, it does not matter if the offending driver were an employee of a state or the car were the property of the state government. I am, therefore, satisfied by the combined reading of the 1999 Constitution and the EFCC Act, 2004 and hereby declare that any crime that passes through the banking system is a federal offence.

Let me now determine Issue No 1 as raised by Matawalle, viz: whether the EFCC should be probing only governors and their commissioners whereas federal government officials are also corrupt but the anti-graft agency is looking the other way. This raises a basic question: can the EFCC walk and chew gum at the same time? I hold so. It is not a matter of either/or. The EFCC should go after governors, federal officials and whoever violates the money laundering laws. Going after Matawalle should not stop the EFCC from going after federal officials and going after federal officials should not stop the agency from going after Matawalle. I, therefore, order the EFCC to go after all of them.

On Issue No 2, as to whether the EFCC should not also show evidence of federal corruption, I acknowledge that a former minister is currently in custody over money laundering allegations, as confirmed by the EFCC in its response. It is also to my knowledge that a serving accountant-general of the federation was arrested over allegations of N109 billion fraud. I am further aware that many federal officials are being questioned or put on trial over allegations of fraud and money laundering. It would seem Matawalle has specific persons in mind whom he thinks are being treated as sacred cows. The applicant may be well right but that cannot extricate him from the allegations against him.

On Issue No 3, as to whether the EFCC has a moral right to call Matawalle corrupt whereas its boss allegedly demanded a bribe of $2 million from him, this court holds true a maxim: “He that comes to equity must come with clean hands.” But the legitimate and legal way for Matawalle to resolve this claim is to provide the evidence to the appropriate authorities. The EFCC chairman does not enjoy immunity in any form and is subject to accountability procedure by any of the arms of government. In this instance, we hold that Matawalle has the right and duty to present the requisite evidence to the police or any anti-graft agency for necessary action as soon as possible in the national interest.

I hold that Matawalle cannot, in citing the ground of equity, get any comfort from making a counter allegation against the EFCC chairman. In Loughran v. Loughran, the Learned Judge Brandies J. said that “equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives”. There are other maxims this Honourable Court of Public Opinion would like to draw to Matawalle’s attention, namely “equity will not grant relief from a self-created hardship”, “no one is entitled to the aid of a court of equity when that aid has become necessary through his or her own fault”, and “a court of equity will not assist a person in extricating himself or herself from the circumstances that he or she has created”.

In its counter-petition before this Court, the EFCC accused Matawalle of money laundering. It says the real issue is that Matawalle is being investigated by the EFCC over allegations of corruption, award of phantom contracts and diversion of over N70 billion. The agency alleges that Matawalle sourced the funds as a loan from an old generation bank to execute projects across the local government areas of Zamfara state. The agency further avers that over 100 companies received payments but there is no evidence of service rendered to the state. Some of the contractors have allegedly made “startling revelations” to the EFCC on how they diverted the funds to private pockets.

According to the EFCC, the contractors confessed, under interrogation, that they were directed to convert the funds to dollars and pay into the accounts of a commissioner and some aides of the governor. One contractor allegedly collected N6 billion on a N10 billion contract without rendering any service. Another was said to have collected over N3 billion to supply medical equipment but N400 million went to a Bureau de Change. The contractor allegedly said it was to buy dollars for Matawalle. If these allegations are indeed true, it would aid my elementary understanding of one of the many reasons for the demand pressure on dollar and why the exchange rate keeps going up.

Having carefully studied the arguments of both parties, this Honourable Court of Public Opinion hereby orders Matawalle to return to Nigeria from Egypt, where he is currently chilling out, to answer his father’s name. The EFCC has accused him of money laundering. He too has accused the EFCC chairman of demanding a bribe. This Court holds that it is settled in law that he who asserts a fact must prove the existence of that fact. Therefore, justice will be best served if (1) Matawalle urgently returns to prove his case against Bawa and (2) Matawalle exercises his right to defend himself before a Court of Law. Finally, I order both parties to immediately cease their media war.

I make no order as to costs.