• Home
• Columnist
• Videos
• Artist
  • Musicians
  • Actors
  • Comedians
• Notable Nigerians
• Legend Dies
• Articles
  • Nigeria Articles
• Photos
• Submit Article

Mohammed Bello Adoke, attorney general of the federation and minister of justice defends the introduction of  guidelines by his ministry to ensure due diligence in the activities of anti-graft agencies in the country

He did not mince words about his plans for earthshaking reforms when he appeared on the floor of the Senate as a ministerial nominee on June 30. He promised to reform the justice sector, wage a more vigorous war on corruption, and possibly merge the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC,  and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other offences Commission, ICPC, two anti-corruption agencies whose operational strategies  have  been  widely criticised in Nigeria. Mohammed  Bello Adoke, Attorney General and Minister of Justice,  AGF, is resolute in his plan.  

 Three weeks ago, he set up and gave marching orders to a 12 –man Panel on the Implementation of Justice Reforms, PIJR, urging them     to work out, within 24 months, modalities for the  implementation of  reforms in the sector. The reforms are expected to provide a new impetus for a new and vigorous war against corruption in the country in the years ahead.

 Adoke believes that Nigeria needs a transparent system of justice. “The   transformation agenda of President Goodluck Jonathan recognises that the administration of justice in Nigeria is in need of reforms; not reforms for the sake of it but because  Nigerians want a more effective and transparent system of justice which is accessible to every Nigerian.” He explained that what he was advocating was in line with the provisions of the Constitution. “We have sworn to uphold the Constitution which compels us to develop a system of justice which is in keeping with democracy and respect for human rights…we intend to keep faith with this solemn obligation,”  he said.

 On August 9,  while inaugurating  the panel in Abuja, Adoke also emphasised that his action was  in accordance with  the vision of the federal government  to provide fair, timely, accessible and equal access to justice by all Nigerians and non citizens in the country. He directed the panel to review all existing studies on the reform of the justice sector  and come up with tangible reform proposals in the form of a draft legislation, guidelines and recommendations that would improve justice administration in the country.

He tasked the group to “study all relevant background reports, draft legislation, documents and information published since 2004 on reforms in the justice sector and  recommend initiatives or programmes for the reform of institutions or procedures within the justice sector for approval by the AGF.”

The panel is headed by Justice Ishaq  Bello, a High Court Judge, and was given terms  of reference which  encompasses short and medium term goals.  The goals include evolving a workable reform blueprint for the criminal justice sector, National Human Rights Commission and for improved international co-operation mechanisms. Other goals also extend to evolving reform   blueprints for improved accountability and efficiency of Federal Ministry of Justice and other  allied institutions like the EFCC, and ICPC.

In his response on behalf of other members of the panel, Bello assured the minister that the confidence reposed in the  panel  would not be betrayed and promised that the committee would  execute the mandate given to them in line with their terms of reference. The other members of the committee include  Oluwale Fapohunda, Olasupo Sasore,  Davidson Ereme, Juliet Ibekwu, Olujimi Oluyele and Felix Ota- Okojie, Orakwe, Peter Akpe,  Yemi Adeseye, and   Adedeji Adekunle, the  secretary.

As a further proof of his commitment to reforms and to waging a vigorous  war against corruption in the country, Adoke recently invoked his powers pursuant to  section 43 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004 , which empowers the AGF to “make rules or regulations with respect to the exercise of any duties, functions or powers of the commission under the Act,” and  released for immediate implementation, the  EFCC (enforcement) regulations, 2010 . The   regulations which provide for procedure and process for enforcing and implementing the mandate of the EFCC in the whole or any part of Nigeria makes it mandatory for the EFCC to report directly to the AGF on many issues.

 It has 17 sub issues dealing with such matters as  procedure of receiving complaints, investigations, arrests,  granting of bail and plea bargain. There are also sections dealing with entry, search, inspection, seizure, forfeiture and disposal of property, prosecution of cases, petition and grants.

 Some sections of the regulation which was gazette last year provide for    effective monitoring of the activities of the EFCC. There is section 10, for instance, which provides that “where the EFCC conducts investigation in respect of a case or complaint which is serious or complex, it shall forward to the AGF the outcome of the investigation with its recommendations on whether there are sufficient grounds to initiate prosecution.” Under the provisions of this section, a case or complaint is considered serious or complex if it involves money or assets of a value exceeding   N50 million, has a significant international dimension or involves allegations of fraudulent activity against numerous victims.

A case or complaint may also be considered serious if it “requires specialised knowledge of financial, commercial, fiscal or regulatory matters such as the operation of markets, banking systems, trusts or tax regimes. It could also be considered as such if it involves substantial and significant loss of funds by a Ministry or Department or a public body or it is likely to be of  widespread  public concern, involves an alleged misconduct which amounts to an act of economic sabotage.”

There is also Section 22 of the gazette regulation which states further that no officer of the commission “shall enter into a plea bargain discussions with an accused person without the prior knowledge and approval of the AGF.”

Also generating furore is Section 18 and 24 of the EFCC regulation. Section 18 states that, “the AGF may designate legal officers from his office to work in the EFCC for the purpose of facilitating the prosecution of the commission’s cases,” while section 24 stipulates that the, “Chairman of the EFCC shall, within 30 days of the signing of receipt of any foreign aid or grant, inform the AGF of such grant with details of the terms and conditions of the grant or aid.”

Since the regulations were made public, reactions, especially from the EFCC have been critical of the real purpose of its implementation. Newswatch learnt that the leadership of the EFCC secretly expressed opposition to the regulation and made efforts to stop its implementation. But it did not succeed.

An EFCC official  who  chose to  speak to Newswatch on condition of anonymity said last week, that many people at  EFCC are full of lamentations about the implication of the regulation from the office of the AGF.  The source noted that with the way the regulations were couched, almost all cases would pass through the AGF for scrutiny before prosecution. “He (Adoke) is asking that we bring all matters of N50 million before him. That means that we will be going to him every week if not everyday as most of our cases are beyond that amount. Also, we deal with a lot of international cases, matters involving banks, ministries, public bodies and economic sabotage. The implication of this is that the AGF is now fully in control of the EFCC which is supposed to be an autonomous body.”

The source also complained about the provision of the law that the AGF can  send people to work at the EFCC if he deemed necessary. “The implication of this is that the AGF now wants to make the EFCC his office too. Or how else can we explain that the AGF can send people to work with us whenever he likes. These are people that are not employed by the agency and we don’t even know their background.”

He further described as ridiculous the provision that requires the EFCC to disclose to the AGF how much it gets as aid or grant. “In fact, the AGF might as well call himself the chairman of the EFCC. What is left? Through his regulation, he has put the commission firmly under his grip,” “he said.

In reaction to criticisms on the guidelines from his office,  Adoke issued a statement on July 15, to further clarify issues and fault claims that the regulations were meant to hamper the EFCC in fighting corruption. The statement  signed on his behalf by Abdullahi Yola, the solicitor general of the Federation and permanent secretary, Ministry of Justice, Adoke  explained that no harm was intended and that the EFCC’s  job of fighting corruption would not be jeopardised. The regulation is meant to prescribe safeguards to ensure that the prosecutorial powers of a publicly funded agency are exercised with due diligence and are not deployed to fight perceived enemies.

Adoke also gave an insight into why some issues which generated wide public commentaries were included in the guidelines. Taking up the issue of plea bargain for which he has been accused of masterminding the withdrawal of 50 percent of all such cases in recent times, for instance , the AGF said in apparent denial of the allegation, that he found it  intolerable that persons convicted in high profile cases end up with ridiculously low punishment on account of the agreements with prosecutors without recourse to the AGF. “Public outcry in respect of some of the plea bargains conducted by the EFCC that led to the imposition of ridiculous sanctions is still fresh in our collective memory. This cannot be in public interest as it offends the constitution that the AGF has sworn to defend,” he said.

Adoke also denied allegations that he acted illegally by issuing the regulations to EFCC. He explained:  “It is noteworthy that under Section 174 of the Constitution, the AGF has overarching oversight over public prosecution regardless of the prosecuting authority, including the power to initiate criminal proceedings, take over or discontinue criminal proceedings instituted by any other authority. Cognisant that these powers are exercisable in the public interest, the regulations will ensure that the attorney general as the chief law officer is kept informed of cases of grave public interest and be assured that best practices are being observed by the EFCC in the discharge of its statutory mandate.”

 Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, shares his view. Oyetibso said in a published statement recently  that as  the chief law officer of the country, Adoke   could regulate the EFCC as long as he is not clogging the wheels of the anti-corruption agency’s progress. He added that “If the purpose of the regulation is to ensure that the EFCC does not abuse its powers, then it is legitimate, but if it is to slow down or create a clog, then it is most unwelcome.”

Adoke emphasised that regardless of the alarm raised in certain quarters that the guidelines were meant to cripple the anti-graft agency, he is resolutely committed to supporting Jonathan’s determination to fight corruption within the ambit of the law. He said the regulation was being observed in other countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States where prosecutorial bodies are similarly guided by the attorney general’s office.

Ghana too, is among countries of the world where a code for prosecutors has been developed by the country’s Attorney General. A copy of the code endorsed by Betty Mould-Iddrisu, as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, is a 16-paged document dealing with issues similar to what Adoke incorporated in the guidelines he issued for EFCC operations in Nigeria.

Reported by Anza Phillips