The Ribadu’s Efcc And 2007

By

Emeka Oraetoka

limpidresources@yahoo.co.uk

 

"Can you raise your hand and swear if this commission is corrupt free?"-Senator Arthur Nzeribe, Punch, Thursday, October 14, 2004, page 8

"Give the commission power to go after those who rigged elections and see what we can do.We are not afraid of anybody whether influencial or not"-Ribadu, same Punch of October 14, 2004.

The above altercation between Distinguished Senator Arthur Nzeribe and the EFCC boss, ACP Nuhu Ribadu as reported by Punch Newspaper, at the head office of the EFCC, when the senate Committee on Drugs and Narcotics and Financial crimes called as part of its oversight functions, should have served as a guide on how to effectively re-order the EFCC, for greater operational decency, but it appeared the authorities in Aso-Rock, disregarded this all important Nzeribe, Ribadu tango; the result is the current uncoordinated expose of alleged corrupt activities of highly placed Nigerians in Government. The danger in the current expose is that it may factor in, in 2007 elections and that is why care and caution should exercised by the presidency and relevant agencies in waging this corruption war, otherwise the final outcome may be hard to predict. This appeared to be the submission of intelligence experts.

According to Tribune cover reports on the 8th of April 2005, that a whopping sum of Four Hundred and Six million [406m] was given to EFCC by Central Bank of Nigeria [CBN] as donation, it appears that Senator Nzeribe has been vindicated that indeed corruption thrives in EFCC, just like any other place. Although reports had it that EFCC issued a denial that they were not bribed, rather, that the money in question was a donation and cannot be equated to bribe, which they accused  some members of NASS of indulging in. it remain to be seen how government with treat this issue [CBN and EFCC]. Analysts are of the view that with the current expose by Tribune that CBN bribed EFCC, it will be morally wrong for Ribadu to continue in office, if we are to go by Wabara’s case, otherwise it will be viewed from ethnic prism

The consensus among Nigerians is that Mr. President must be supported in his determined efforts at eradicating corruption in our body polity. Most informed Nigerians have also reasoned that Mr. President’s media broadcast on the 55 million Naira scam currently rocking the National Assembly was rather untidy. Many Public Commentators have argued that if Mr. President can hire many Special Assistants, they see no reason why at least one special assistant on political psychology or a consultant should not be hired, with the sole responsibility of vetting political speeches and comments made by public office holders. The holders of this view cited the altercation between Senator Nzeribe and Ribadu on that faithful day, as a case in point. For instance, while Nzeribe asked Ribadu to swear if his commission is corrupt free, Ribadu insisted he knew those that rigged the 2003 elections. It has been reasoned that the heat on the political system arising from t he current "corruption mudslinging" would have been avoided if there [is/were] consultants in this area. For instance, this statement credited to Ribadu as reported by Punch Newspaper of October 14, 2004, that tended to suggest that he knew those who rigged elections, speaks volume of his mindset. The statement presupposes that the election tribunals and appeal courts, constitutionally empowered to see to election cases are sheer waste of time. The statement also portrayed him as someone who is nursing grudge[s] arising from 2003 elections in Nigeria. The statement could also mean that he did not belief in the electoral victory of PDP and by extension that of Mr. President. Psychologists and intelligent experts believe that if Ribadu was armed with this mindset of knowing those that rig elections as reported by Punch newspaper, it may reflect in the quality of security advice given to Mr. President, hence the current problem. While it could be true that some members of the Nati onal Assembly were involved in bribe taking, the manner of television broadcast on the matter by Mr. President was purely untidy. If consultants on political psychologists were around, the speech writer that drafted Mr. President’s speech- broadcast would have been guided accordingly.

There is the growing belief in some quarters that Ribadu could be executing an agenda as 2007 zeros in. The holders of this view primed their reason on the recent statement he allegedly made regarding General Babangida in South Africa. The comment by one of the indicated Senators in the bribery scandal, that Ribadu told Senator Adihije to rope him in, so as to give the scam a National outlook, lent credence to the view that 2007 could be one of the reasons behind Ribadu’s political actions in EFCC, according to intelligent experts.

Pronouncement: The interim reports submitted to Mr. President on both scams by whoever, that led to the current onslaught on corruption arising from the alleged 55 million scandal involving the former Education Minister, some Senators and house of representatives members and former Senate President; the Ikoyi property scam involving the former Minister of Housing and top officials in Government, have imprints of Law 31, in Robert Green’s 48 Laws of power. It reads: the best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: "Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favour whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn". The Horns of a Dilemma Explained: "This idea was demonstrated by General William Sherman’s infamous marc h through Georgia during the American Civil War. Although the confederates knew what direction Sherman was heading in, they never knew if he would attack from the left or the right, for he divided his army into two wings- and if the rebels retreated from one wing they found themselves facing the other. This is a classic trial lawyer’s technique: The lawyer leads the witness to decide between two possible explanations of an event, both of which poke a hole in their story. They have to answer the lawyer’s questions, but whatever they say they hurt themselves. The key to this move is to strike quickly: Deny the victim the time to think of an escape. As they wriggle between the horns of dilemma, they dig their own grave". This freighting scenario could have informed these scams expose in the first place, probably for premeditated agenda, or so intelligence experts reasoned.

 

Emeka Oraetoka

Information Management & Media Relation Consultant

Wrote in from Garki - Abuja.