EFCC and the absurdity of scandalous controversies in fighting corruption
Established in in 2003, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was created to combat financial crimes, including corruption, money laundering, and fraud in Nigeria.
Its primary mandate is to investigate and prosecute offenders involved in economic and financial crimes. Given Nigeria’s historical challenges with corruption, the EFCC was created to restore public confidence in governance and promote transparency.
While it is meant to play a crucial role in enforcing anti-corruption laws and ensuring accountability among public officials, it is expected to act as a watchdog over government activities, investigate allegations of corruption, and bring perpetrators to justice.
Despite its important role, the EFCC has been embroiled in numerous controversies that undermine its credibility. Presently, its existence is being challenged in Nigeria’s apex court, as governors of 19 states hold the view that it was illegally established. The Supreme Court will make its pronouncement any time soon. The EFCC, as it is known today, may cease to exist.
But, even if the Supreme Court finds the wisdom to allow the continuous existence of the EFCC, the many scandals it enmeshed itself in are seen to be needless and distractive.
Such scandals often involve allegations of misconduct by its officials, including accusations of corruption within the agency itself. Instances have included claims of bribery, abuse of power, and failure to follow due process during investigations. There is also the annoying attitude of disregarding court orders.
READ ALSO:Â Agbakoba backs Kogi, other states, tells NASS EFCC unlawful organisation
The continuous involvement of the EFCC in scandalous controversies is absurd for several reasons.
When the agency itself becomes mired in scandals, it erodes public trust not only in the EFCC but also in governmental institutions as a whole.
If the very institution tasked with fighting corruption is perceived as corrupt or ineffective, it undermines broader anti-corruption efforts across Nigeria.
Citizens may become disillusioned with anti-graft initiatives if they see no accountability from those who are supposed to enforce them.
Meanwhile, Nigeria’s reputation on the global stage suffers when its anti-graft agency is involved in scandals. This can affect foreign investment and international relations as countries may be hesitant to engage with a nation perceived as lacking effective governance structures.
READ ALSO: YAHAYA BELLO: CUPP faults EFCC’s approach, calls for sack of ‘incompetent’ Olukoyede
The implications extend beyond mere institutional failures; they affect public trust, hinder effective governance, deter citizen participation against corruption, damage international standing, and misallocate resources essential for combating financial crimes effectively.
in addressing EFCC’s numerous needless controversies, one look at the allegations of selective prosecution. EFCC’s operations appear to target specific individuals or groups for legal action while ignoring others who may have committed similar offenses.
This issue raises significant concerns about fairness, impartiality, and the integrity of the judicial process in Nigeria.
Allegations of selective prosecution against the EFCC typically stem from claims that certain individuals are targeted based on their political affiliations or social status rather than evidence of wrongdoing.
Critics argue that this selective approach undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in the institution.
We align with this disposition. An anti-corruption entity with dented credibility cannot succeed in its role to deter.
READ ALSO: Why Kano government demanded transfer of Ganduje’s corruption case to another court
Some politicians have accused the EFCC of pursuing cases against opposition members while overlooking similar allegations against those aligned with the ruling party. In other instances, only those with perceived political differences with the powers that be are pursued, even if they belong to the ruling party. Â Cases abound in Nigeria.
There have been cases where prominent figures associated with political power were either not prosecuted or received lenient treatment compared to less influential defendants.
Various civil society organizations and legal experts have publicly criticized the EFCC for what they perceive as a lack of transparency in its prosecutorial decisions.
In some instances, courts have dismissed cases brought by the EFCC due to insufficient evidence or procedural irregularities, raising questions about the agency’s investigative practices.
We believe the perception of selective prosecution can significantly impact governance in Nigeria. For, instance, public confidence in both the EFCC and broader governmental institutions may decline if citizens believe that justice is not applied equally.
Another very worrying issue is the complex interplay between federal and state governments in prosecuting corruption cases.
While the EFCC operates under federal law, which means it has jurisdiction over offenses that fall under its mandate at the national level, state governments have their own anti-corruption agencies and legal systems to prosecute corruption at the state level.
But there have been allegations that the Nigerian federal government sometimes interferes with or blocks prosecutions initiated by state governments against certain politicians. This interference can manifest in various ways.
There are claims that the EFCC may prioritize cases based on political affiliations or pressures from higher authorities within the federal government. This selective approach can hinder state-level prosecutions if they involve politically connected individuals.
Also, when state governments attempt to prosecute politicians who may have connections to the federal government, there may be legal challenges or interventions that complicate these efforts. Such actions could include court injunctions or appeals that stall proceedings.
Case studies include some governors accused of corruption in their states and are facing charges at the state level but have received support from federal authorities that complicates their prosecution.
Reports suggest that certain politicians facing allegations of corruption have leveraged their influence within the federal government to avoid accountability through various means, including lobbying for favorable treatment from agencies like the EFCC.
Analyses indicate a pattern where political affiliations and pressures influence how corruption cases are handled across different jurisdictions in Nigeria.
We hold the view that this situation creates an environment where accountability is undermined, trust eroded and the fight against corruption retarded.
