08 October, 2007

 

Mr. Lai Mohammed

National Publicity Secretary,

Action Congress,

12 Bissau Street,

Wuse Zone 6,

Abuja.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Stop the Cheap Blackmail

 

The attention of the EFCC has been drawn to quite a number of media statements that have been emanating from you in the past few months.

 

Until now, the Commission had thought it necessary to refrain from joining issues with you in public, principally because many of the allegations you have been making against the person of the Executive Chairman and against the EFCC itself, are baseless and could only have emanated from any one consumed by hatred, the grounds of which still puzzles the Commission.

 

Second, the issues you rush to press about are ones that you or your principals could get answers to if you took time to seek them, like other well-meaning Nigerians, directly from the EFCC.  But, we discover apart from the realization that the Commission represents the sure nemesis of your paymasters you have a consuming desire to constantly be in public glare, no matter how that is contrived, even if it involves being economical with the truth.

 

Along with a few others, you have assumed the mindset that you are branded as being against the struggle to free Nigeria from corruption, when you take up a position against EFCC.  With due respects, Sir, there are many who dot the Nigerian political and human rights landscape that do not necessarily agree with all that the EFCC does and they make their stand, motives and objectives known.  Many of them go ahead to propose credible alternative routes to achieve the same goals.  We listen to them; we respect them, because, these men and women of integrity have NEVER needed to play games with facts to achieve dark aims. 

 

Take a look around you, Sir.  Perhaps you do not yet realize it, but you are one of only a handful of people who do not see anything good in the war against corruption. This same struggle to free our country from the clutches of corruption which you condemn everyday, is being applauded all over the world.

 

Millions of severely oppressed people of this country are united in the desire to change for good, the ugly past which your mindless antagonism represents.  We are however puzzled that you do not seem to get the message yet that things are changing for good in Nigeria.

 

Sir, the wild and unfounded allegations which you dish out against the Commission almost daily, only underscore a desperation to settle whatever scores you imagine you have with the EFCC.

 

The frustration and smoldering anger of the group, who you unfortunately happen to be their well-beaten talking drum, can be traced to the insistence of the Commission that it was time to put an end to the serial looting and hemorrhaging of our dear country. 

 

However, the Commission is grateful to you for the chance you have given it to lay bare the facts about the cases on which your premise your antagonism.  We would use the opportunity to deal once and for all with the half-truths which you are so adept at dishing out to unsuspecting members of the public:

 

Ibrahim Bapetel: Suit No. FHC/VI/CR/6/2007

The court entered judgment on 6th of July 2007.  The Commission was served with the order on the 15th of August, 2007.  The Commission filed a Notice of Appeal dated 17th August and also filed a Motion on Notice (FHC/VI/M/16/2007) and served same to all the parties.  The said motion is seeking an order of the court for Stay of Execution of the judgment which ordered the Commission to release certain seized items, which may be needed as evidence in prosecution. 

 

 

Grounds of Appeal:

That Bapetel in the application to enforce his fundamental rights NEVER asked for a return of the items. And, it is trite law that courts, not being Fathers Christmas, do not as a rule grant prayers that were not requested.  If for instance, you apply to a court, seeking specific interventions like, say, committal of the Chairman, EFCC to prison for contempt, the court would not say “Oh, we are so annoyed at the offence the Chairman EFCC committed, that his dog, his car and his house furniture should also be handed over to the applicant”!

 

But the trial judge in the Bapetel case as in the Dalhatu and Fasawe cases (see below), went beyond the limits the applicant himself imposed and granted reliefs that were not requested.  That is the kernel of the appeals of the Commission against the judgments.

 

Bashir Dalhatu SUIT NO: FHC/L/CS/186/2006

 

The Commission appealed the decision of Justice I. N. Auta of the Federal High Court, Lagos delivered on 12th May, 2006. 

 

Some Grounds of Appeal

 

The fundamental right which Dalhatu sought to enforce has to do with his arrest, detention and seizure of his International Passport. He DID NOT ask the Federal High Court, Lagos to stop the EFCC or the High Court, Lagos (which has concurrent jurisdiction) from arraigning him.

  1. However, the Federal High Court to which he applied made an order inconsistent with his application, and restrained another Court from arraigning him altogether.

 

  1. The inherent power of the Federal High Court does not extend to stopping criminal proceedings before a Court of concurrent jurisdiction.

 

  1. The Federal High Court, Lagos, does not have appellate jurisdiction over the Lagos State High Court.

 

  1. The Federal High Court, Lagos, held correctly that, “The issue before the Court is that of the breach of the Fundamental right of the Applicant against unlawful arrest.”

 

But then, strangely goes on to say:

 

“From the above facts the Court is of the opinion that no reasonable case of any criminal activity has been disclosed against the applicant to warrant the sudden interest in a matter that has been exhaustively investigated by the security agents, and letters of vindication from the highest authorities in the land………The case from the affidavit evidence before the Court and the cases in the Lagos High Court, Court of Appeal and is now pending before the Supreme Court is a case of balance of payment between a lawyer and his client and a third party.”

 

  1. Notwithstanding the finding that the case before it was that of the breach of Dalhatu’s Fundamental rights against unlawful arrest the Federal High Court, Lagos proceeded to decide the reasonability of the criminal action pending before the High Court of Lagos State. 

 

  1. The issue as to whether there is no reasonable case or whether a reasonable criminal activity has been disclosed in the information was never raised by either Dalhatu or the EFCC.

 

  1. The Federal High Court presided over by Honourable Justice I. N. Auta has no jurisdiction to determine the competence or otherwise of the information pending before the Lagos State High Court in Charge No. ID/34C/2006.

 

The Freezing of Adamawa State’s Accounts

The Commission is not aware of any order PREVENTING the freezing of Adamawa State Government accounts. However, EFCC complied IMMEDIATELY with an order of court to defreeze the accounts.  Lai Mohammed is advised to check his ‘facts’ properly.

 

Dr. Chris Ngige

No order was brought to the notice of the Commission barring it from performing its statutory obligations with respect to investigating allegations against anybody and making it known that such individuals have indictments (charges) against them. What other agencies of government do with that information is well outside the precincts of the EFCC.

 

Otunba Fasawe: Suit No: M/490/2006. Appeal No: CA/L/836M/2006.

The judgment against the Commission was delivered on November 28, 2006. The appeal was filed the very next day, 29th November, 2006.

 

Grounds of Appeal:

  1. That the judge wrongfully assumed jurisdiction in the matter;

 

  1. that the action was not commenced within the period allowed under the Fundamental Right ( Enforcement ) Procedure Rule;

 

  1. that the trial; judge erred when he held that the Fasawe's application for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights was not statute barred even though the action was instituted more than 12 months after his arrest contrary to provisions of Order 1 rule3(1) of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement (Procedure) Rules;

 

  1. that Fasawe's right to liberty is not absolute, that having been suspected to have committed an offence, he could be denied temporarily his right to personal liberty;

 

  1. that the trial judge erred when he held that only a convicted person’s passport can be forfeited. The respondent's passport and other properties are subject to seizure under the EFCC Act.

 

The former Speaker and Members of Plateau House of Assembly

The Commission executed a legitimate order of the Federal High Court, Abuja to arrest the concerned legislators of the Plateau House of Assembly after they had repeatedly spurned several EFCC invitations to make themselves available for questioning on allegations of corruption, abuse of office, fraudulent conversion of funds and money laundering.

 

In reaction to the order of the Federal High Court, Abuja, the Plateau House of Assembly passed a resolution forbidding its members from appearing before EFCC.

 

However, on 24th August 2006, when the Commission moved to effect their arrest, they holed themselves up for nearly 24 hours in toilets and filing cabinets of the very same court, the Federal High Court, Maitama, Abuja, that gave the Commission the order to arrest and question the lawmakers.

 

Orji Uzo Kalu

The Commission executed a legitimate warrant of arrest given the Federal High Court, Abuja, long after the ex parte restraining order (that has a maximum lifespan of two weeks), which is unfortunately being touted all over the place, had lapsed. 

 

 

Ex-Governor Ayo Fayose Appeal Court Suit No: CA/B/44/07

This appeal was entered against the ruling of Justice Lambo Akanbi of Federal High Court, Akure, dated 14 November, 2006.

 

Grounds of Appeal:

  1. That the trial judge erred in law when he wrongfully assumed jurisdiction in the matter.

  2. The relief sought by Fayose borders on the propriety of his impeachment as Governor by the Ekiti State House of Assembly, and removal of the state Chief Judge by the House of Assembly. No relief was sought against the EFCC;

  3. That Fayose has no locus standi to institute the suit having lost his position as governor and with a state of emergency already declared in the state.

  4. That the reliefs sought by Fayose are to restrain the Commission from performing its statutory functions. Whereas, Fayose like every other Nigerian, is not immune from investigation and prosecution.

 

Enyinnaya Nwokeafor: Suit No. ID/17C/2006.

When the suspect was arrested and detained, he initiated Habeas Corpus proceedings against the Commission on which basis he was granted bail, with conditions, by Justice Adefope-Okojie on November 15, 2006. The suspect failed to satisfy the bail conditions. Instead he appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos challenging the grant of bail, as against setting him free.

While Nwokeafor was challenging his bail in court, the Commission had concluded investigation and filed a six count charge against him at the Ikeja High Court on 18th December, 2006.

 

The suspect was subsequently produced in court on arraignment but his counsel brought an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The application has since been argued and subsequently adjourned to October 12, 2007 for ruling.

The suspect is currently being detained based on the charges preferred against him.  Recall also that he is the one challenging the bail that was granted him in November 2006.

 

Meanwhile, the office of the Attorney General of the Federation has already instituted extradition proceedings against the suspect based on a request from the United States Government.

 

Nwokeafor is wanted in the US for prosecution on an indictment filed on March 21, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. His indictment number is Cr06:118.  The alleged offences for which the American authorities want Mr. Lai Mohammed’s friend border on wire and mail frauds.  The Netherlands authorities also want him.

 

Does it not worry you, Sir, when you take a look at the above list that those who your seemingly sole life’s purpose is to defend and project, are all alleged mega fraudsters and corrupt people?  It is a shame if this is what you want to be remembered by.  

 

But, let it be known that EFCC will not be blackmailed into abandoning its statutory obligations by those who are straining to reinvent themselves as promoters of democracy and defenders of the Rule of Law.

 

Accept assurances of the best regards of the Executive Chairman, EFCC.

 

Osita Nwajah

Head, Media & Publicity

 

 

Postscript

As we set to send this letter to you, we came across your truly valiant, sleight-of-hand defence of Chief James Ibori, in today’s newspapers.  In the light of that new information, we can only urge you to spare a thought for the young ones growing up and the legacy you want to bequeath them.

 

Find enclosed, copies of the publications of the Commission, including the EFCC Establishment Act (2004) and a DVD copy of the hour-long EFCC@4 documentary.  We trust they would aid the cleaning of the foggy prism through which you perceive the Commission.